Bioessential Deterministic paradigm: Expanding Anthropocentrism

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 independent researcher 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Transit str., 48, sq. 32 ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Smirnova Marina Mikhailovna ORCID: 0009-0003-4332-4240 independent researcher 668312, Russia, Republic of Tyva, Mezhegey village, Lenin St., 69, sq. 1 knyam2020@mail.ru Other publications by this author

dedicated to our dear and close friend Nadezhda Nikolaevna Bebrish

Introduction

This article continues our research published in Philosophical Thought Journal Nos. 9 and 10 (2024) and No. 1 (2025). In these articles, we describe the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in a transdisciplinary way. This article describes a study of the manifestation of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm in a single discipline – linguistics.

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics as an anthropocentric one in a broad sense.

The subject of the research is the bioessential deterministic paradigm, understood as anthropocentric in a broad sense.

Research methods: comparative, method of abstraction, method of analysis of scientific literature.

The scientific novelty lies in a broad consideration of the anthropocentric paradigm. In addition, the terms bioessential determinism and bioessential deterministic paradigm have been introduced into scientific use.

The relevance is due to the adoption of the declaration on animal consciousness and the need to understand the development of scientific knowledge in this regard.

The article has the following structure. The section Declaration on Animal Consciousness is devoted to understanding the fact of the adoption of the declaration on animal consciousness. In the section System-structural and anthropocentric paradigms: language and speech, the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms are compared. In addition, this section examines language and speech through the prism of paradigms. In the section Anthropocentrism and bioessential determinism, the anthropocentric paradigm is considered extremely broadly. In conclusion, the conclusions are presented.

Declaration of Animal Consciousness

In April 2024, the scientific community adopted the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness ^[1]. The presence of consciousness in animals is recognized. What implications could this have for linguistics?

Not only Homo sapiens sapiens, but also animals are now recognized as intelligent. In fact, this is an official recognition of the fact that animals have an obvious mindset. It is well known that thinking is closely related to language. Thus, recognizing the existence of consciousness in animals is equivalent to recognizing the presence of language in animals. How absurd is this idea? Let's try to understand this issue.

It is customary for a person to associate speech activity exclusively with their own kind, and the reasons for this are easy to understand. Language as a system of signs and speech as the practical implementation of this system, in the full sense of these concepts, have been recognized as real throughout the history known to us, including because they developed within the human community (among literate people, which is important) – these phenomena were formed among people, between people and for people. Thus, it was considered a priori that language is the prerogative of people.

Currently, science knows the facts of the so-called hyperextension in representatives of the animal world. For example, in ants, when members of the ant family interact with each other, including at a distance: their common work is orderly and well-coordinated, which it can only be if there is communication.

It is customary for human consciousness to perceive language as a system implemented through oral and written speech; a phenomenon that carries a rational core and which can be rationalized and decoded. But despite the differences between the world of Homo sapiens and the rest of the fauna of the planet, it is quite obvious that animals also communicate with each other. Language, in its essence, is a code, one of the functions of which is communication, and, as it turns out, communication can be carried out not only in logical and verbal form, but even without the participation of phonetic manifestations at all.

System-structural and anthropocentric paradigms: language and speech

What is language? Language is a sign system implemented in speech. Unlike language, speech is a higher mental function. It can be argued that speech is a property of the psyche, and language is a multilevel sign system. At the same time, language is connected with thinking and consciousness – and thus manifests itself in the form of speech. Language, thinking, and consciousness are studied by various sciences. For example, E. Sepir writes about the importance for linguists of other sciences: anthropology, cultural history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and even physiology and physics. E. Sepir writes: "in the process of developing linguistic research, language proves its usefulness as a tool of cognition in the sciences of man and, in turn, needs these sciences, allowing to shed light on its essence" ^{[2, p. 260]}.

So, language is a sign system that is bioessentially deterministic, and this should be taken into account when studying language.

In linguistics, the system-structural paradigm is traditionally contrasted with the anthropocentric one. ^{[3] [4] [5]}. The system-structural paradigm considers language as a system, the anthropocentric paradigm studies language taking into account the human factor.

