Integrative evolutionary Communication – towards a Cybersemiotic foundation of Functional Discourse Grammar

Søren Brier&

Ole Nedergaard Thomsen

Part 2: Towards a Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics

Ole Nedergaard Thomsen& Søren Brier, CBS, IKK.

one.ikk@cbs.dk

Cybersemiotics, setting the scene

• Potential challenge:• ”A conception of language and gesture as a

single integrated system is sharply different from the notion of a ”body language” – a communicational process utilizing signals made up of body movements, which are regarded … as separate from and beyond normal language.” (McNeill 1992: 11; emphasis added, ONT)

The integrative approach

• ”Rather than causing us to slice a person analytically into semi-isolated modules,

• taking gestures into account encourages us to see something like

• the entire person as a theoretical entity –• his thinking, speaking, willing, feeling, and

acting, as a unit.”• (McNeill 1992: 11; emphasis added, ONT)

”The entire person”

• theoretic object of investigation (observation, description, and explanation) of the late functional linguist Simon C. Dik, the ”father” of Functional Grammar (FG), the ”godfather” of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG):

• ”The Natural Language User” (NLU):• Cybersemiotics: ”a linguistic cyborg”• Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics: ”integral

communicator” (+genetic thought-gesture-speech link)

Embodiment

Physical nature

The other & language

Matter/Energy/Information Mentality/Language/Knowledge

Life/Living Systems/Semiosis

Organic Evolution

Big Bang Cosmology History of Culture

Existential

Development

Inner mental world

Life World/Consciousness/Meaning

Cybersemiotics, synopsis

Three levels of communication

• Signaling – somatic languaging: coordination of coordination of behavior LASC!– Reflexive, stimulus-response; informational

• Sign games – psychosomatic– Instinctual, emotional, motivational, volitional

• Language games – psychosocial– Intentional, normative, symbolic

Signaling: Eye ContactMutual gazing

”When we look into each other's eyes, I project my gaze while receiving yours, you project yours while receiving mine, and these four events occur simultaneously.”

Three levels of autopoiesis

• Biological system– the body/organism

• Psychological system– the psyche/mind (motivation, intentionality, self-

perception/-value/-interest, conatus: striving for self-preservation of individual and species)

• Socio-communicative systems– the person (individual member of speech community)– the society (collective)

Levels of internal semiosis

• Body: endosemiosis

• Psyche: intrasemiosis (psychosomatic)• Psyche: phenosemiosis

• Person/Society: thought semiosis: Slobin: thinking for speaking (psychosocial)

Three levels of eco-semiosis

• Body: structural couplings to the invironment (information)

• Psyche: instinctual signification (psychosomatic)• Psyche: conceptual signification (private,

concepts?!)

• Person/Society: conceptual signification (psychosocial: shared, public concepts, in Brier 2008)

ECOSEMIOTICS

SOCIO-COMMUNICATIVE

AUTOPOIETIC LANGUAGE

GAMES

INDIVIDUALSIGNIFICATION SPHERE

ENVIRONM

ENT

INFORMATION THROUGH STRUCTURAL COUPLINGS

INSTINCTUAL

SIGNIFICATION

CONCEPTUAL

SIGNIFICATION

Two signification spheres

• Individual signification sphere ( Person)– Informational (somatic/signal: cognitive domain, Maturana/

Umwelt, von Uexküll) – Instinctual (psychosomatic/sign)– Conceptual (psychological: psycho-social/language)– Bio-psycho-social integration

• Cultural signification sphere ( Society/ Culture)– Result of communication between individuals

Possible solutions to the challenge

• the interpenetrations between the different autopoietic systems yield an integrated whole, i.e. a body-psyche-person (bio-psycho-social system): ”an entire person” (S. Dik: NLU)

• Searle (e.g. 2009): human societies/institutions are the result of language games/linguistic communication, the application of communicative competences of entire persons

Three interpenetrating systems …

• Person – Logos (o/ratio; polis)– psycho-social: language games: linguistic

communication: Speech/Symbolic – Speaker• Psyche – Pathos ( = emotion)– psycho-somatic: sign games: nonlinguistic animal

communication: Gesture/Iconic-indexical – Signer• Body – Ethos ( = behavior)– somatic: signaling: subconscious signals – Emitter

… Three exosemiotic processes as integrated parts of a whole bio-psycho-social process …

… yielding one macrosystem: …

• The three different levels could be viewed:– segregationally: i.e. talking heads vs. communicating

’bodies’ (i.e. minus heads), i.e. language vs. ”body language”

– integrationally: i.e. total, integral communication: human communication is an integral whole: communicating bodies (i.e. plus heads): integrative evolutionary communication: the whole body (plus extensions) is the articulator; the body-psyche-person is the integral communicator (responsible/liable actor); the different semiotic displays are coexpressive

… a total, integral communicative competence …

• Part of the Body-Psyche-Person (partly defined as a set of dispositions, abilities, faculties, …), i.e. the integral communicator

• I.e. one single process of ”thinking-for-communicating” gets processed via the communicative competence and is output via different communication channels (media)

The bio-psycho-social macrosystem

Entire person: integral communicator

Communicating bodies/persons

Communicating bodies/persons

… Total, integrative communication …

• Generation of utterances in 2 stages (McNeill 1992):– multidimensional meaning (thinking for/in communicating) is

developed in two complementary modes of thought of a single integrated process of utterance formation which gets instantiated in two stages (modes of representation):

