Re: Linguistics journals LONGISH

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Here is a combined reply to a number of messages in this
thread, in chronologialish order.

> From:          Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
> Could Lojban be used, if not "studied" as such, by a linguist/logician as
> a tool for discussing and illustrating some fine points of linguistic
> logic?  Not writing *in* lojban, just giving examples in Lojban.  An
> abstract discussion of how abstraction, quantification, and argument
> raising (to pick three things out of the hat) would be less readable and
> more prone to error than one that analyzed example sentences with {nu},
> {ci}, and {tu'a} in them.  In other words, maybe Lojan could be useful in
> the same way math notation or normal predicate calculus are useful.
> Obviously its rigor is going to be less well-accepted by a logician's
> audience at first, but if nothing else it provides something concrete to
> shoot holes in.

Lojban is no clearer than a blend of ordinary predicate logic
notation plus English. And the latter is easier to read. So I'd
say Lojban would be a poor choice.

> As several people have pointed out, reading abstract
> discussion of logic is *difficult*.  I'm fascinated by Lakoff's "Women,
> Fire, and Dangerous Things", but there are several chapters I just can't
> get through.

Which chapters? I don't remember ones about logic. Maybe I skipped
them.

> From:          Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, HACKER G N wrote:
> > Don't you think linguists/logicians already HAVE such notational
> > schemes in place, which are accepted generally within their own
> > communities? Why would they want to learn a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE
> > just so they can re-invent the wheel? :)
> Well if they've already done all this, why are *we* reinventing the
> wheel?  We could just take their scheme, add vocabulary words and a
> method of pronouncing the symbols.  I thought what we were doing was
> more ambitious than what was already available.  I'd be interested
> in hearing more about some of these notational schemes.

This is part of what Lojlan did: make the notation speakable. It
then did a load more non-logical stuff besides, to enhance usability
and achieve various other auxiliary goals.

> From:          Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>
> Hmmm.  I was under the impression that Chomsky, if he has not been
> exactly displaced, is definitely being nudged to one side.  The
> cutting edge of linguistics is semantics rather than syntax these
> days, and the upsurge of interest in categorisation theory and
> metaphor has also provoked a resurgence of  interest in Whorf

Our view of the balance of sociopolitical power in contemporary
lx is different, but I broadly agree with what you said. [snipped]

> On the other hand, Lojban does provide some fairly enticing area for
> linguistic research (which I may pursue when I get my MA out of the
> way). Certainly the creation  of a speech community from scratch
> would offer some intriguing possibilities for sociolinguists,

This is true, though Klingon would be a richer lode in that
respect.

> and a discourse analysis of Lojban would be another possibility. At the
> moment this is hampered by the small amount of written Lojban (other
> than translations) in circulation, and the lack of spoken exchanges,
> but as a long-term project it would be very interesting to see to
> what exten Lojbanists follow the discourse patterns of their native
> discourse communities or create new discourse patterns specific to
> Lojban.

True again, though maybe Esperanto might be the richer lode this
time.

> Yet another research area would be language aquisition - is
> Lojban easier to learn as a second language, and (when we eventually
> have children learning Lojban) is it possible to aquire it as a
> first language, or does it have features which make conscious
> learning necessary?

Someone has to risk fucking their progeny up first.

> From:          HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
> > yES, though not in the mainsteam, but i DON'T think Lojban would
> > present a sufficiently focused basis for experiment.
>
> In what ways? It seems to me that if Lojban really is intended to
> test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, then this kind of feedback should
> be important.

I've never really understood how Lojban was supposed to test the
SWH, or, indeed, how "SWH" is defined for the purposes of Lojlan.

> > I myself can think of hardly any ways in which Lojban might
> > legitimately be discussed in lx journals.
>
> Fairly shattering. In what ways is it not relevant?

In every way.... [The question reminds me of the scene from
Catch 22, where General Scheisskopf is interrogating someone
or other. It goes something like: "I didn't do X [=what you
are accusing me of]." "When didn't you do X?" "I always didn't
do X."]

> > Good psycholinguistic
> > data on processing of things with and without terminators (i.e.
> > natlangy and nonnatlangy structures) might be interesting.
>
> Is that because terminators are so unnatural? Terminators are one of
> the most irritating features of the language, IMHO, and the easiest
> to get wrong. In fact, it's interesting to note that a common cause
> of initial syntax errors with computer programs is in forgetting to
> close brackets in an expression, just as a common cause of syntax
> errors in Lojban is in forgetting a non-elidable terminator. There's
> a lesson to be learned there, I'm sure...

I think so too. If there was some way of counting errors in
Lojban text (where error = ways the text deviates from what
the speaker would have written had they perfect command of the
lg), then it would be of interest to the extralojbanic world
to know what propertion of these involve terminator errors.

But anyway, Yes: I think terminators are unnatural. But I also
think they're a good idea.

> > If someone came to me wanting to do a dissertation on Lojban, and
> > didn't mind being taken for a loony or not increasing their
> > emplyability, then I'd encourage them to do one, but only if it
> > was essentially a work falling within the domain of Cultural
> > Studies: that is, Lojban as a creation, rather than as a language.
>
> And what form would that take in the domain of Cultural Studies?
> 'Gee, look what some loonies have actually bothered to think up...,'
> etc.?

