174
case of humans, it could be argued that the signs that make up an individual’s
Umwelt are often referred to explicitly in that individual’s speech. By investigating
the utterances of a linguistic consultant, then, an ethnobiologist can begin to build
an accurate picture of the consultant’s personal semiotic space, and achieve a more
sophisticated appreciation of his/her perceptions of other organisms. In the following
sections, I employ an unashamedly anthropocentric , glottocentric approach to
Umweltforschung. In this chapter, I also make frequent reference to (1) the non-
verbal signs that Solega speakers perceive in their daily interactions with other organ-
isms, and (2) the non-verbal interactions that Solega speakers perceive to be occurring
between other, non-human organisms. It is hoped that such an approach will go some
way towards describing the perceived semiosphere of the Solega—this would cover
not only the signs that an individual is aware of, such as the call of a particular spe-
cies of bird that indicates a meteorological event, but also those that do not quite
enter the individual’s consciousness, such as the various cross-modal cues that are
required to make a positive identifi cation of a plant or bird in its natural habitat.
The correct identifi cation of plants and animals plays a key role in virtually all
aspects of Solega life: certain leaves are said to be ‘pleasing’ to the Solega gods or
de:varu , and are preferred for the construction of shrines ( sappara ); different spe-
cies of honeybee need to be distinguished so that the most appropriate strategies and
locations for honey collection can be chosen; and all manner of forest trees are read-
ily identifi ed for the various edible and non-edible natural products that each regu-
larly provides. However, this knowledge of ‘how things are named’ and of ‘what use
can be derived from each named entity’ represents but a small proportion of the
average Solega speaker’s total understanding of the natural world within which s/he
is situated. Just as important as the naming of things is, for him/her, an awareness of
the interactions between organisms and (what Western science would call) the phys-
ical environment, between different organisms, between humans and the physical
environment, and between humans and other organisms.
When asked to identify the plants growing along a forest path, Solega consul-
tants almost always provided one of three different types of responses:
“That is an X. You use its [part] for [function].”
“That is a Y. It is the favourite food of [animal name].”
“That is a Z. It has no use.”
Statements such as these demonstrate that most organisms are perceived in terms
of their relationship(s) with other organisms, including humans, and that such rela-
tionships can be almost as salient (if not equally salient) as the separate identities—
X, Y and Z in the examples used above—of the organisms being talked about. Both
the identifi cation of an organism, as well as the recognition of the relationships it
might have with other organisms, require the reception and correct interpretation of
a host of signs emanating from an organism, an observed interaction, or both. In
some cases, a sign emanating from an organism might be indicative of an unrelated
biological or physical phenomenon, such as the call of a bird heralding sunset.
While these signs are invariably non-linguistic, they can be, and are, talked about in
Solega, with the result that many of the phenomena indicated by such signs form an
6 Signs and Relationships