– (1) idiosyncratic imagistic-iconic gesture (gesticulation)– (2) conventional propositional-symbolic speech (verbalization)– The two stages are synchronized in the gestural stroke and the focal

part of the verbal utterance via a rhythmic pulse– The gestural stage anticipates the verbal stage in the gestural

preparation part

Generation of utterances in 2 stages• *Sign games: stage 1: spontaneous gestures:

iconic(-indexical)1. imagistic form of thought; icons2. rhematic (qualitative)3. idiosyncratic, not coded, non-syntactically

structured holophrastic icon4. motivation of semiosis: non-idiom5. monadic: no duality of patterning, i.e:6. minus symbolization rule (meaning=form,

kinesic form: no level)7. non-standardized, non-distinctive form, minus

correctness (”private”)8. analogic: holistic, non-linear; non-hierarchical,

non-combinatoric9. multidimensional (space: visual)10. global (whole determines meanings of parts)11. synthetic (one gesture can combine many

meanings)12. Instantaneous13. Indexical: deictics, e.g. pointing (dyadic)

• *Language games: stage 2/final stage: speech: symbolic

1. symbolic form of thought; symbols2. propositional-argumental3. socially regulated, coded, hierarchically

structured string of symbols: convention4. arbitrariness of semiosis: idiomatic5. triadic: duality of patterning, i.e.:6. plus symbolization rule (meaning => form,

phonetic form: separate level)7. standardized, distinct forms, structural

correctness / grammaticality (”public”)8. digital: linear-segmented, hierarchic,

combinatoric, recursive (+ SYNTAX!)9. unidimensional (time: auditory)10. compositionality (meaning of whole is co-

determined by parts)11. anlytic (distinct meanings attached to distinct

words)12. temporally extended, successive

Dialectic evolution of utterance

Semiotic understanding

• Dynamical object (same idea unit)• Immediate object (aspect 1)• Immediate object (aspect 2)• (1) rhematic interpretant: imagery (actional

& visuospatial; also metaphoric)• (2) dicentic interpretant: categorial content• (1) iconic representamen: gesture (iconics)• (2) symbolic representamen: speech

Substantial evidence

• Gesture-speech is a unity because (McNeill 1992: 24):

• Gesture and speech develop together in children (psycholinguistics, ontogenetics)

• Gesture and speech break down together in aphasia (neurology, pathology)

Microgenesis

• generative starting point: ”the smallest component that has a capacity to grow,

• to develop into something else – the final utterance” (McNeill 1992: 218)

• ”sense” (context-specific aspects of thought)• dominates over ”meaning” (generalized context-

independent aspects)• role of linguistic signs is to mediate consciousness

The starting point: GP

• ”growth point” (GP; McNeill 1992: 219 ff., 2005)• the pragmatic peak of communicative dynamism: focus

(psychological predicate/rheme): point of differentiation of newsworthy content from a background

• semantic pivot: imaginal (iconic) + categorial content (symbolic)

• the stroke (gestural peak)• the intonational peak (linguistic peak)• constructed in advance and held in abeyance while the

rest of the utterance is built up around it.

Functional Discourse Grammar

• based on modularized information processing psychology (Levelt 1989); i.e.:

• Conceptualizer thought• Formulator speech• Articulator acoustic output

• Mackenzie, J.L., 2000. ”First things first: towards an Incremental Functional Grammar”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 32. 23-44.

Verbal channel

The mind harbors multiple representational systems that can mutually interact. But to formulate any representation linguistically requires its translation into a semantic, “propositional” code

FDG – a grammatical competence model

• ”FDG starts with the speaker’s intention and then works down to articulation. This is motivated by the assumption that a model of grammar will be more effective the more its organization resembles language processing in the individual. Psycholinguistic studies (e.g. Levelt 1989) clearly show that language production is a top-down process, which starts with intentions and ends with articulation of the actual linguistic expression.[Cont’ed]

• ”The implementation of FDG reflects this process and is accordingly organized in a top-down fashion. This does not mean that FDG is a model of the speaker: FDG is a theory about grammar, but one that tries to reflect psycholinguistic evidence in its basic architecture.” (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008)

Basic architecture of FDG

Conceptual, contextual and output components

• Conceptual component is the driving force behind the grammatical component

• Contextual component is the discourse domain on the basis of which new utterances are produced in the grammatical component

• Output component generates acoustic, signed, or orthographic expressions on the basis of information provided by the grammatical component

Problems with FDG

• Model of grammar rather than model of a NLU, or better: of an integral communicator

• That is, does not take total, integral communication into account

• Thereby being psychologically and pragmatically inadequate

A remedy

Kopp, S.; Bergmann, K; & Wachsmuth, I. Multimodal communication from multimodal thinking – towards an integrated model of speech and gesture production. International Journal of Semantic Computing 2008, 2.1, 115-136

Cybersemiotic Discourse Pragmatics

• Subscribes to microgenesis (incrementality)• Is not an information processing model. It

recognizes feed back from formulation to conceptualization (= reconceptualization)

• But also includes communicative intentions in the thinking for communicating (McNeill seems to neglect this part, only describing the propositonal/intentional content)

• Thought-language-hand link original in evolution