Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

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

>>Since they are expressions, and not claims, then ironic usage implies that
>>some other emotyion is really being expressed.
>
>Yes, but it's a little more complicated than that. The attitudinal is a
>sign for the 'face value' emotion, as per the refgram, and the 'face
>value' emotion is a sign for the real emotion, as per the context. The
>second part of this does not involve language, so no language rules apply
>to it.

I do not presume to exclude this from language.  The attitudinal
is supposed
to be a representation of the "face value" emotion, and I do not buy that
it
is a "sign" subject to conscious manipulation in themanner in which we are
accustomed to with signs.  Ideally, attitudinals will come to be subsconscouio
iously
expressed.  I will actively fight conscious manipulation of emotional
expression as contrary to the language design.  This may be quixotic, but
it seems essentail, especially during the formative years before we have
a fluent community.

>>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.

>That might be less effective as mockery.

Attitudinal expression of mockery and predicate claims of mockery are the
ONLY defined ways to express mockery in the language.  I prefer to keep
it that way, for mockery and for other emotional expression as wel
l.  A
"logical" language presumes that the logic holds except when explicitly (and
presumably accurately) marked otherwise.

Any usage other than the "prescribed" versions of mockery, will not be
mockery, but will be lying.

>>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.
>
>Lojban has to be capable of this, but that doesn't stop a speaker
>providing auxiliary non-Lojban information.

Then they aren't speaking Lojban, but are speaking Lojban and some other
language which is not Lojban at the same time.

>>There is no way that the attitudinals can serve their function if they are
>>used falsely and without marking them so explicitly.
>
>Not so. The person using them ironically merely has to be sure that the
>context allows for ironic use without too much risk of misinterpretation.

With me, at least, one had better assume 100% chance of misinterpretation.
Most of the Lojbanists I have conversed with have delighted in taking
someones malglico or other incorrect usages literally.  Thus in this
case
the mocker becomes the mockee.

>>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.
>
>Actually, smileys can also be used ironically.

I haven't seen it, and I take their usage literally as well.  I tend to be
a literal person in the first place.  Lojban, as designed, has tuned out
turned
out to be more literal-minded than natural l
anguage usage seems to be in
general. I think it requires this.  Thus we have a very literal language,
with lots of ways to explicitly mark non-literalness.  Omit those markings
at your peril.

>>SEction 1 makes it clear that attitudinals are similar to English tomes of
>>voice, and EXPRESS the speaker's emotions.
>
>Actually, language expresses whatever the speaker intends to express.
>Whether or not the statements are true, or the attitudinals are truly
>representative, is entirely up to the speaker.

That is the classic theory, but Lojban, in attempting to represent body
language and other things not fully under our conscious control, seeks
to represent some larger view of language which encompasses ALL of
communication, and not just the conscious, manipulable portion thereof.

>>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.
>
>They reflect whatever the speaker chooses to reflect.

Yeah, yeah, words mean whatever I want them to mean.  But then it is not Lojban
but something the speaker is idiosyncratically making up.

>>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.
>
>'Worse' here can only refer to the possibility of being misunderstood.
>Now using attitudinals ironically may run that risk, it's up to the
>speaker to make sure the ironic intent is understood.

W@orse means more than being misunderstood.  It means derogated and marking
the speaker as an obnoxious liar who is intentionally subverting the
principles and purposes for which the language was invented.  Such an
attitude IS possible for an invented language, and I think in this case,
is necessary.

>>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.
>
>No, the word means the same thing, but that meaning can then refer to
>another meaning.

NO!  Words have meanings.  If you want a second order meaning, then Lojban
has explicit ways of marking it.  Failure to use those means is ob
noxious
lying and is thoroughly denigrated.

>text ==means==> face-value meaning ==means==> deeper meaning

Lojban intends to have the second "means
" be "is identical to".

>>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.
>I'm not sure irony actually contributes to this. For instance, the
>English exclamations 'what a pity', 'what a shame' have come to mean
>'what a disappointment', which is not an ironic usage. In any case, drift
>and idiom are under the control of the speakers of the language.