Pretty much, but clearly the scholar is obliged to make a case
for the object of study being deserving of the attention paid
to it. I would have thought it deserving for its intrinsic
interest, though not for its impact on wider society. (One
of my colleagues has just published a book, "Senseless acts
of beauty", on people who live in trees and tunnels in places
where roads are going to be built: this culture is interesting
too, but a study of it is the more marketable for this culture
being in the (rather approving) public eye.)

> > Same goes for all other invented lgs.
>
> Invented languages are not worthy of study in linguistics? Is this
> because they don't pass a test of useability that is found in
> speaker viability? For if so, then Esperanto might merit some study.
> (Not that I'd want to undertake it, but anyway...)

Ivan addressed this: we don't know how English works, so we study
English to find out. But we do know how Lojban works, so we
don't need to study it.

> From:          HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
> I know that linguists use all
> kinds of tree structures, diagrams and various forms of symbolic
> notation to represent the various mechanics of natural language. And
> in logic, of course, they have been employing symbolic notation for
> various kinds of predicate and argument manipulation forever. I
> think that Lojban is very much the student of these disciplines
> rather than the master.

True. However, in principle, Lojban might have something to offer.
If Lojban was committed to (a) being able to translate into
predicate logic, and (b) attempting to express everything natlangs
do, then the Lojban community would have built up a body of
at least approximate ways of translating various natlang
constructions and meanings into predicate logic. Since only
some areas of this translation have been worked on at all
intensively, the Lojban project, if not so much the final
Lojban product, might have made a useful contribution.

However, I do feel that the Lojban project has not worked in
this way in practise.

> From:          Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net> To:
> >Well: If I was asked to review a grant application for
> >research of this type, and if I wasn't the Lojban-supporter
> >I am, then I would want to see a well-made prima facie case
> >for expecting the research to be fruitful. E.g. what advantage does
> >Lojban have in this respect over ordinary predicate     logic
> >notation. But someone could probably make such a case.
>
> Well, I think the prima facie case for this is fairly simple.
> People do not fluently speak or use predicate logic notation, and it
> seems unlikely that anyone ever will.

I speak (or at least write) predicate logic notation better than I
speak/write Lojban. It stands to reason: pred log is a subset of
Lojban. Lojban is a complexified version of predlog.

> On the other hand, any
> machine AI will require a lot of real world knowledge base inputs in
> order to be able to function.  A fluent Lojban speaker/writer CAN
> exist,

I will accept that there are people who can write Lojban fluently.
But in some cases the logical element of what is written is
flawed. For those writers less prone to logical errors, I
bet they would have equal facility with predlog.

> and at least a large subset of the language can be easily
> processed into predicate logic compatible form (The research work
> and language skill of Nick Nicholas is eviodence of both of these).
> This would lead one to believe that a much better human/ computer
> interface for inputting the knowledge base data would result by
> having Lojban speakers (who need not be expert in computer AI nor
> necessarily is predicate logic, but rather might be expert in an
> application field) input the knowledge base directly in Lojban.

Actual Lojban text is living proof that using a language that
is capable of logical clarity does not at all guarantee that
the writer writes what they mean. Lojban is a tool, but it still
needs the skill from the user: it doesn't provide clarity
all on its own.

> From:          Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
> I have discussed with one linguist (Alexis Manaster-Ramer) about
> using Lojban as a tool for communicating semantic nuance in a way
> that English translation cannot in reporting examples from other
> languages.

I know you had this exchange, but it seems a pretty extraordinary
suggestion. I can't see how Lojban has any particular advantage
over other possible metalanguages. If the lexical semantics of
Lojban was more articulated then maybe, but not as it stands.

> I also found that Lojban event contours made it easy  to understand
> the Russian perfective system, which is purportedly one of the more
> difficult features for English speakers to understand.  This
> suggests that Lojban may be useful in conveying the significance of
> grammatical strutures in one language in terms understandable in
> English or some other native language. For example, perhaps someone
> could show ergativity in Lojban more clearly than in English.

OK, but diagrams would probably be easier.

> From:          HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>
> Enough of what DOES interest me about Lojban; now onto what does NOT
> interest me.
>
> I do not think that there is anything that Lojban, or ANY language,
> natural or constructed, can do to improve my thinking. I do not
> think in Lojban, or English, or any other language; I just THINK.
> You usually have to CONSTRUCT a language in which to express your
> ALREADY EXISTING thoughts, and I consider that thought and language
> are separate things.

I don't fully agree here. I'll explain why.

First, let us recognize two ways of using Lojban.

CRITERIA OF SUCCESSFUL USAGE:
I. The speaker successfully communicates with the addressee.
II. The utterance actually encodes the meaning the speaker
intended it to.

(I) has been advocated by Lojbab, and to me seems a bit pointless,
but to other people is highly appealing.

(II), though, forces you think through the logical structure of
what you want to say. I have found that the more I think about
logic and related matters, the more my verbal reasoning is
affected. This is not always a good thing, because I have
found that in discussion with others I tend to focus on what
they actually say rather than on what they mean. Successful
communication generally needs more sympathy and less clarity.
Still, the point is that I do believe that practice in reading
and writing Lojban, if done in mode (II), will, for better
or worse, make verbal thinking clearer.


--And