In fact, language is the property of systemic structuralism: a certain sign system, and speech is the property of the anthropocentric paradigm: a living process. The system-structural paradigm considers language as a system in which each element takes its place in accordance with certain formal requirements. The anthropocentric paradigm considers language from the standpoint of a native speaker.

Note that according to V. N. Voloshinov, the word is at the junction of the abstract-objective and the individually subjective ^{[5, p. 48]}. E. Sepir expresses similar thoughts: "Speech as an activity is a wonderful fusion of two organizing systems — symbolic and expressive; neither of them could achieve its current perfection without the influence of the other" ^{[2, p. 231]}. We conclude that language, speech, the realization of language in speech and the crystallization of speech in the form of language are areas of intersection of systemic–structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, manifested in linguistics as systemic-structural and anthropocentric paradigms. Thus, we can single out the special status of linguistics.

So, we can conclude that language as a system is a manifestation of a systemic–structural meta-paradigm, and live speech is a manifestation of a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm. This removes the contradiction between the trends that researchers have long identified: abstract objectivism and individual subjectivism in V. N. Voloshinov ^{[5] [4]}; systemocentrism and anthropocentrism in E. V. Rakhilina ^[4]; system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms in linguistics ^{[3] [4]}.

Anthropocentrism and bioessential determinism

The anthropocentric paradigm has become widespread. Speaking about the anthropocentric principle of modern linguistics, N. V. Pyataeva notes: human existence has a linguistic character ^{[6, p. 47]}. V. M. Alpatov notes: the anthropocentric approach is historically primary ^{[3, p. 15]}. V. V. Katerina points out: the idea of the anthropocentricity of language is a key idea in modern linguistics ^{[7, p. 228]}. V. V. Katerina emphasizes: "language is the environment of human existence, with which his constant interaction takes place" ^{[7, p. 226]}. V. A. Maslova writes about the importance of language learning in the study of thinking in line with the anthropocentric paradigm: "human intelligence, like man himself, cannot be thought outside of language and linguistic ability as the ability to generate and perceive speech. <...> The text created by man reflects the movement of human thought, builds possible worlds, capturing the dynamics of thought and ways of representing it using the means of language" ^{[8, p. 175]}. N. V. Bugorskaya writes: anthropocentrism is understood in many ways, there are different understandings of anthropocentrism ^[9].

Thus, we can conclude that by differentiating different understandings of anthropocentrism, it is possible at the same time to understand anthropocentrism in an extremely integrated way – as taking into account the sum of various manifestations of bioessentially determined limitations on the way of embodying the sign system in the linguistic and speech activity of the subject. Language is bioessentially determined by the thinking and speaking subject.

We propose to expand the understanding of the anthropocentric paradigm, and introduce the term bioessential deterministic paradigm, or bioessential determinism. Bioessential determinism is the conditioning of the life essence; the essence conditioned by life.

If systemic structuralism studies language, and anthropocentrism studies man in language and language in man, then bioessential determinism studies language taking into account the presence of a bioessentially determined subject in it – and it is not necessarily only a person: it is possible to study language and any living creatures – dolphins, ants, crows, bees, rats. In fact, scientists are already doing this: observing communication between various representatives of wildlife and understanding approaches to studying their communication. – ^{[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]}; by studying thinking and conducting cognitive experiments involving various representatives of fauna – ^{[16] [17] [18] [19]}.

Let's consider the connection between thinking and language in the context of language ability in animals.

I. P. Pavlov put forward the concept of two signaling systems ^{[20, pp. 336-337]}. Let us comprehend the concept of I. P. Pavlov through the prism of the research of I. I. Bulychev ^{[21, pp. 26-31]}, E. I. Slavutin and V. I. Pimonov ^{[22, pp. 46-55]}. The obvious conclusion would be:

· The first signaling system can be understood as the realization of an evolutionarily more ancient, specifically effective, visual-imaginative type of thinking associated with the appearance of mirror neurons.;

· The second signal system is the realization of verbal (verbal–logical and figurative) and abstract (abstract-logical and abstract-artistic) types of thinking.