The fluent speakers of the language.  I will fight strongly attempts to
change the language prescription which are expressed in any language other
than Lojban, and in any event, I will fight changes to the precription during
the next 5 years as my commitment to the baseline.  People are not free
to "drift the language" until after the baseline period.  (not that any
language police will arrest you; the more appropriate response seems to
be some degree of ostracism).

>>
>>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.
>
>But irony doesn't us the word to mean something other than its denotation
>per se, it uses the denotation of the word to mean something else.

And such usages are as much if not more prescribed in Lojban than the
actual semantics of the words.

>>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
>--More--
>>of course potentially symbolic, but the perception of the pain is still
>>essential.
>
>No, the speaker's intention to express the perception of pain is
>essential. That idea is still expressed, but the idea becomes a symbol
>for another idea.

Intent as a separate emotion from pain and is separately expressed.  The
atrtitudinals are supposed to be BEYOND the speaker's intent.  They are
involuntary expressions made explicitly a part of the defined language.
Symbolism is a conscious act, and is manipulable.  The attitudinals are
NOT supposed to be manipulated ideas - they are expressions.  In Lojban
manipuable ideas are all expressed as predicates.  If you want to manipulate
an emotional expression, then you should use the predicate form of emotional
expression - the metalinguistic predicate (sei).

Attitudinals are NOT "ideas" or expressions of "ideas".  They are
expressions of "emotions" which are a result of the limbic system of the
body.  Emotions do not "mean" something, although the fact that a person
feels an emotion might mean something.

>>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.
>
>When someone smiles while speaking Lojban, they are using two forms of
>communication.
Lojabn is a unitary form of communication that seeks to encompass the additional
traditionally extralinguistic channels of communication that areuse with other
language.  In defining Lojban, we have assumed the broadest definition of
language possible, for fear of omitting a necessary component.  Thus we
include emotional expression BECAUSE in some languages it is language-specific
if not necessarily consciously controlled.

If your body language does not track with your language use, then you are
lying.  The body language and the attitudinals are supposed to be mutually
reflective.

>The textual part is of course subject to the rules of
>language. The body language part is, as you say, explicitly not part of
>the language as a system, so the language rules do not apply to it. But
>both forms provide meaning.

The rules of the language are that the attitudinals are supposed to represent
true emotional expression and therefore should match body language.  The
language rule apply to quite a bnit more than what has been traditionally
assumed to be a part of language.

>>  The written form of the expressed language is supposed to carry
>>the ENTIRETY of the communication.
>
>No, the written form of the expressed language is supposed to be capable
>of carrying the entirety of any communication. It doesn't stop you using
>other (non-Lojban) forms of communication simultaneously.

If you use another form of communication at the same time, you are not
speaking Lojban.  because those other forms of communications are part of
the language definition as well.

No one can stop you from breaking the rules of the language, but we can say
that the actions do indeed break the rules (not to mention the spirit) of
the language.

>>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.
>
>No, not if your text is at least immediately interpreted according to the
>rules of the language.

LOjban is not limtied to "immediate interpretations".  It is supposed to be
the ENTIRETY of the communication system.  I do not view language as a
"piece" of the human communicative capacity.  All of human communication
is mediated through some sort of encoding, which is language.  Lojban
attempts to prescribe meaningacross this whol range of communication, and
in particular, saying one thing in one channel of communication while
denying it in another, is lying.

(I use the word lying because I personally rather strongly derogate lying
and define it to include all forms of misrepresentation.  YOu have explicitly
stated that the meaning "means" something other than some deeper meaning, and
this is misrepresentation.)

>>and because they are supposed to be true expressions, after
>>the manner of body language.
>
>But body language can also be used ironically.

Most of body language is not under our conscious control.  Ideally in the
long term, Lojban attitudinal expression will similarly (and in similar ways)
not besubject to conscious manipulation.  And both body language and
attitudinal expression that ARE manipulable will hopefully become such that
people avoid such manipulation.

This may be a pipe dream, given human nature.  But it is still the language
ideal.  And since the language is intended for use by computers and by people
who may not have the use of other channels of communication (e.g. via the net),
it must thereby encompass all of the communication. and not just part of it.
If this constraint is seriously violated, then the language will have
failed.

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.