[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: Why linguists might be interested in Lojban (was: RE: Re: a new kind of fundamentalism

At 05:32 PM 10/5/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

Lojbab:
> Finally and most importantly for one key Lojbanic purpose,

Remind us what purpose it is, and why it is important?
Use of Lojban for linguistic research (which requires that Lojban have enough properties of a natural language that any research findings are deemed "interesting" to linguists) 


> linguists respect such usage-based norms and evolution and do not
> much respect prescriptivism.

The sort of prescriptivism contemned by linguists is not what
you call 'prescriptivism', namely language design.
When I first started work on Loglan/Lojban, artificial languages were condemned for three reasons 1) lack of native speakers (we can't beat that entirely, but fluent speakers cover many of the bases) 2) constant fiddling in search of the perfect set of rules for the language (this is what I think of as prescriptivism in conlangs), rather than actually using it 3) naive and excessive idealism both of the political/ideological sort and of the "Esperanto has 16 rules" variety, which is primarily evidenced by the 600 message threads on which language is "better" whenever conlangs get discussed on sci.lang. Any claim that a language is "better" or "simpler" usually has naivete or ideology behind it. 


> So long as prescribers have significant
> clout over the language, we will have trouble gaining respect as a
> language (and community) worthy of serious linguistic investigation.
> Rather, we will be classed with the hoards of conlangs that never
> stopped prescribing until they drove their prospective users away or
> forced splintering from those who would not accept the prescription.

Which linguists have you been talking to, or which linguists have
given you this impression?
Mostly those on sci.lang. A couple at conferences (which were so long ago that I don't remember names). 


Why, and under what circumstances, do you think linguists would be
interested in Lojban?
I wrote an essay on this which is on the website and may have been incorporated in the level 0 book (why Lojban is scientifically interesting). 


Speaking as a linguist, I find it hard to
see how Naturalist Lojban would be of more than sociolinguistic
or cultural-linguistic interest.
Nick's recently published paper on Lojban reflexives seems to be about linguistics and not culture. 


Although Engineered languages have not hitherto been of interest to
linguistics (largely because they never existed, and because their
very possibility has not occurred to linguists), I think they could
be of considerable interest if they are any good.


Depends on what you define as "engineered".  Esperanto is, to some extent.


Current Minimalist
(Chomskyan) theory is founded on the postulate that language is
fundamentally "perfect" -- that underlyingly, language works in
the optimal way, in a way that conscious design could not improve
upon.
I don't see that. It rejects conscious design because such inherently cannot use the unconscious and innate language function of the brain. 


This postulate is not informed by any serious investigation
of what perfection is,
"Perfection" to a Chomskyan is meaningless, or at best is "whatever the human brain actually does". 


because there is no history of people
trying to think how the fundamentals of natural language could be
improved upon. So in principle, intellectually rigorous engelanging
has a role to play in defining Perfection, the limits of perfectibility,
and the relation of natural language to these.
Perfectibility per 2) above is one of those things that linguists seem decidedly uninterested in. If there is a perfect language, then a natlang that is closer to that perfection is a "better language" and that contradicts the fundamental assumption of modern linguistics which is hyperegalitarianism among languages. 


Also, recent work
on language evolution has just begun to investigate how natural
language could evolve through normal selectional processes as a
solution to a given design problem. Engelangers could in principle
be ahead of the game here, in their understanding of the design
problem and the range of possible solutions. (Andruc, our erstwhile
Lojban colleague, is currently doing a PhD with two of the best
people in this area, btw.)


I'm not catching the name reference.


My (in this instance, comparatively privileged to some slight
degree) opinions, then, are:

1. Lojban should not feel the need to make itself of interest to
linguists, though it should welcome any interest that linguists do
take.
Thus rejecting the original JCB purpose for the language of linguistic research. 


3. Engineered Lojban as part of a larger program of 'engelangology'
could in principle be of interest to linguists as advancing
linguistics's central research goals, but in practise it is unlikely
to happen, because of the paucity of competent people motivated
to pursue engelanging for its own sake.
The goal in this area is to develop a new approach to, or branch of linguistics. Your concept of engelanging sounds theoretical. JCB's vision which I am committed to working at, is one of experimental linguistics. 

lojbab

--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org