NickNicholas
JournalofUniversalLanguage3 March2002,133-167
FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages: TheLongDistanceReflexivevo’ain Lojban
NickNicholas UniversityofMelbourne,Australia
Abstract
Anotionwhichunderliesmuchfunctionalistthinkingonlanguageis thatlanguageisasystemwhosestructureisengineeredtosolve problemsincommunication.Artificiallanguagesareofparticular interestinthisregard,becausesuchproblemsolvingcanbeundertaken consciouslyonthepartofbothlanguageplannersand(totheextent thatthelanguagecommunityallowsit)languageusers,enablingthe linguisticstructuretoadapttotheircommunicativeneeds.Such languageusersareapplyinglayintuitionsaboutwhatlinguisticfeatures willbemoreeffectiveincommunicationwhatmightbecharacterised as‘folkfunctionalism’. Aninstanceofsuchadaptationisconsideredhere:theLojban pronoun vo’a ,intendedasagenericreflexive,hasbecomealong distancereflexiveinordertoalignwithLojban’sidiosyncraticprono- minalsystem.Infact,thisseemstohavebeendoneindependentlyby thelanguageplannerandthelanguagecommunity.Thatthesolution 134 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
yieldedistypologicallyunusualdemonstratesthatcommunicativeand paradigmaticpressurescantrumpnaturallanguagehabit,andeven typologicaluniversalsina‘perturbed’grammaticalsystem.
1.FolkFunctionalism
Therearetwodominantparadigmsoflookingatlanguage.The formalist paradigm,whichincludesmuchofmainstreamcontemporary syntax,holdsthatlanguageistobeinvestigatedasaformalsystemin andofitself,andthatexplanationsforwhylanguageisthewayitis shouldbesoughtinternallytothatformalsystem.The functionalist paradigm,ontheotherhand,seekstoexplainfeaturesoflanguagewith referencetofactorsoutsidethesystem-namely,thefunctiontowhich languageisput,communication.Accordingtosuchthinking,features oflanguageareastheyarebecausetheyservetooptimisecommunica- tion;forinstance,genderwouldbeexplainednotasageneticallycoded parameterofthegrammar,oranincidentalfeatureofthelexicon,but asamechanismforallowingthelistenertokeeptrackofthereferents inadiscourse.1 Functionalismthusimplicitlyregardslanguageasakindofproblem solving,thoughofcourseopinionvariesastohowthisproblemsolving isbroughtabout.Somefunctionalistsfavouranevolutionaryapproach tothefunctionforminterplay,wherebymechanismsofevolutionary selectionselectbetweenformsofvaryingcommunicativeefficacy(e.g. Croft2000).Otherlinguists,likeScott(1985)andHage?ge(1993), emphasisethedeliberativecontributionofindividualspeakersin manipulatinglanguageforms,ratherthanexplaininglanguagechange onlyasanimpersonal,‘invisiblehand’process. Theextenttowhichlanguagechangecharacterisedas‘natural’is
1 Forthelatestinthelongrunningdebatebetweenformalistsandfunctionalists,see Darnelletal.(1998). NickNicholas 135 guidedbydeliberatechoicesishardtogauge.Butofcourse,language isroutinelysubjecttochangethroughdeliberatechoiceintheformof prescription,whichcanattimeshaveratherdrasticeffectsonlanguage (seee.g.theinstanceslistedinJahr1989).Prescriptionismotivatedby variousextralinguisticfactors-snobberynottheleastamongthem.Yet oftentherationalesinvokedforaprescriptivechoiceappealtonotions of‘logic’,clarity,anddisambiguation.Forexample,throughoutthe Balkanstheliteraryregistersoflanguagespreferthedeclinabletothe indeclinablerelativepronoun,particularlyinmarkedrolessuchas indirectobject(Albanian:Buchholz&Fiedler1987:301; Serbo-Croatian:Gallis1956:178,Golab&Friedman1972:43;Modern Greek:Householder,Kazazis&Koutsoudas1964:92-93);therationale offeredforthispreferenceis‘clarity’.SoforexamplePapazafiri (1994:67)inapopularisedprescriptivemanualonModernGreek:
When[indeclinable] pou correspondstoaprepositional phrase,moreattentionneedstobepaidtotheexpression.It oftencreatessuchlackofclarity,thatitshouldbesubstitutedby the[declinable]pronoun oopios andtheappropriatepreposition.
Butthedeliberatechoicebyaprescriptivistofagivenlinguistic formoveranother,inordertofacilitatecommunication,isnotdifferent inessencetowhatfunctionalistsclaimlanguagespeakersdo,whenthey favouragivenformforfunctionalreasons.Admittedly,thecontextin whichprescriptivistsoperateisanomalous,relativetonaturallanguage change:prescriptivistsareprimarilyconcernedwithwrittenlanguage, whichasacommunicativesystemhasmuchlessredundancythan spokenlanguage;sothefunctionalpressurestheytakeintoaccountcan bequitedifferenttothoseofunmarkedlanguageuse. Nevertheless,ifthereisanyvaliditytothenotionthatatleastsome ‘natural’languagechangeisdeliberative,thenprescriptionmayyield someinsightsintohowsuchchangeisdecided.Thoughprescriptivists areliterateandfamiliarwithtraditionalgrammar,theyareusually 136 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban naiveasfarasmodernlinguistictheoryisconcerned;sotheinsights theyhaveoncommunicativeefficacy,andonwhereambiguitymay eventuate,mayresemblewhatordinarylanguagespeakershaveinmind whentheymanipulatelanguage.Evenifitturnsoutthatnosuch deliberativelanguagechangeoccurs‘naturally’,thenaive(i.e.prescien- tific)notionspeoplehaveaboutlanguageandambiguitycanhelpus formulateamorepsychologicallyrealisticmodelofhowpeople cognitivelydealwithlanguage,whentheyreasonaboutitinthe abstract.Byanalogywith‘folkpsychology’asadescriptionofpeople’s prescientificmodelofthemind,Idescribethiskindofthinkingabout language,anditsadaptationtocommunicativepressures,as‘folk functionalism’. Theprescriptionofliterarylanguagesispartofaspectrumof languageplanning;andtheextremepointofthatspectrumis representedbyartificiallanguages.Sinceinmostcasesthecreatorsof artificiallanguagesareenthusiasticamateursratherthanprofessional linguists,thedecisionstheymakeastowhichlinguisticfeaturesto incorporateintotheirlanguagesarealsoinstancesoffolkfunctionalism. Theclassicinstanceofthis,asfarastheInternationalAuxiliary Language(IAL)movementisconcerned,aretherecurringpolemicsas towhethertheaccusativeofEsperantoisaGoodoraBadThing.From apurelylinguisticviewpoint,thequestionismoot:caseisonewayof trackingwhoisdoingwhatinadiscourse,wordorderisanother,and contextathird;languagessuccessfullyemployanyoneofthese mechanisms,anditismeaninglesstoaskwhethercaseorwordorder ismoreefficacious.Moreover,otherfactorscloudthediscussionin interlinguistics:aesthetics,learnability,linguisticdiffusion,etc.None theless,thequestionofwhetheralinguisticfeaturelikecaseis efficientandeffectiveincommunicationiscertainlydebatedinterms offolknotionsofclarityandambiguity--i.e.intermsoffolk functionalism. Instancesoffolkfunctionalismaboundinartificiallanguagedesign, particularlyinartificiallanguagesintendedasIALs.Attimes,theycan NickNicholas 137 beverymuchprescientific;thedreamthankstowhichLudovik Zamenhofdecidedtoincludedefinitearticlesinhislanguage(Boulton 1960:14)isoneofthemorespectaculardemonstrationsofthis.Butthe creativedecisionsoflanguagecreatorsaretiedupwithpersonal preference,ifnotwhim,andbydefinitioncannotbetriedoutinusage beforetheyareintroduced.Arathermoreinterestingphenomenon occurswhenthelanguageisreleasedintoausercommunity,anda communicativelyinefficientorineffectualfeatureisrepairedbythat community,applyingprinciplesoffolkfunctionalism. Thewaysuchchangetakesplaceinartificiallanguagesis idiosyncratic.Artificiallanguagestendtobestronglyprescribed,in ordertoforestallthelanguagesplittingupintovariants(the disdialektigho frequentlywarnedagainstinEsperanto).AsManders (1950:61)pointsout,the‘democraticnorm’oflinguisticcorrectnessis inapplicabletoEsperanto:
Incontrastwithethniclanguages,inwhichgenerallyonly whatisgenerallyusediscorrect,inEsperantoonecanuseany expressionwhichiscomprehensibleanddoesnotcontradictthe Fundamento [languagedefinition].EvenifallEsperantistssaid Anglio ‘England’or stulta ‘stupid’[newerforms],Iwouldspeak correctlyinusing Anglujo and malsagha [theoriginalforms].
