Total Integrative Evolutionary Communication: Towards a Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we outline a cybersemiotic foundation for the trend of pragmatics-based functional linguistics, Functional Discourse Grammar. Cybersemiotics is a substantial inter- and transdisciplinary semiotic theory which integrates, on the one hand, second-order cybernetics and autopoiesis theory and, on the other, Peircean biosemiotics. According to Cybersemiotics, language is primarily a creative process of total integrative evolutionary communication. It comprises three evolutionary stages: (1) biological reflexive languaging (the reflexive foundation of social coordination), (2) instinctual-motivational-emotional sign plays (a level which is shared with other animals and is the domain of ethology), and (3) premeditated, intentional symbol-based language games (specifically human unitary thinking-speaking-gesturing, the domain of pragmatics-based functional linguistics). In this inclusive hierarchy language games subsume the other stages, and thus human evolutionary communication is primarily a symbolic-conventional practice. It is intertwined with the practice of living, that is, with different life forms, including other forms of semiotic behavior. Together they form a coherent biological and socio-cultural practice. The basic “molecule” of the cybersemiotic model of human communication is a dyad between two linguistic cyborgs, alias natural language users. Single human communicators are thus “atoms”. They are hybrids between nature and nurture, manipulating all sorts of artificiality (e.g. pen and ink writing, digital-electronic texting, mobile telephonic amplification). A conventional practice, language occurs in three phases: as discourse process, product, and pattern. As discourse pattern it is deontological-directive (rather than epistemic-declarative) and functions as a finalistic guideline for the communicative processes of single individuals. Thus, rather than being the speech community’s invariant langue, a discourse pattern is a single individual’s communicative competence. Accordingly, shared communicational norms and conventions of the speech community are emergent and not determinant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".