Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>Lojbab is referring to _lojban_ attitudinals as being expressions of
>>internal states.
>
>Obviously, but attitudinals in other languages are also expressions of
>internal states, rather than statements about those internal states, and
>yet they are used ironically. Therefore, the same quality in lojban
>attitudinals does not imply they cannot also be used ironically.

Since they are expressions, and not claims, then ironic usage implies that
some other emotyion is really being expressed.  Later in the post, for example,
you use mockery.  If so, then use an attudinal of mockery, and NOT a false
expression of some other emotion.

The point is that Lojban is supposed to be isomorphic in live conversation
and in text.  The attitudinals, unlike in other natlangs, have to carry the
ENTIRE weight of body language and expression, as well as the stuff normally
included in "interjections" ands similar categories of attitudinal like words.
There is no way that the attitudinals can serve their function if they are
used falsely and without marking them so explicitly.

Using an attitudinal ironically is thus very much like using a smiley in
Internet communication when youy intend to be serious.  It is almost certainly
guanranteed to be misunderstood.
>>I interpret the refgram as saying that the listener should accept
>>attitudinals at face value, and that therefore the speaker should use
>>them as such. ("Used sincerely, not ironically.")
>
>I don't believe the refgram prohibits ironic use of attitudinals as not
>lojban, but only declares that lojban attitudinals have no _a priori_
>ironic assumptions, as perhaps some English attitudinals do.

>From the attitudinal chapter:

SEction 1 makes it clear that attitudinals are similar to English tomes of
voice, and EXPRESS the speaker's emotions.  It explicitly says that English
distinguishes between talking about emotions and actually expressing them,
and says that Lojban does the latter.

Section 2 says that attitudinals have no truth value (hence they cannot be
false) they are pure expressions.  They are "carried in your mind" and reflect
 reactions to version of the world that the mind is perceiving.

Later it says "It is important to realize that ... all attitudinals are meant to
 be used sincerely, not ironically."  It points out that lying with attitudinals
is if anything worse than lying in other ways in a language like Lojban.

Finally, I want to note that a critical feature of Lojban is the idea that
each word as closely as possible has a single meaning.  Ironical use of a
word means that you are using that word to mean something other than what it
actually means. Thus unmarked irony risks introducing into the language
all manner of polysemy, especially if certain usages become idiomatic.
A lot of words in English relating to emotions have drifted all over the place
with regard to meaning, and we do not want this to happen with Lojban.

>Because language's role in communication is the
>expression of meaning as text (sound or image). A language has no place
>dictating further interpretations of that meaning, or how one should
>react to that meaning.

Yes, but a language prescription of monosemy means that there is only one
meaning to any given word.  How you react to that meaning is up to you, but
using a word to mean somet6hing other than its denotation, without explicitly
marking it, violates one of the fundamental bases of the language as a system.
Whether the prescription can be enforced is of course subject to debate,
but if we don't go in trying, then almost nothing else in the language will
prove of value.

>But they could be mocking you. Such mockery may be most effective when
>--More--
>the language matches sincere usage.
>
>As far as the language is concerned, the meaning is the same -- physical
>pain of the speaker. But the usage might be so inappropriate that _that
>meaning_ is itself a sign for something else... the punchline of a joke,
>for instance.

No the meaning is not the same.  The "official" meaning of ".oiro'o"
is that the speaker is perceiving physical pain.  What that pain means is
of course potentially symbolic, but the perception of the pain is still
essential.  If the punchline of a joke makes me crunch over in pain in an
effort of laughing or trying not to laugh, then .oiro'o might be appropriate,
but almost certainly other attitudinals should also be expressed (including
emotional restraint and humor).

>>Attitudinals constitute the meta-linguistic features that are used in
>>conversation such as smiles.
>
>No, they are not _the_ meta-linguistic features, they are just _some_
>meta-linguistic features. Their existence does not stop you using _other_
>meta-linguistic features not specified by lojban (such as smiling) if you
>feel they won't be misunderstood.

Any other metalinguistic features are explicitly NOT part of the language as
a system.  If I smile or laugh while expressing an attitudinal of seriousness,
then you are (in theory) not supposed to take the body language to mean
anything.  The written form of the expressed language is supposed to carry
the ENTIRETY of the communication.  Thus, using something that is not
explicitly part of the written system, or using the written system contrary
to theliteral meaning or its live expression, violates the language
fundamentally.

Now obviously, we don't intend that Lojban speakers stop themselves from
dsiplaying body language.  But especially in the context of intercultural
communications, one shouldn't trust body language anyway, and if Lojban were
ever used for interspecies communication (as some science fiction buffs would
have it) then one had better not presume that body language would be
understandable.

>>You can call your friend a pig, and if
>>they don't see you smiling, they are likely to be offended -
>>miscommunication has occurred.
>
>Well, you can do the same in lojban. You may use an attitudinal, but you
>can also smile.

But if you do not use a smiling attitudinal, then your speech act does not
 reflect your total communication.

x>>Attitudinals are one of the rather bizarre aspects of lojban that
>>attracted my attention in the first place.
>
>Actually, many (most? all?) languages, including English, have
>attitudinals, so I don't see why you consider them 'bizarre'. Lojban is
>special here only because it happens to have a very large attitudinal
>vocabulary -- and very nice it is too.

Lojban attitudinals are bizarre precisely because they are intended to be
comprehensive, and because they are supposed to be true expressions, after the
manner of body language.

lojbab
----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";
    Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.