Thisconservativeprescriptivismtendstobepolicedvigorouslyin artificiallanguagecommunities;sotheextenttowhichsuchlanguages canbealteredinuseatalliscircumscribed.Indeed,inliteraryartificial languages(Tolkien’slanguagesbeingthebestinstance),thelanguage issostronglyboundtoadefiningcanon-bycommunityconsent(not tomentionlegalconstraint)-thatitismeaninglesstospeakoflanguage changecarriedoutbythecommunity:thecommunitysimplywillnot allowit. Furthermore,forsuchrepairtotakeplace,thelanguageneedsto haveasufficientlylargeandautonomouscommunity,toenablea 138 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban responsetothecommunicativeuseofthelanguage.Acommunityof one(ashasbeenthecasewithanynumberofartificiallanguages)is notsufficientlylargetocountassuchacommunity.Likewise,change drivenprimarilybyideologicalratherthancommunicativepressures doesnotnecessarilyshedlightonwhetherthealternativesare consideredtobecommunicatively,andthuslinguistically,more effective.MuchofthevigorousdebateonreformprojectsforVolapük, Esperanto,andIdo,forexample,canbedismissedasideologically motivated. Thatsaid,therehavebeenindisputableinstancesoftherapy practicedonartificiallanguagesbylanguagecommunities.Thestrong relianceofartificiallanguagesonwrittencommunication,andthe relativelysmallsizeoftheircommunities,meansuchlanguage change-as-therapyismoreakintothefolkfunctionalismofnatural languageprescriptivists,thantheobscureforcesdrivingthe‘normal’ evolutionofnaturallanguages.Proponentsofsuchchanges,nonethe less,areabletoarticulateconcernsaboutambiguityorinefficiencyin thelanguage,andtoelaboratesolutionstothoseproblemswhichdonot fallafoulofthelanguages’prescriptivecanontherebypreserving continuityinthelanguages,anddrawingapprovalfromthenormally conservativecommunity.ForEsperanto,themostprominentinstance hasbeenthelongdrawnoutsearchforadistinctagentivepreposition, endingupwithGrosjean-Maupin’s farede/far replacing de (Kalocsay &Waringhien1980:203).ForKlingon,onemightmentiontheuseof thetopicalisertodisambiguatetherelativeclausehead(Krankor1992), whichwasultimatelysanctionedbythelanguagecreator(Shoulson 1995).AndLojbanhashadseveralinstances,oneofwhichisdiscussed here. Theseproposalscanbetracedtoparticularindividuals,whowielded considerableauthorityinthelanguagecommunity.(Emile Grosjean-Maupinwasalexicographerandhadtheearoftheeditorsin SAT,asizeableorganisationofEsperantists;‘CaptainKrankor’isthe KlingonLanguageInstituteGrammarian.)Thismeansthatthe NickNicholas 139 differencebetweentheseproposalsandoutrightreformproposalsis onlyoneofdegree;thealternativeformulationsareproposedbecause anindividualsensesthereissomethingwrongwiththeexisting languagesystem.Inordertoshedlightonwhatlanguageusersin generalregardastolerableandintolerableambiguityinalanguage system,suchproposalsareinterestingonlyinasmuchastheyaretaken upbythemajorityofspeakers(whichboththeseinstanceshavebeen), andwheretheputativeprobleminthelanguageisarticulatedcogently bytheproponentsoftheformulations. Suchtherapeuticchangesareparticularlyinterestingifthey contraveneanestablishedtendencyofnaturallanguages,particularlythe naturallanguagesformingthesubstratumofthegivenartificiallanguage community.Thetendencytocalqueexpressionsfromthesubstratumis demonstrablystronginsecondlanguagecommunities(languagecontact providingrepeatedinstancesofthis);soanyassertionoflinguistic autonomyonthepartoftheartificiallanguagecommunityisofinterest. Wherethechangerunscontrarytoanoveralltendencyofhuman language(asIbelieveappliesinthecaseconsideredhere),itshowsthat speakers’understandingoflanguageasasystem-evenpathological systemslikeartificiallanguages-outweighstheirtendencytofollow establishedpatternsforparticularsubsystemsoflanguage:ifeitherthe languagecommunityorthespecificparadigminvolvedisanomalous, thecommunity’suseofthefeaturewillbeadjustedaccordingly.Both theseanomaliesobtainintheLojbanpronominalsystem,withradical consequencesfortheLojbanreflexivepronoun vo’a .