It should be noted that I. I. Bulychev recognizes as an ontological structure of consciousness, including sensory, semiotic and semantic types of consciousness ^{[21, p. 31]}. We believe that these types of consciousness are correlated with concrete-effective, verbal and abstract types of thinking, respectively. It can be concluded that the linguistic ability of any living being is bioessentially determined by its level of consciousness (or type of thinking). Thus, every living being potentially has a language.

Moreover, if the consciousness of a living being is "transferred" to another, more advanced body from the point of view of thinking, then this will have a better effect on its innate language abilities.

The linguistic abilities of living beings are limited by their bodily capabilities – any language is bioessentially deterministic. Language is determined by the kind of thinking that is inherent in the subjects who use it. There are known types of thinking: concretely effective, visual-figurative, verbal-logical, abstract. Since thinking is closely related to language, it can be concluded that each type of thinking has its own specific language.:

· as an example of the language of concrete and effective thinking, one can name the dance of bees; N. Chomsky notes that the dance of bees "at least superficially resembles human speech" ^{[23, p. 610]};

· language at the level of the rudiments of visual-figurative thinking can be recognized as separate vocalizations, or it is better to use a term from the theory of the phonopedic method of voice development ^{[24, p. 53]}: vocal signals of pre-speech communication in animals; thus, vocal signals of pre-speech communication precede the ability to articulate speech;

· Language as a tool of verbal communication in humans can be considered an example of language at the level of verbal thinking.;

· an example of language at the level of abstract thinking is language as a tool of thinking for people.

Thus, recognizing the determinacy of language as a type of thinking allows us to answer the question of what is the purpose of language: communicative or cognitive. The answer is: both communicative and cognitive, depending on the language–related thinking. Communicative – in the case of verbal-logical thinking, when language serves for verbal communication; cognitive – in the case of abstract thinking, when language serves to comprehend reality.

We really live in language, and by defining the realization of language ability as a type of thinking, we move into the realm of psycholinguistics. Thus, it can be argued that linguistics is the triumph of systemic structuralism, and psycholinguistics is the triumph of bioessential determinism. The anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics is, in fact, a transition from the limit of systemic structuralism to the limit of bioessential determinism.

T. V. Chernihiv points out that human languages are arranged differently from the communication systems of other biological species ^{[25, p. 463]}. We can conclude that language ability is universal and biologically determined – at least a communicative function.

N. Chomsky notes: "language, strictly speaking, is not considered as a system of communication. It is considered a system of thought expression, but this is a completely different matter" ^{[23, p. 612]}. By recognizing the existence of consciousness in animals, we thereby confirm that animals think – and therefore have language.

Thus, any language in which living beings communicate is initially bioessentially determined. Bioessential determinism is broader than anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism can be considered as a step towards bioessential determinism. The anthropocentric paradigm is a special case of the bioessential deterministic one, implemented on the basis of human languages. It can be said that systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism relate to each other as a plane of expression and a plane of content in the theory of the sign.

This means that the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics is expanding its limits. The paradigm that describes language from the standpoint of a native speaker is more correctly called the bioessential deterministic paradigm.

Conclusion

There are different understandings of anthropocentrism. If we understand anthropocentrism and the anthropocentric paradigm in a broad sense, then the terms bioessential determinism and bioessential deterministic paradigm would be more appropriate.

Previously, we described the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in a transdisciplinary aspect. However, in the light of the adoption of the declaration on animal consciousness, we can talk about a bioessential deterministic paradigm in a single discipline - linguistics. Thus, the bioessential deterministic paradigm has replaced the anthropocentric one – more precisely, it has expanded the anthropocentric one. Anthropocentrism is a special case of bioessential determinism.

If systemic structuralism studies language as a system, and anthropocentrism studies language taking into account the human factor, then bioessential determinism suggests studying language taking into account a bioessentially determined subject. Bioessential determinism presupposes the study of the language of any living being, whereas anthropocentrism presupposes the study of human language only.

So, we can talk about the bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics. This also indicates a significant increase in the role of psychology in linguistics. In fact, the bioessential deterministic paradigm is what makes linguistics psycholinguistics.