Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

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

Trying this again.

>>>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.

How can we possibly know what is or is not the limit of language.  I'm
far from being a Chomskyan, but the boundary between biology and
conscious choice in expression is quite uncertain.  As fir what is
language - I think it is a matter of definition.  I choose to include
all means of expression which CAN be consciously controlled at least in
part.  Lojban as a language design can prescribe for that entire range
of expression.  Whether people will or will not follow that prescription
is of course an individual decision.

But Lojban is also among other things designed to test the sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis.  If it did nothing that "language has no place doing" in
terms of possible effect on human thought and culture, then it pretty
much could NOt have a SWH -related effect.  It happens that I think the
attitudinals are an area where I think such effects may result, but that
presumes that people use them as intended - as expressions of emotions
and not manipulative statements primarily aimed at affecting others'
emotions.

>Languages _only_ represent
>meaning as things (text, generally)

Why must this be so?

>what we do with that meaning is
>entirely up to us

Of course, but there are constraints on us based on our experiences and
culture, and indeed on our perceptions of the way the language works or
should work.

>>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.

Expressions can be consciously manipulated.  The meanings that underly those
expressions may be immutable.

>>Ideally, attitudinals will come to be subconsciously expressed.
>
>I hope so too, but this doesn't stop them sometimes being consciously
>manipulated instead.

Nothing can stop anything.  Obviously, as in the case of the actor you
mentioned, people may write dramas wherein they but words including
attitudinals in the mouths of the characters and therefore the actors.
That is a case where such behavior is productive.  If lyimng about emotions
becomes common is normal communication, then the attitudinals end up being
incompatible with the predicate language that is Lojban, because they are not
subject to truth evaluation in the same manner as the rest of the language.

>>  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.

No one has ever designed a language to the extent that this has been
tested, so how could you or anyone know this.  How can anyone know the
limits of language design?

>>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.

Other ways to mock, and their effectiveness in conveying mockery are
primarily cultural in nature.  In attmepting to create a new language,
and especially to keep it culturally neutral, we need to cast of as much
cultural baggage as possible.  Or you might as well keep speaking
English.

>>>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...

Is that ironic?  I would be shocked and alarmed if the dictionaryt
proved to be grossly incorrect in the matter of a definition of a word.
It turned out that the definition in question was perhaps incomplete.
But I saw nothing surprising or ironical in his choice of smiley.  (Of
course, he might have intended something other than shock and alarm by
that smiley,(

>>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'.

Yes, and the definition of language is debatable.  But Lojban is
designed to be usable in communication with computers (pg 1 of the Book)
and that requires that it be capable of embedding all that is needed for
such communication.  Furthermore, (same page), Lojban is intended to
remove restrictions on clear thought and communication.  Clarity of
communication requires that things mean what they purport to mean, or
that they be marked accordingly otherwise.

>>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.

And part of defining a language includes at least a little bit of defining
the culture.  In our case, I try to minimize this, but for one example, I
go out of my way to derogate cultural artifacts of English because Lojban
is currently dominated by native English speakers, and it is desirable that
Lojban develop  as culturally independent of native English culture as possible,
to meet its goals of cultural neutrality.

>>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.

Maybe not, but I am a person who takes extreme positions, and then modifies
them as necessary and practical.

>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.

And you were speaking English (albeit with Lojban attitudinals)

>>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.

That is a matter of opinion.  If SWH is true, there may be no such thing
as an extra-linguistic cultural matter.  I am neutral on the question
(as indeed I feel I should be), but I am actively neutral and I seek to
preserve the assumption that we do not know the boundary between
language and culture.  I will argue far less with fluent Lojban speakers
who act in ways contrary to this position, but you are arguing in
English.

>>Lojban intends to have the second "means" be "is identical to".
>
>Lojban has no authority here, because the second "means" does not involve
>language.

Assumption.

>But the first "means" is unambiguous, according to the rules of
>Lojban.
No.  Lojban semantics is not unambigious.  Lojban syntax is unambiguous.

>>  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.

Since it violates the prescription, it certainly is 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.