2.Lojban
Lojban(Cowan1997)isanartificiallanguagebasedinthefirst instanceonpredicatelogic.ItisderivedfromLoglan2 (Brown1989),
2 OftencalledbyLojbanists‘InstituteLoglan’or‘TLILoglan’,after TheLoglan 140 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban alanguagedesignedbyJamesCookeBrownandintendedtoserveas atestbedfortheSapir-Whorfhypothesis(sodescribedinBrown1960). ThemotivationofthoseinvolvedwithLojbanvaries.Somearemotivated bywhattheyregardasthemindexpandingtraitsofalanguageradically differentfromnaturallanguagesinitsworldview.Othersareinterested informallogicorformalsemantics,andwishtouseLojbanasaformal modeloflanguage.YetothersareinterestedinLojban-whichhasa machineparsablesyntaxandasemanticsformalisabletoatleastsome extent-asamediumforhuman-computerinteraction. Thelanguagehasbeenpromulgatedbyagroupofenthusiasts distinctfromLoglansincethemid’80s,astheresultofadisputeover theextenttowhichLoglanwasinthepublicdomain.Thatgrouphas beenledsincetheoutsetbyBobLeChevalier,whowasinvolvedin authoringmuchoftheinitialdesignofthelanguage.Thelanguagehad crystallisedintoitsmodernformby1991,althoughrefinements continuedtobemadetothegrammarandlexiconthroughtheearly ’90s,asthelanguagestartedtobeusedmorewidely.TheLogical LanguageGroup(LLG),theorganisationchargedwithdevelopingand promotingthelanguage(andledbyLeChevalier),iscommittedto allowingthelanguagetoevolve‘naturally’;butitalsowishestoenforce stabilityatleastattheinitialstagesofthelanguage,byimposinga baselineonthelanguage.Accordingtothis,noproposalsforreformto thelanguagewillbeentertainedforthefirstfiveyearsafterthe completepublicationofthelanguage.Thepublicationofthereference grammar(Cowan1997)haslargelyputabrakeonrevisionstothe language,andthebasicgrammarandthelexiconhavebeenstable since.Whilediscussionofimprovementstothelanguage(aperennial featureofartificiallanguagecommunities)continues,thisdealsmore withfeaturesofthelanguageunderspecifiedintheexistinglanguage definitionmaterials,thanwithrevisingestablisheddecisions. 3
Institute,whichadministersit;Lojbanistsclaimtheirlanguagetobeaversionof Loglan. NickNicholas 141
Thelanguagecommunityprimarilyinteractsonline.Itsmajor vehicleofinteractionhasbeenanelectronicmailinglistsince19894 ; thishasbeensupplementedmorerecentlybyInternetRelayChat,and in2001thecreationofacollaborativelyauthoredWebresource,the LojbanWiki.5 TherearealsoindividualwebpagesofLojbanists,and occasionalbriefface-to-facediscussionsinthelanguage,particularlyat theLLG’sannualmeeting.Itisdifficulttogaugethesizeofthe languagecommunity;themailinglistasofthiswritinghasaround250 subscribers,ofwhichsome30areactive,andtentofifteenregularly postinthelanguage. Oneoftheprimary‘sellingpoints’forthelanguageisthatit eliminatesorreducescertainkindsofambiguity(primarilysyntactic) normallyinherentinnaturallanguage:
Lojbanhasanunambiguousgrammar(provenbycomputer analysisofaformalgrammarwithYACC),pronunciation,and morphology(wordforms)....Youcanbeveryspecific,oryou canbeintentionallyvague.Yourhearermaynotunderstand whatyoumeant,butwillalwaysunderstandwhatyousaid. (http://www.lojban.org/files/brochures/lojbroch.html)
Thelanguagecommunitycontainsadisproportionatenumberof computerprofessionalsandacademics.Thelanguagecommunityisthus moreselfconsciousaboutissuesoflanguagelogicandambiguitythan istypicalevenamongartificiallanguageenthusiasts(seeManders’ (1950:61-62)commentsontheapplicabilityofthe‘logicalnorm’to Esperanto.)Asaresult,thereisawidespreadexpectationthatLojban
3 Forexample,therehasbeenextensivediscussionthrough2001ontheproper interpretationoftheimplicitargumentsofqualitynominalisations. 4 AListservmailinglistfrom1989to1998,archivedathttp://nuzban.wiw.org/ archive/;aOneGroups/YahooGroupsgroupsince1998,athttp://groups.yahoo.com /group/lojban/. 5 Http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki. 142 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban maintainalevelofunambiguousnessmuchinexcessofwhatistypical fornaturalorartificiallanguages.Thishasconsequencesforthe meaningsassignedtothelanguage’sanaphorparadigm.
3.ThePrescriptions
TheLojbananaphoricsystemwasdesignedasareactiontothe Loglananaphorsystem,whichithasbeenargued(Zwicky1969)isnot natural-thatis,notconformingtotheexpectationsthatspeakersof naturallanguagesmighthaveforananaphorparadigm.Asa compromise,however,Lojban’sownanaphorsystemhasmetwith disapprovalamongitsusers,bothbecauseitpreservessomeofthe unconventionalitiesofLoglan,andbecause,paradoxicallyenough,users feelitcompromisestoomuchwithnaturallanguageexpectations.This makesoftheparadigma‘perturbed’system,whichleadstounexpected resultswhena‘reflexive’anaphorinteractswiththatparadigm.
3.1.TheLoglanPronominalSystem
Loglan,andLojbanafterit,haveaplethoraofpronominalforms usedtorefertovariouskindsofreferents.Thesubsystemofparticular interesthere,foritsinteractionwithreflexives,isthatofanaphora:the pronominalformsusedtoindexareferentinthesamediscourse,and inparticularthesameclause. Intheabsenceofgrammaticalgenderornumbertoallowthe referenttrackingofanaphora,Loglanhastwosetsofanaphorsthatcan beemployed.Thefirstare da,de,di,do,du,whichatanypointin thediscoursecanbeusedtorefertotheimmediatelypreceding,second last,thirdlastetc.nominalinthediscourse,andretainthatreference fortheremainderofthediscourse-notbeingavailableforreassignment toanotherreferent(Brown1989:173-176): NickNicholas 143
(1) LaDjank,pavedmatajlefumnai.DaipadonsulaPit,dej. Dokpamerceadai. 6 Johnk soldthatj tothewomani.Xi gavePeteYj .Wk marriedXi.
ThesecondstrategyLoglanemploysinvolvesacronyms:thename ofaletterisusedtoindexanominalstartingwiththatletter(Brown 1989:178-182):
(2) LaTam,merjilekicmu.=Taimerjilekicmu. Tomismarriedtothedoctor.=‘Tee’ismarriedtothedoctor.
Insomeways,theLoglansystemisunderspecified;forexample, whereanominalisembeddedwithinanothernominal,dotheycount asoneortwonominals-andiftwo,whichcomesfirst?Moreover, countingreferentswheneveronewishestoanaphoriseanexpression becomesquicklycumbersome.Andalthoughsomenaturallanguagesdo havesomethingapproximatingreferentselectionbyproximity(switch reference,ortheuseofproximalanddistaldemonstrativesas anaphora),asysteminvolvingsuchexplicitreferentcountingis decidedlyunnatural.Infact,onecanargueitviolateslanguage universals,sinceitiscontextsensitive.
3.2.TheLojbanPronominalSystem
Asanoutcomeofcontroversyoverthelanguagedesignbeinginthe publicdomain,Lojbandesignhastendedtobemoreratherthanless fullyspecified.Moreover,inlinewiththepremisethatLojbanshould notimposemetaphysicalconstraintsonthought(asatestbedforthe
6 Attheendofthesecondsentence, di isthefirstavailableanaphor,andrefersback tothefirstavailablenominalnotalreadyanaphorised, laPit Pete;thus, do refersto thesecondsuchnominal, laDjan ‘John’. 144 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Sapir-Whorfhypothesis),ithastendedtobeinclusiveoflinguistic features,ratherthanexclusive. TheacronymsystemofLoglanisretainedbyLojban(Cowan 1997:420).TheotherLoglananaphorsystemusesasetofanaphors withpermanentreferenceassignedbyposition;Lojbansplitsthisset intotwonewsets,onewithpermanentreference,andoneassignedby position,butwithtemporaryreference. Thepermanentreferenceanaphora, ko’a,ko’e,ko’i,ko’o,ko’u ,are assignedexplicitlytotheirreferentsbybeinglinkedwiththeparticle goi,whichmightbeglossedas‘hereafter’(Cowan1997:150-151).Both acronymsandpermanentanaphoramaybeobservedinthefollowing:
(3) .uu.ue.ilogugrxarxentinaigoikoai.ibaapeilokoai turnij baxrutileseldejni.idostidima tyj.
