Date:  Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:56:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711140356.WAA02312@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      pragmatics
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2319
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:57:14 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

[A bit off topic, though not much more than the thread on
keyboard layouts was.]

da robinty`yna gi`e cusku di`e:
> and. wrote:
> >I've given my reasons for arguing a contrary position in
> >separate posts. To what you say, I would respond that you
> >are failing to distinguish between "what-is-said" (i.e. what
> >is encoded in the sentence) and "what-is-implicated" (i.e.
> >what proposition the hearer infers from what-is-said).
>
> You seem to be assuming that language "encodes" meaning, which I am by no
> means sure of.  See Ellis' "Language, Thought and Reality.

I confess I've not heard of this book, let alone read it. Could
you briefly explain what you have against encoding? Speaking as
a linguistician rather than a philosopher I see no problem at
all.

> >Lojban tells us what is encodable. The what-is-implicated
> >is governed by pragmatics, which is part of the domain not
> >of language proper but of communication and cognition in
> >general.
>
> What is "language proper"?  If you take a strict Chomskyan view of
> language, then you are right to separate it from pragmatics.  On the other
> hand, if you look at it in terms of speech act theory, you can't.  I think
> pragmatics starts with language and shades off into non-linguistic factors.

Pragmatics is partly communication and partly social interaction.
Neither are inherently or exclusively linguistic. By "language
proper" I meant "stuff to do with language that can be studied
in and of itself, not as a nondiscrete subpart of some larger
field".

>  The interpretation of "Can you pass the salt?" as a request for action
> (Please pass the salt) rather than information (Are you physically capable
> of passing the salt) is determined not only by extra-linguistic factors but
> by linguistic-functional rules.

That's a controversial matter, but if you're right then the
request would be part of what is encoded.

> P.S.
>
> Q:  How many speech act theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
> A:  Is that a real question, or are you asking me to change the light bulb?

zo`o zo`o: that's good.

Here's one someone else told me:

Q: How many Principles & Parameters theorists does it take to change
   a light bulb?
A: None: it falls out from general principles.

and

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To get Case.

--And