Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-25 18:34, Logical Language Group wrote:

>>But talking to Nepalis is only one application of Lojban.
>
>Indeed.  But cultural neutrality among other things requires that one not
>assume thatthe listener shares your culture.

I think it's almost impossible to communicate unless you can find common
culture.

>S/he/it may not be Nepali, but also may not understand unmarked irony.

I agree, but I'm not suggesting that unmarked irony should become
idiomatic in Lojban, only that people may use it when they're sure they
can be understood.

It's similar to discussing obscure topics. If I wish to discuss
software-design, I had better make sure the person I am talking to knows
what a computer is. In that case, I can only assume the listener shares
some of my culture, or choose not to discuss that topic.

> In using English, you can
>rely on the English-speaking cultrual rules which include and allow for irony
>within the idiom.  Lojban has no idiom, and, while you may at this time
>know that any listener to your Lojban understands English, you cannot assume
>this is true in the long term, and had better learn good Lojbanic
>speaking habits.

Well I'm not referring to idiomatic unmarked irony such as turns up in
some English use, but _deliberate_ unmarked irony, and in the case when
the speaker thinks the listener is sure to understand it. Should I
refrain from discussing software-design in Lojban simply because I might
fall into software-design-speaking habits?

>Cultural neutrality means that among other things you minimize the
>assumptions
>with regard to what will be understood without making it explicit where
>possible.

This makes it very difficult to discuss many obscure topics, since I have
to make a large number of assumptions in many cases, so I don't think
this is a good conception of 'cultural neutrality'. But if I feel
confident in those assumptions, I can speak without fear of being
misunderstood.

>Marking irony when you feel compelled to use it is surely in
>keeping with this.

I see this, or better yet, avoiding irony altogether, as a good idea in
the usual case when you can't be sure your listeners will understand it.

...
>>or rules
>>defining a community (javni), mandating a particular use of a language
>
>Nor do I think that this definition is all that correct.  Indeed, I think
>that
>the focus on "rules" of whatever kind is not part of the definition of
>language
>at all.  Rather I see most of language (but not all) to be abiding by
>"conventions" (which are agreements and not rules per se)
>within communications groups to enable communication within the group.

Conventions may be made by agreement but are they not also rules, at
least in a broad sense of 'rule'? Would not {javni} include 'convention'?

In any case, who were the parties to the agreement in the 'convention'
not to use irony?

But conventions or rules, there's a difference between those that specify
how meanings should be expressed, which enable communication, and those
that forbid the communication of meaning, perhaps based on the speaker's
intention behind that meaning, which disable communication.

Restrictions on either irony or allegory are of the latter kind. As a
speaker wishing to use either one, I have a face-value meaning in mind
that I look to language to communicate, having made the assumption that
in this case the listener will find deeper meanings to it. All I expect
of Lojban is that it enable the communication of the face-value meaning:
why should Lojban care if that meaning has itself some further
significance? Bear in mind that in the case of allegory, there may not
even be any consensus as to exactly what that deeper meaning is, so it's
not simply a matter of using language to communicate that deeper meaning.

And what if a speaker simply wishes to deceive? Are they then not
speaking Lojban?

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