(Pity!Wonder!)Argentinai,hereafterXi.DoyouexpectthatXi’s rulersj willreturnthedebt?Whatwouldyousuggesttorj ?(http:// groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu/message/388;‘xod’,2001-12-22)
Thisstrategyobviatescountingreferentsinordertoassigna permanentanaphor;butinturnitforcestheassignmenttobe foreplanned:thelanguageuserneedstoidentifyareferentlikelytobe talkedaboutfrequently,andassignako’V anaphortoit.Evenifdone asanafterthought(.iba’ape’olologugrxarxentina goiko’a turni),the assignmentitselfishighlymarked. Thepositional,temporaryanaphorsinLojbanaretheset ri,ra,ru. Ofthese, ri referstotheimmediatelyprecedingnominal,countingby thestartofthenominalphrase.(Anembeddednominalisconsidered asfollowingthenominalphraseitisembeddedin.)Ontheotherhand, ra and ru index‘recentlyused’and‘usedlongago’nominals.Unlike ri,theirscopeisleftdeliberatelyvague; ra caninfactrefertothe immediatelyprecedingnominal,unless ri hasalreadybeenused. (Cowan1997:152-154).Thus,theLoglantextin(1)wouldberendered asfollowsinLojban: NickNicholas 145
(4) ladjan k .puvecnutaj leninmui .irii dundara j lapit..iru k spebi’ora i. 7 Johnk soldthatj tothewomani .Xi gavePeteYj .Wk marriedXi.
TheLojbansystemiscertainlyricherthanthatofLoglan;its‘vague referent’anaphors, ra and ru,aremuchclosertonormalnatural languageanaphors,whilethescopeoftheproximalanaphor ri iswell defined,andthepermanentanaphors,intendedforreferentspersistent indiscourse,arenolongercontingentontheordertheyhavebeen expressedin. Nevertheless,therehasbeenwidespreaddissatisfactionwiththe Lojbananaphorparadigm.Infact,thoughinitiallydeprecated,8 acronymshavebeentakenupagaininLojban,inordertocompensate forthedifficultyinusingboththe ko’V andthe rV series.9 The
7 TheliteralequivalentoftheLoglan dopamerceada,namely.iruspebiori,would haveJohnmarryinghimself,since ri referstothenominalimmediatelyprecedingit withoutexceptioninthisinstance, ru=ladjan John. 8 Intheinitial22draftlessonsforthelanguage,writtenaround1990(http:// www.lojban.org/files/roadmap.html#draft-textbook), ko’a ismentionedatLesson1.3, and ri atLesson21.5;acronymsarepromised,butneveractuallymentioned. LeChevaliernotedin1993(http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9312/msg00227.html; 19931017)that:
WhileLojbansupportsit,fewLojbanistsmakeuseof lerfu (letter name)wordsas sumti anaphora(back-referencingpronouns);itiscoming tobeheavilyusedinTLILoglan,sincetheyhaverealizedtheweakness oftheirotherformofanaphora,whichistheequivalentofour ri/ra (but with5memberstotheset,allstrictlycounted).
9 Nowwehavere-realized,asJCB[JamesCookeBrown]did,thatlerfu[letters]as anaphoramaybemoresuitable:http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9412/msg00321.html; BobLeChevalier,1994122.Seealso,ontheLojbanWiki,MarkShoulsonspolemic 146 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban difficultywith ko’V -theneedtoforeplantheiruse-hasalreadybeen mentioned.Thedifficultywith ri isthatthestrictbackwardscounting ofreferentscanyieldcounterintuitiveresults.Inparticular,itrefersto aprecedingembeddednominal,ratherthantheprecedingembedding nominal-whichismoresalient,beinganargumentofaclause:
(5) .imiviska{le{ladjim} i patfu}j .irii gleki. IseeJimisfatherj .Hei ishappy.
Thedifficultywith ra and ru,ontheotherhand,isproperlynot linguisticatall(since ra istheclosestLojbanhastonaturallanguage anaphorslike he),butideological:Lojbanhasalotinvestedinbeing anunambiguouslanguage,soLojbanistsprefertheiranaphoratobe unambiguousinreference(seequotationsattheendofthepaper).This attitudeisanaberrationinhumanlanguage,givenhowtolerantof ambiguitynaturallanguageanaphoraare;andthataberrationisaresult ofthepeculiarmakeupofthecommunity,andtheirexpectationsofthe language.AsJohnCowanhasnotedtomeprivately,
Theydon’tlikeit[ra]becausetheyarecomputerniks...who areobsessedwithoverprecision.OrinAnd[Rosta]’scase,a formallinguist,whoisacomputernikmanque.
ThefollowingtableshowstheuseofanaphorsinLojbanacross time:10
page,http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?lerfu%20pro-sumti%2C%20and%20why% 20ko%27a%20sucksaverycogentarticulationoffolkfunctionalistthinking. 10 LL92-93:Lojbanmailinglist,1992-6-30to1993-09-03. LL95:Lojbanmailinglist, 1995. jbosnu:Lojbanlanguageonlymailinglist(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ jbosnu,20002001). Alice:ongoingcollaborativetranslationof AliceinWonderland (http://www.digitalkingdom.org/cvsweb/lojban/translations/alice/). IRC:InternetRelay Chatlogs,#lojban(http://www.miranda.org/~jkominek/lojban/;2001-03-28to 2001-11-28). NickNicholas 147 148 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Table1.AnaphorUsageinLojban LL92-93 LL95 jbosnu Alice IRC ri 49 173 23 17 45 ra 25 58 7 16 26 ru 2 1 0 0 0 ko’a 164 453 75 28 72 ko’e 34 132 6 5 9 acronyms 1 261 82 900 139
InGivo?ianterms(e.g.Givó1983), ko’a anaphorsareintendedfor referentsmarkedforhighpersistence,and ri/ra forreferentsmarkedfor highlocality.Itseemsthatthissplitinanaphors,alientothe substratumlanguages,hasbeenlargelyrejectedbythelanguage community,andacronyms,asanaphorsallowingbothtypesofreferent, havebeenadoptedasthepreferredstrategy.Indeed,prominent Lojbanistsareontherecordasrejectingboth,infavourofacronyms:
IthinkallcountinganaphorainLojbanareunusable.Idont thinkIamabletoworkoutonthefly(inthespokenlanguage) which selbri [predicate]or sumti [argument]issupposedtobe referredtobyanyofthecountingorplaceanaphora.Ido reflexiveswith sevzi [‘self’]andonlyuse lerfu [acronym] pronouns(JorgeLlambías,http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php? Why%20the%20Book%20is%20Right%20and%20the%20ma%27 oste%20is%20Wrong)
Justlikewecanuseanystringof lerfu asako’a -style sumti variable(whichmakesmethinkthatthere’spracticallynoreason evertousethe ko’a seriesatall)(MarkShoulson,http://nuzban. wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Type%204%20fu%27ivla). NickNicholas 149
However,moreimportantforourpurposesisthecontinuinguseof ri.Lojbanhasavailablein ri aproximalanaphor,whichasLojban anaphorsgoisphonologicallyunmarked,andwhichisquitefreeto referbacktoimmediatelyprecedingnonanaphoricnominals-withthe onlyprovisothatthenounphrasebecompleted. 11 Thus,thefollowing phrasesareacceptableinLojban:
(6) a. .iledatni i ze’estali.iji’arii ka’enaicanci.