Assumption.  This language design prescribes all sorts of things that
have never been prescribed before.  Whether a prescription has authority
depends on the nature of authoirty and how people define and respond to
it.  For now, the INTENT, is that the prescription be extremely strong
and broad as far as authority, with this easing as a speaking community
not limtied to native English speakers grows.

>>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.

But manipulation can be derogated by the culture, and in this case, by
the language prescription.  And no, I don't think that expressions can
be completely freely maniopulated by choice.  We can do it to some
extent, but there are limits.

>>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.

Perhaps.  But when my kid says "Whee!" while having fun (the etymology
of the Lojban word, BTW), he isn;t trying to communicate an idea
consciously.  It just comes out.  And I may or may not get the CONSCIOUS
idea that he is having fun from that expression, but I will react
subconsciously to his expression of pleasure.  That ideas/relationships
(i.e. predicates) may be transmitted by an expression is secondary and
should not be intentional.

>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)

The imaginary journey tense system helps to some extent here.

>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.

And it is contrary to Lojban.

>>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.

It is a language rule if we want it to be a language rule.  Language
rules include how and when to use language.  In any event, the boundary
between language and culture is part of what is being debated, so your
statement is an assumption or definition that contradicts ours.

>>  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?

The only published baseline material is the refgram.  That does not mean
that it is the only thing that is baselined.  But the attitudinals are
indeed an example of an area of communication that has traditionally
been considered extralinguistic.  It is not extralinguistic in Lojban.
Thus we do not explicitly SAY what the boundaries of language are, we
merely prescribe some usages that go beyond the traditional boundaries
of language and language prescription.

>This seems to contradict your earlier statement:
>
>   Any other metalinguistic features are explicitly NOT part of the
>language as
>   a system.

And other metalingusitic gfeatures used by aspeaker to communicate means
that he is not speaking Lojban, which requires that all metalingusitic
features be conveyed IN Lojban.

>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.

But if the act of communicating non-Lojbanically means that you are no
longer "communicating in Lojban" by prescribed definition, then doing as
you described does not include ""communicating in Lojban".

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

If a computer doesn't understand it per the language prescription then
it is not a part of Lojban.  The communicative nature of other
activities should therefore not be counted on to convey true
communication.

I have said before that an underlying assumption of Lojban pragmatics is
that it is the speaker's obligation to make himself clear to the
listener.  This is a different pragmatic than for English and perhaps
other languages, where the speaker can do whatever the heck he wants and
it is the listener's job to figure it out.

>>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,

The refgrammar is only a book, and only omne of several we intend to
publish to reflect the baseline.  It is a grammar first and formost, and
is not a statemenht of philosophy (though some of that by necessity went
into the writing).

>and it's too late to
>change it now

Well you are making a strong case that one of the other books needs to
include this philosophical matter stated clearly.  But it is not a
change so it isn;t too late.

>Lojban is a language, nothing more.

And what is a language?  Whatever we want it to be.

> Any insistence on
>literalism is extra-linguistic culture.

Assumption and/or definition.

>>  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.

Assumption and/or definition.

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

In a language which is designed with great care to allow all statements
of ideas to be evaluated for truth and falsity, with clarity as to what
is being evaluated, the use of unmarked irony is indeed "lying".  It
violates the fundamental assumption that what is said can be
symbolically manipulated in terms of truth value (which is after all
what predicate logic is all about).

>>Most of body language is not under our conscious control.
>
>But we frequently choose to control it [consciously].

Not always successfully.

>>This may be a pipe dream, given human nature.  But it is still the language
>>ideal.
>
>No, this is an extra-linguistic cultural ideal.

Assumptions and/or definition that I do not accept.

>>  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.

And if your audience even potentially includes a computer, you need to
confine yourself to things that the computer will observe and
understand.  For example, if Lojban serves as the basis for
computer-mediated language translation, the computer will ignore and not
translate non-Lojbanic inputs, and the listener to the translation will
not understand.  If you have developed speaking habits that include
assuming that you can communicate using unmarked irony and other such
non-Lojbanic means, then you will fail to communicate.  You might as
well stick to English.

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.