Re: Irony and Cultural Neutrality

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

>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.

Then you are in effect assuming that what you call culture is a part of
language.  In order for language to communicate there must be a defined
common culture tot he extent that your last statement holds.

>> 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?


I think that unmarked irony practically by definition is idiomatic.  It is
violating norms with the intent of conveying some meaning other than the
literal interpretation of your words.

>>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.


If you explicitly mark the irony, ten assuming your listener knows the
language s/he/it has some clue as to what the intent was.

>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'?

Yes, but then to that extent javni no longer means merely the English
"rules".

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


Those who "buy into" becoming a part of the language community.  part of
buying in means agreeing to the conventions used by others.  If javni can
be used to describe conventions, then it is because they hold within a
community.  If you are part of the community, your behavior is prescribed
by the javni.  If you refuse to accept the prescription then you are not
part of the community.

>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.

Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance.  Nothing about the prescription that
features that violate strict truth functionality forbid the communication
of meaning.  They require marking of the unusual behavior to ensure that
the communication succeeds.

>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,

So far so good.

>having made the assumption that
>in this case the listener will find deeper meanings to it.

Then you are attemtpting to communicate both levels of meaning, not merely
the surface meaning.  So mark that intent.

>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?

Lojban has nothing to say about an individual finding deeper significance in
a proposition than its face value meaning.  BUT you are trying to communicate
a deeper significance - probably a specific deeper significance in fact.
It is the fact that you are trying to comnmunicate something that puts you
under the realm of language and its rules.

>Bear in mind that in the case of allegory, there may not
>--More--
>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.

If the speaker intends the allegory, then the speaker is trying to
communicate something, and should mark the allegorical intent.  This does
not mean that the listener will necessarily agree with the significance, but
it is the intent that needs to be communicated.

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

Other than the attitudinals, this is dealt with truth-fuinctionally.  Since
attitudinals have no truth value, they cannot be false.  I would choose to
think that a speaker whose attitudinals do not express feelings is merely
an incoompetent speaker of the language.  So I guess that means yes.

r
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.