Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-13 06:46, Logical Language Group wrote:

>>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.

Languages have no place making such rules. Languages _only_ represent
meaning as things (text, generally) - what we do with that meaning is
entirely up to us.

> 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.

_All_ meanings are subject to conscious manipulation.

>Ideally, attitudinals will come to be subconsciously expressed.

I hope so too, but this doesn't stop them sometimes being consciously
manipulated instead.

>  I will actively fight conscious manipulation of emotional
>expression as contrary to the language design.

You may do that, of course, but in truth conscious manipulation of
meaning is entirely outside the purview of language design.

>  This may be quixotic, but
>it seems essentail, especially during the formative years before we have
>a fluent community.

I would support you if you were discouraging conscious manipulation of
emotional expression strictly as likely to be misunderstood during the
formative years.

...
>Attitudinal expression of mockery and predicate claims of mockery are the
>ONLY defined ways to express mockery in the language.

Agreed, but they are not the only ways to mock.

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

Misrepresentation, certainly, but it can still be used to mock.

>>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.

You mean they aren't speaking _only_ Lojban. They certainly are speaking
Lojban, it's just that they happen to be doing something else at the same
time (in this case, communicating in another language).

...
>>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.

I have no problem with that: this simply means you prefer to be
literal-minded when speaking Lojban.

Perhaps this is part of the 'cultural baggage' attached to Lojban, just
as native-English speakers sometimes find themselves being much more
polite when speaking Japanese.

>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.

That's a risk the speaker takes.

>>Actually, smileys can also be used ironically.
>
>I haven't seen it, and I take their usage literally as well.

Rick Nylander did in an earlier post:

# Unless you want to say Mr. Webster is wrong. %^O

Looks like a smiley of shock and alarm...

...
>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.

I don't see this anywhere in the (your?) Official LLG Lojban Material,
though it does make clear that Lojban is intended to be _capable_ of
expressing anything that can be expressed in some other way. Instead,
Lojban is referred to repeatedly as 'a language'.

...
>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.

This is purely a matter of extra-linguistic culture.

>Such an
>attitude IS possible for an invented language, and I think in this case,
>is necessary.

I don't think such an extreme position is necessary. I think people
learning Lojban should be particularly careful with irony in Lojban since
there is a greater chance of being misunderstood -- indeed, of my three
attempts at irony examples, only one was understood.

>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 obnoxious
>lying and is thoroughly denigrated.

So far _you_ seem to be thoroughly denigrating it, but this an
extra-linguistic cultural matter.

>>text ==means==> face-value meaning ==means==> deeper meaning
>
>Lojban intends to have the second "means" be "is identical to".

Lojban has no authority here, because the second "means" does not involve
language. But the first "means" is unambiguous, according to the rules of
Lojban.

...
>  People are not free
>to "drift the language" until after the baseline period.

I'm not sure it's necessarily a volitional process, but I agree that
language drift should be resisted at least during the baseline period.
But I don't consider ironic usage to be language drift.

...
>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.

Attitudinals may be designed to be easily used automatically, but no
language has the authority to prescribe automatic usage.

>Symbolism is a conscious act, and is manipulable.  The attitudinals are
>NOT supposed to be manipulated ideas - they are expressions.

But they can be manipulated too if the speaker chooses.

...
>Attitudinals are NOT "ideas" or expressions of "ideas".

Attitudinals are at least in one sense expressions of ideas: when you
hear the word {.ui} are you necessarily happy? No, because happiness was
not transmitted to you. Instead, the _idea_ that _the speaker_ is happy
was transmitted to you.

...
>>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.

I agree that Lojban should be capable of expressing anything otherwise
non-verbal (though it is difficult to use only Lojban to point to
something), but that doesn't stop you using non-Lojban communication
(such as facial expression) simultaneously. The non-Lojban part is not
Lojban, but it is communication.

...
>The rules of the language are that the attitudinals are supposed to represent
>true emotional expression and therefore should match body language.

That's not a language rule. That's an extra-linguistic cultural rule.

>  The
>language rule apply to quite a bnit more than what has been traditionally
>assumed to be a part of language.

I don't find this anywhere in the baselined material. But perhaps I
haven't looked hard enough?

...
>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.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement:

   Any other metalinguistic features are explicitly NOT part of the
language as
   a system.

In any case, whatever is considered to be Lojban, there is nothing to
stop you engaging in two activities simultaneously, even if one of them
is communicating in Lojban and the other is not. Very trivially, you
could then be considered to be 'communicating in Lojban' as one of, but
not the only, thing you'd be doing.

This is true whether the 'other thing' is breathing, sitting, scratching
your head, playing with your children or communicating through facial
expression.

...
>LOjban is not limtied to "immediate interpretations".  It is supposed to be
>the ENTIRETY of the communication system.

Again, I don't see this in the Official Material, and it's too late to
change it now. Lojban is a language, nothing more. Any insistence on
literalism is extra-linguistic culture.

>  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.

It's definitely always mediated through encoding, but not all parts of
the interpretation process involve 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.)

I think 'lying' is a rather emotionally-loaded word that usually implies
intent to deceive. Certainly that's not the case with irony.

...
>Most of body language is not under our conscious control.

But we frequently choose to control it [consciously].

>Ideally in the
>long term, Lojban attitudinal expression will similarly (and in similar ways)
>not besubject to conscious manipulation.

I hope Lojban attitudinals will eventually generally be used
automatically, but such things will always be subject to conscious
manipulation, at the speakers option.

>  And both body language and
>attitudinal expression that ARE manipulable will hopefully become such that
>people avoid such manipulation.

I don't think this is desirable in the case of body language either.

>This may be a pipe dream, given human nature.  But it is still the language
>ideal.

No, this is an extra-linguistic cultural 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.

Anyone wishing to communicate has to be sure their communication is
understood -- this is the same no matter who or what the recipient is. So
when communicating on the net or to a computer, we restrict ourselves to
forms of expression that can be transmitted. Fortunately, Lojban can
express a lot of things that other languages cannot, but this doesn't
stop speakers using simultaneous non-Lojban communication in those
circumstances they can be sure it won't be misunderstood.

>If this constraint is seriously violated, then the language will have
>failed.

No, only some part of the extra-linguistic culture will be denied.


--
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
http://www.halcyon.com/ashleyb/