Re: le/lo

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

Robin wrote:
>> As a beginner I am not sure about the subtleties of the le/lo debate, but I
>> feel obliged to comment on the metonymy issue.  I don't think it is OK to
>> use "lo xunre" to mean "the woman with the red handbag", though "le xunre"
>> would be fine.  I appreciate the point that we can use metonymy to infer
>> the intended meaning, but I think the whole point of "lo" is that it
>> precludes metaphor or metonymy as far as is humanly possible.  "lo xunre"
>> means "that which really is red", while "le xunre" means "that which I call
>> 'red'", possibly because I am using metonymy.  Because we use metonymy and
>> metaphor so much (usuallly without being aware of it, as Lakoff and Johnson
>> so admirably point out),  "le" is best seen as the unmarked form; we would
>> be better off using "lo" only when we specifically want to say that as far
>> as we know, the referent of the sumti _really_ is what we say it is, and
>> not something metaphorically or metonymically associated with it.  Another
>> way of putting it might be "For the purposes of this conversation, I wish
>> to adopt an objectivist paradigm in which there are definite entities which
>> correspond to specific words, and I assert that the entity in question
>> really does correspond to this word."  Phew!

and. wrote:
>I've given my reasons for arguing a contrary position in
>separate posts. To what you say, I would respond that you
>are failing to distinguish between "what-is-said" (i.e. what
>is encoded in the sentence) and "what-is-implicated" (i.e.
>what proposition the hearer infers from what-is-said).

You seem to be assuming that language "encodes" meaning, which I am by no
means sure of.  See Ellis' "Language, Thought and Reality.

>It is an elementary lesson of pragmatics that what-is-said and
>what-is-implicated are different not only in kind but also
>in content. (I am presuming you know this: I'm not trying to
>patronize or browbeat.)
>
>Lojban tells us what is encodable. The what-is-implicated
>is governed by pragmatics, which is part of the domain not
>of language proper but of communication and cognition in
>general.

What is "language proper"?  If you take a strict Chomskyan view of
language, then you are right to separate it from pragmatics.  On the other
hand, if you look at it in terms of speech act theory, you can't.  I think
pragmatics starts with language and shades off into non-linguistic factors.
 The interpretation of "Can you pass the salt?" as a request for action
(Please pass the salt) rather than information (Are you physically capable
of passing the salt) is determined not only by extra-linguistic factors but
by linguistic-functional rules.

> I think it is improper of the Lojban community
>to try to legislate on matters pragmatic: my reasons, given
>elsewhere, are partly philosophical and partly practical.

But surely the Lojban community already does.  Lojban has "rules of use"
like any other language.  I agree, however, that these should be minimal.

Robin

P.S.

Q:  How many speech act theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:  Is that a real question, or are you asking me to change the light bulb?