Thedatai staysremainsthereconstantly.Also,it i cannot disappear.(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu/message/6; ‘xod’,2000-1-25)
b. isalcifarona’ebolemlatui alerii speni. Everyonecelebrates,otherthanthecati anditsi mate.(http:// groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu/message/149;JorgeLlamb?ias 2000-10-10)
c. ixudoxusraledu’uletolkricii cusedimnalenurii krici leduurii nazasti.
Areyousayingthedisbelieveri isdoomedtoØi believeshei doesnotexist?(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbosnu/message /154;JorgeLlamb?ias2000-10-29)
d. letoknui rii lumci. Theoveni cleansitselfi .(http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9505/ msg00067.html;DylanThurston1995-5-15)
e. iladaosi .cuseltrurii. TheTaoi isruledbyitselfi.(http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/ 9512/msg00169.html;JorgeLlambi?as1995-12)
Examples(6d)and(6e)inparticularshowthatLojbanalreadyhas ananaphorwhich(ifnoothernominalsintervenebetweenitandthe
11 Sincearelativeclauseisconsideredpartofitsheadnominal,forexample, ri within arelativeclausecannotrefertotheheadofthatclause(Turner&Nicholas2001 Chapter9). 150 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
‘subject’)canserveasareflexive.Thequestionthenbecomes,what happenswhenanexplicitreflexiveisintroducedintotheLojban paradigm.
3.3.TheLojbanReflexive
Lojbanhastwostrategiesdedicatedexplicitlytoexpressing reflexives.Thefirstinvolvesthepredicate sevzi ‘self’(inaffixform, -sez- or -se’i-):
(7) a. lu«ko’apritujezunle»li’usesmuniledu’ugeko’apritugi ko’azunlekeinoisevzinatfe. ‘Left-and-right’meansthatbothXistotherightandXisto theleft,whichisacontradiction(“negatesself”).(http:// nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9208/msg00096.html;IainAlexander 1992-08) b. inycatlulamelnaknoiza’osezlu’ini’alefarludjacuku’o. NlooksatMelnak,whowasheshimself(“self-washes”)too longundertheshower.(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/ message/3495;JorgeLlamb?ias2000-7-9)
Thisstrategyisproperlylexicalratherthananaphoric,andisnot restrictedtoreflexivisation.12 Creatinganewlexicalcompoundtobring aboutreflexivisationisfelttobeoverkillforavarietyofreasons(see discussioninhttp://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9505/msg00067.html);so thisstrategyisdeprecated,andisnotproperlyincompetitionwithri asareflexive. Ontheotherhand,theanaphorsintheseries vo’a,vo’e,vo’i,vo’o, vo’u (Cowan1997:158-159),indexingthefirst,second,third,andsoon placeofthepredicate,areostensiblymeantasreflexives-specificaly
12 Forexample,JorgeLlambíasuses lesevzimukti inhttp://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/ 9504/msg00044.htmltomeanownmotivesorselfishmotives. NickNicholas 151 vo’a ,whichindexesthefirstplaceofthepredicate,andisthus equivalenttothenormalnaturallanguagereflexive,indexingthe subject.Thus,thefollowingexpressionsarepossibleinLojban:
(8) a. mii lumcivo’a i .
I i washmyself i. b. mii dundalecuktavo’a i . I i givemyselfi thebook.
c. .ifintifalacevnii loiremnagoifo’aneta’iletarmibevo’a i. Godi createdMan(hereafterY)inHis i ownimage.(http:// nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9201/msg00052.html;MarkShoulson 1992-1-22)
Vo’a isalsousedinthereciprocalconstruction soiXY,meaning thatthecurrentpredicateisstillvalidif X and Y areswapped.The constructionusuallyappearsas soivo’a ,wherethesecondargumentis elliptedifunderstoodtobethenominalnextto soiX.Thus,(9a)and (9b)areequivalent:
(9) a. mii pramido j soivo’a i vo’e j. Iloveyouandviceversa.(=swap I and you)
b. mii pramidosoivo’a i . Iloveyouandviceversa;weloveeachother.
Unlike ri, vo’a asareflexivecanindexanaphoricsubjects(8a),and isnotrestrictedtocaseswhereitisthefirstnominalafterthesubject (8b).Moreover,itresemblesnaturallanguagereflexivesinthatitis specificallymarkedforreflexivity-unlike ri,whichisanallpurpose anaphor(beingmarkedinsteadfordiscourseproximity.)Ostensibly, thismeansthatLojbanistsshouldprefer vo’a asareflexiveover ri, bothbecauseitmorestronglyresemblesthesubstratummodel(natural language,particularlyEnglishreflexives),andbecauseitismore flexiblethan ri inwhatitmayindex. 152 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Thedifficultieswith vo’a beginwhenitisusedinaclauseembedded withinanotherclause.Thisintroducesanambiguitythatneedstoberesolved: does vo’a indexthefirstplaceoftheembeddedclause,orofthematrix clause?Innaturallanguage,theanswerisclear:themajorityofreflexives intheworld’slanguages(includingEnglish)areshortdistance,sothatthey indexsubjectsinthesameclauseasthereflexiveitself(10a).Longdistance reflexives,whichcanindexthesubjectofthematrixclauseaswellasthe localclause(Cole,Hermon&Huang2001),aretypologicallyunusual;the languagestheyappearinincludeChinese,Kannada,Dutch,andIcelandic (10b),butnoneofthelanguageswhichmightreasonablybeconsidered ‘substrata’toLojban-notEnglish,norRussian,Bulgarian,Spanish,Hebrew, Greek,andtheothersecondlanguagesofprominentLojbanists.
(10) a.Johni saysthatMaryj lovesherselfj /*himself i.
b.Jóni segiraMariaj elskarsig i/j.
