Re: Ironic Use of Attitudinals

[Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>]

At 1997-11-11 23:08, Logical Language Group wrote:

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

...
>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.

...
>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.

>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.

>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. Irony works like this:

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

This picture also applies to allegory, by the way. Note that only the
first arrow involves text, so only that is subject to the rules of
language.

>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.

>>Because language's role in communication is the
>>expression of meaning as text (sound or image). A language has no place
>>dictating further interpretations of that meaning, or how one should
>>react to that meaning.
>
>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.

...
>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
>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.

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

Agreed.

>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. 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 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.

>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 attitudinals are bizarre precisely because they are intended to be
>comprehensive,

Now that part I agree with.

>and because they are supposed to be true expressions, after
>the manner of body language.

But body language can also be used ironically.

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