Thisambiguityhasbeenreflectedintheuncertaintyinthedefinition ofvo’aonthepartofthelanguageplanners-moreso,asitturnsout,than inthelanguagecommunityitself.Initially, vo’a couldbeindexedtoa particularclause,usingLojban’srepertoireofclausalanaphora.Thus,one couldspeakof vo’apediu,thefirstargumentoftheprecedingsentence’s predicate,asdistinctfrom vo’apedei,thefirstargumentofthecurrent sentence’spredicate.Bydefault, vo’a referredtotheprecedingsentence. However,thisindexingdidnothingtoresolvetheambiguity betweenshortdistanceandlongdistancereflexive,since vo’a (atthe time)couldbeanchoredonlytosentences,andnottoclauseswithin sentences.13 Infact,byindexingnominalsinprecedingsentences, vo’a
13 Beforesentenceanchoringwasintroduced, vo’a wasprefixedtopredicateanaphors ratherthansententialanaphors.Thiswouldhaveallowedalocal/matrixdistinction (vo’afui:subjectofmatrixpredicate; vo’afai:subjectoflocalpredicate.)Thisfacility waseliminatedbeforethelanguagewaspublished.(http://nuzban.wiw.org /archive/9407/msg00035.html;BobLeChevalier1994:713),sothelanguage communityneverbecameawareofit. NickNicholas 153 wasnotbehavingasareflexiveatall,butmorelikealogophor. Whenthislogophoricusewassupplantedbythenominalisationof predicateanaphors(lego’i ‘the[firstargumentofthe]preceding sentence’spredicate’),thereciprocaluseoftheanaphormadethemain languageplanner,LeChevalier,decideonlongdistancereference:
Onemajorpurposeof‘vo’a ’isforexplicitlydealingwith ‘andviceversa’whichhasaspecialmetalinguisticsyntax (soivo’evo’a ).ItreallyWASintendedtobounceyououttothe main bridi [predicate],becauseIdidn’tconceiveoftheneedto refertoother sumti [arguments]atthesubordinatelevel. (http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9407/msg00035.html; BobLeChevalier1994-7-13)
Theconflationofreflexivesandreciprocalsintothesameanaphor, andthelanguageplanner’sfolkfunctionalistjudgementthatreciprocals werefarlikeliertohavematrixreferentsthanlocalreferents,madehim decidetogive vo’a longdistanceratherthanshortdistancereference. Thedefinitionof vo’a wasalreadyestablishedinOctober1988,with thefirstpublishedwordlistforthelanguage:
Incounting sumti for vo’a seriesanaphora,youareconcerned onlywiththe sumti (andnotmodal/tenseoperators)ofthemain bridi ofanutterance,astheyareformallydefined....For vo’a, thiscountinggoesregardlessofwhetherthenature(sic),andnot withsubordinate bridi thatarefoundwithin sumti. Vo’a series anaphoraaremostusefulinreflexiveconstructions,andin subordinateclausesthatreference sumti ofthemainclause.
vo’a VOhA he/she/it;pro-sumti representingthe1st sumti ofabridi;defaultstothemain bridi ofthisutterance. (http://www.lojban.org/files/history/CMAV1088.ZIP) 154 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Thecurrentversionofthewordlist(notgreatlymodifiedsince 1991)retainsthisdefinition:
vo’a pro-sumti [pronominal]:repeats1stplaceofmain bridi [predicate]ofthissentence(http://www.lojban.org/files/ wordlists/CMAVO)
SinceworkonLojbanproperonlybeganin1987, vo’a hasinfact beendefinedaslongdistancesincethelanguagewaspublished. Moreover,theflexibilityofassigning vo’a todifferentclauseshasnot persistedinthelanguage;ofthe112instancesof vo’a usedinLojban textontheLojbanmailinglistfrom1989to1998,onlyfiveinstances arelogophoric:threeearlyinstances(JimCarter1990,BobLeChevalier 1991,IvanDerzhanski1992),andtwoinstancesproducedbya beginner,andimmediatelycorrected(ScottBrickner1996). However,thereisaclashinauthoritybetweenthewordlistsand theReferenceGrammar,whichisintendedtobethedefinitive prescriptionforthelanguage.Inthelatter,Cowan(1997:158)describes vo’a asfollows:
The cmavo [functionwords]ofthe vo’a -seriesarepro-sumti anaphora,likethoseofthe ri-series,buthaveaspecificfunction. These cmavo refertotheotherplacesofthesame bridi [predicate];thefiveofthemrepresentuptofiveplaces.
Bybinding vo’a tothepredicate(i.e.theclause),ratherthan(the matrixclauseof)thesentence,Cowandefines vo’a asashortdistance reflexive.Whentheissuecameupfordiscussionin2001,John Cowan14 defendedhispositionvigorously:
14 CowanisvicepresidentoftheLogicalLanguageGroup,andhasdonethebulkof theworkonLojbangrammarsince1990.Hecanthusbeconsideredalanguage plannerforLojbanalmostasmuchascanLeChevalier.NotethatCowancameto thelanguageafterLeChevalierhaddecided vo’a shouldbelongdistance. NickNicholas 155
Thispageispolemical,andiswrittenbyJohnCowan
IMAO15 the cmavo listdefinitionsof vo’a etc.asreferringto thesumtiofthe main bridi,ratherthanthe current bridi (asthe referencegrammarhasit)isbogus.Reflexivesarenormaland useful.Long-distanceanaphoraarereallynot.
Inparticular,applying vo’V withthenarrowestpossible scope,evenwithindescriptions,allowsthecreationof reflexive selbri.Forexample,a“self-lover”wouldbe lepramibevo’a. Thiscannotbedonewiththecurrentunderstandingof vo'a. (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Why%20the%20Book%20 is%20Right%20and%20the%20ma%27oste%20is%20Wrong)
Withhisnonfolkknowledgeoflinguistics,hisunderstandingof vo’a asprimarilyareflexiveratherthanareciprocal,andthehighregard inwhichhisgrammarisheld,itseemsstrangethatthereshouldbeany questionthatCowanisright.However,thedatashowsotherwise.
4.TheData
Thefollowingcorporahavebeenexaminedforinstancesof vo’a : theoldLojbanmailinglist(1989-1998);thenewLojbanmailinglist (1998-2001-MichaelHelsem’sextensiveshortstory, lapoipelxuku’o trajynobli ‘theYellowKing’,isdealtwithseparately);the jbosnu list (2000-2001);theIRClogs(2001);and Alice (2001)(onthese,see above.)Repetitions,quotations,metadiscussions,andsentences generatedbycomputerhavebeeneliminated. Instancesof vo’a areseparatedintoargumentsofnominalsandof clauses.Thesecorrespondtonaturallanguagepossessiveandobject
15 Inmyarrogantopinion. 156 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban reflexives.AsCowanhasstated,takentoitslogicalextremeshort scope vo’a withinanominalshouldrefertotheheadofthenominal (sinceLojbanrecognisesnosyntacticdistinctionbetweennominal predicatesandclausalpredicates.)Thiswouldallowtheparallel constructions:
(11) a. lafredi .catravo’a i. Fredi killshimselfi . b.lecatrabevo’a.
thekilleri ofhimselfi ;thesuicide.
somethingCowanfindshighlydesirable.However,apartfromone postingin1994proposingthisturnofphrase(http://nuzban.wiw.org/ archive/9407/msg00031.html,JorgeLlambías),therehasbeennosuch usageinLojban: vo’a embeddedwithinnominalsalwayshasits referenceoutsidethenominal,asin(11c).
c. za’aleprenrkore’aicukatna.oiro’odaivimculejipnobele
degjibevo’a i .
TheKoreani,asIsaw,cutoff(ouch!)thetipofhisi finger. (http://www.miranda.org/~jkominek/lojban/log-2001.11.09.txt; ArntRichardJohansen)
Thereferentsof vo’a areclassedaslogophoric(whenthereferent isoutsidethesentence), longdistance (whenthereferentisoutsidethe immediateclause), matrixshortdistance (whenthereferentisinthe sameclause,whichisalsothematrixclauseofthesentence-sothat longdistancereferenceisimpossible), markedshortdistance (whenthe referentisinthesameclause,whichisembeddedwithinanother clause-sothatlongdistancereferenceispossible),and ambiguous betweenlongandshortdistancereference. Theresultsareasfollows: NickNicholas 157
Table2.Functionsof vo’a inLojban OldList NewList pelxu jbosnu IRC Alice Total Clausal 73 53 23 11 15 5 180 Nominal 39 21 5 8 5 5 83 Reflexive 105 70 28 18 20 20 251 Reciprocal 7 4 0 1 0 0 12 Total 112 74 28 19 20 10 263
Table3.Scopeof vo’a inLojban OldList NewList pelxu jbosnu IRC Alice Total Logoph. 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Long. 23 35 20 9 10 8 105 Matrix 68 29 6 7 10 1 121 Short Marked 6 5 0 2 0 1 14 Short Ambig. 7 4 2 1 0 0 14 Other 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 Total 112 74 28 19 20 10 263
Although soivo’a isreportedbyLojbaniststobeaquitefixed collocation(onwhichmorelater),thereciprocalhasnotbeenwidely used:itconstitutesonetwentiethofallusagesof vo’a .16 Soalthough LeChevalieranticipatedthereciprocaltobeamajorusageof vo’a ,and indeedsteereditssemanticsaccordingtothatperception,thisisnot borneoutinusage. Themoreinterestingresultsforourpurposesarethescopeof vo’a asananaphor.
16 TherationofreflexivestoreciprocalsinEnglishiscloserto1:1000(usingnumber ofinstancesintheBritishNationalCorpusfor eachother,eachother, and one anotherversushimself,herself,itself,themselves,oneself: http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac. uk/.) 158 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Clearlythevastmajorityofusageof vo’a holdswithLeChevalier’s prescription,ratherthanCowan’s.TheinstancesinwhichLojbanists, giventheoption,choosealongdistanceratherthanshortdistance interpretationfor vo’a havebeennumeroussincetheoutset,andhave actuallyincreasedwithtime.Cowan’sprescription,despitecomingin amuchfullerdescriptionofthelanguagethantheoldwordlists,has hadnoeffectonusage.Onecouldarguethatthisisaresultof Lojbanistsnotchangingtheusagetheyacquiredpre-1997.Yet, althoughseveralprominentLojbanistshavebeenactivesincebeforethe publicationofthereferencegrammar(JorgeLlambíasandMichael Helsembeingthemostnotable),asizeablenumberhascometothe languageonlyafterwards.(JayKominek,whosedefenceoflong distancescopeisgivenbelow,isanexample.)AndLojbanistscannot besaidtohaveslavishadherencetopastusage,particularlyasmuch ofitpredatesimportantlanguagereformsundertakenintheearly’90s.
Table4.Scopeofclausal vo’a inLojban OldList NewList pelxu jbosnu IRC Alice Total Logoph. 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Long. 21 32 19 7 9 4 92 Matrix 37 5 3 2 6 0 53 Short Marked 4 4 0 2 0 1 11 Short Ambig. 3 3 1 0 0 0 7 Other 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 Total 73 53 23 11 15 5 188
Theproportionoflongscopeusageisevengreateramongclausal reflexives.OnecanarguethatinLojban,sincethereisnointrinsic differencebetweenthepredicateinanominalandinaclause,and reflexivenominalreflexiveslike(11b)areunused,allnominalreflexive useof vo’a shouldalreadycountaslongdistance.Ifthecountsare NickNicholas 159 restrictedtoclausalreflexives,thefollowingresultsobtain: Whattheseresultsshowisthatnotonlyislongdistanceusage entrenchedinLojban,butLojbanistsinfactgooutoftheirwaytouse vo’a asalongdistancereflexive-itisusedalmosttwiceasoftenin embeddedasinmatrixclauses. Theinstanceswhereanexplicitlyshortdistancescopeischosen overlongdistancearethemselvesrevealing.Whiletheyhavenotbeen frequentenoughtoestablishaclearpattern,onecanseefunctional motivationsfortheviolationofacceptedusageinsomeofthem.In (12a),forinstance,theembeddedclauseisitselfthesubjectofthe matrixclause;thereflexivereferringtotheclausecontainingitwould beunnaturallyrecursive,sothelongdistancereading(vo’a j)isrejected infavourofshortdistance(vo’a i):
(12) a. {lenulagraf. i noivipsicmagu’etrucucasnuvo’a i lejeiloi na’egunkajdinicudundaloipusoncikeikei}j curinkalenu lecmagu’edinsrocusorcunoda.
{Thefactthatvice-governorGrafi discussedwithhimselfi whetherunemploymentbenefitsweregiventoveterans}j causedthestatetreasurytobeempty.(http://nuzban.wiw.org/ archive/9203/msg00034.html;MarkShoulson1992-3-8) In(12b),ontheotherhand,theculpritisclearlythereciprocal construction.ContrarytoLeChevalier’sguess,thereisstrongpressurefor reciprocalstohaveshortdistancereference:reciprocalityisapparently likelierwithinapredicate(IseeGreekskissTurksandTurks,Greeks)than acrossapredicateboundary(IseeGreekskissTurks,andGreeksseeme kissTurks),andthereferentof vo’a hasbeenchosenaccordingly:
b. .ipi’oloveltivnikumij zganalenuloxesprei loprenrturkie cucinbasoivo’a i.
OntelevisionIj seeGreeksi andTurkskisseachotheri.(http: //groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/1190;RobinTurner 1999-8-25) 160 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
In(12c),finally,theshortscopeinterpretationmayhavebeen choseneitherbecausethelongdistanceinterpretationwouldindexthe firstpersonpronoun(whichwouldbemarked,since milumcimi is perfectlyacceptableinLojbanfor‘Iwashmyself’),orasanattempt atemphasis,calquingEnglish(‘hisowncountry’):
c. .ije’umij nazanrulenulosezajbrnatleta i cugubgauleicfila belececmujditaibelevo’a i jecta.
Honestly,Ij don'tseewhyanathletei shouldshowoffthe disadvantagesofthesocialpolicyofhisi country.(http:// nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9201/msg00062.html;NickNicholas 1992-1-16)
5.Discussion
Comparedto‘normal’languages,Lojbanists’decisiontochoosea longdistancescopefortheirreflexive--indeed,topreferitinlong distancecontexts--seemsperverse.ButLojbanisnotanormal language.Inparticular,itsanaphoricparadigmisnotnormal;andinthe beststructuralisttradition,thesemanticsof vo’a hasbeendetermined paradigmatically,contrastedwiththenonreflexivemembersofthe anaphoricparadigm.Toseehowthisworks,letusattempta functionalistcomparison. Innaturallanguage,theoppositionbetweenreflexivesandunmarked anaphorscanbecharacterisedasresultingfromtwomarkedness hierarchies.First,reflexivepredicatesaremoreinfrequent,andthus moremarked,thannonreflexives;soareflexivereferentneedstobe signalledbyamarkedanaphor,whereastheunmarkedanaphor becomesfreetoindexanynonreflexivereferent. 17 Second,unmarked
17 CompareCroft(1991:256)onthemarkednessofreflexiveandreciprocalpredicates intheirlinguisticencodingthroughvoice. NickNicholas 161 anaphorsarefreetoselectformoretopicalreferents.Referentsinthe matrixclausearemoreaccessibleforanaphoricreferencethandistinct referentsinembeddedclauses(Ariel1990).Ashortscopereferentwill thusbemoremarkedthanalongscopereferent,soitisencodedwith themoremarkedreflexiveanaphor. Suchaccountscontrastreflexiveswithunmarkedanaphors,which areunconstrainedinwhatreferenttheycanindex;theaccessibilityof referentstosuchanaphorsisprimarilyapropertyofdiscourse.Lojban hasnoexplicitanaphorsunconstrainedastotheirreferent(although zeroanaphorsinthelanguage,whichareabundantlyused,clearly followsuchapatternofaccessibility.) Ko’V anaphorshavefixed referentsassignedtotheminordertobemeaningfulatall.Acronyms arelikewisefixedtothenearestprecedingnominalstartingwiththe givenletter. Ri isfixedbyproximity; ra isonlyslightlymorefree,but isnotwidelyusedinanycase.TopicalityisthusirrelevantinLojban anaphora(althoughLojbanistscanselectwhattheythinkwillbe topical,andassign ko’V toit.) Sootherthanzeroanaphors, vo’a isnotcompetingwithanaphors unmarkedastotheirchoiceofreferent.Thechoiceofashortscope referentisnolessmarkedinLojbanthanthechoiceofalongscope referent,aproximalreferent,orapreassignedreferent(ko’V ).Sothere isnogoodcandidateanaphortotakeuptheunmarkedcase complementarytothereflexive. Ontheotherhand,theshortscopereflexive,whichtypically involvesgreaterproximitythanlongscope,alreadyhascompetitionin ri and ra.Andtheunmarkedreferentinembeddedclauses-thematrix subject,whendistinctfromtheembeddedsubjec-hasnodistinct anaphoravailabletoindexit.SinceLojbanistswanttoencodethesame kindsofreferentstheydointheirnativelanguages,itisinevitablethat thereflexivebecooptedtoindexthatunmarkedreferent,byhavinga longdistancescopeimposedonit.Thedecisionwasmadeinitiallyby thelanguageplannerLeChevalier,thoughwithadifferentstated motivation(whichasseenseemstohavebeenwrong.)Yet,byactively 162 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban associating vo’a withlongdistancecontexts,ratherthanmerelyusing vo’a regardlessofthelevelofembedding,thelanguagecommunityis seentobeconsciouslymanipulating vo’a tothatend. Lojbanistswithnospeciallinguistictraininghavearticulatedthis trainofthoughtexplicitly;thefollowingarerepresentativesamples:
I'vepersonallyhadneedtouse vo’a asdefinedbythemaoste [wordlist],andneveranyneedtodowhatTheBook[Cowan 1997]says.ButifIdid,Icoulduselenei,lesenei,etc.18 And withoutbackcounting(notapleasantprospect,unlessyoudo lenoaxiro(ugly)),19 thereisntaconvenientwaytorefertothe sumtiofthemainbridi.Andthatiswherethetopic/subjectof thesentenceisgoingtobe,andthatisgoingtobeoneofthe mostcommonlyrepeatedsumti,Isuspect.(http://nuzban.wiw. org/wiki/index.php?Why%20the%20Book%20is%20Right%20and %20the%20ma%27oste%20is%20Wrong;JayKominek)
Itseemsmorelikelytobeuseful.I,atleast,have encounteredmoreusesforthema’oste’sversion.The topic/subjectofthepredicationisgoingtobeinthemain bridi, notoneofthesubones,andsubpredicationsarefrequently goingtoneedtorefertothetopic/subject. Lenei or lesenei work
18 Nominalisationsofthecurrentpredicateanaphor:thefirstargumentofthepresent predicate’;thesecondargumentofthepresentpredicate’.Thisanaphorhasnotbeen usedmuchtodate;butLojbanistshavealreadyadvocatedusing lenei insteadof vo’a inallshortrangecontexts,eveninLojbanpaedagogy(http://groups.yahoo. com/group/lojban/message/10021,http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/10 047;RobSpeer2001-8-24,2001-8-25). 19 No’a istheanaphorofthematrixofthecurrentpredicate.Incasesofmultiple embedding, no’a issubscripted: no’axipa‘firstpredicateoutside’, no’axire ‘second predicateoutside’,uptothe(clumsy) no’axiro ‘allthpredicateoutside’,i.e.‘matrix predicateofsentence’.Thenominalisationsof no’axiro arethusthemostgeneralway ofreferringtooutermostmatrixnominals,regardlessofthedepthofembeddingof thecurrentpredicate. NickNicholas 163
inthemuchmoreunlikelycaseofneedingtoreferpartsofthe currentsub-bridi [subpredication].(http://www.miranda.org/ ~jkominek/lojban/log-2001.11.09.txt;JayKominek)
ThekindofthinkingKominekisdisplayingisrathermore linguisticallyinformedthanthetypicalcalltousedeclinableratherthan indeclinablerelativisersinBalkanlanguages,orforthatmatterthe accusativeinEsperanto.Nevertheless,Ibelieveitisnotdifferentin essence.Andwhetherwithconsciouslinguisticforethought,orthrough thetrialanderroroffindingtheycouldnotanaphorisethereferents theywantedto,Lojbanistshaveappliedfolkfunctionalismtothe anaphoraavailabletothem,givingareflexivequitedifferenttotheir substratumsystems,butwellsuitedtotheparadigmtheyhavefound inthelanguage. Moreover,theresponsestoaproposalbyNickNicholastoallow pragmaticflexibilityintheinterpretationof vo’a (asaresponsetothe actualbehaviourofLojbanistsshowninthecorpus:http://groups.yahoo. com/group/lojban/message/10005,200184)drewarevealingsetofpro- tests:
Idon'tlikethis. Vo’a wasoneofthepronounsforwhichit ispossibletoabsolutelytellwhatitsreferentis;therearen't manyothers.(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/ 10021;RobSpeer2001-8-24)
OTOH, 20 doingwhatNickproposes,andformalizingusage patternsintodocumentedconventions,willserveasexplicitand warningtestimonytothefuckupsthatarisebyleavingthingsto usagetodecide.(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/ 10042;AndRosta2001-8-25)
20 OnTheOtherHand. 164 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
Thiswasn'tlefttousageintentionally,itwasamistake.The realproblemisthat vo’a wasusuallyintendedaslong-distance whenalone,andusuallyshort-distancewhenusedwith soi.The obviousansweristomakeitlong-distancewhenthereisno soi, andshortwhenthereis.Iwanttobeabletoknowcertainly what vo’a means.(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/ 10043;xod2001-8-25)
Speer’sandxod’sresponsesshowthatLojbanists,forreasonsof linguisticideology,cherishnonambiguityinanaphorreference,andwill resistattemptstomaketheirreferentialitymore‘free’andthereforemore natural-language-like.Rosta’sresponse(particularlyinterestinginthatit comesfromaprofessionallinguist)showsthatthereisenduringmistrust inatleastpartofthelanguagecommunityforthe‘democratic’normof correctness-anattitudeconsistentwithartificiallanguages,asManders found,andtheirprescribedliterarynaturalcounterparts,thoughnotwith thestatedpolicyoftheLLGasarticulatedbyLeChevalier.21 Xod’sresponse,lastly,concernsaproblemidentifiedbymorethan oneLojbanfolkfunctionalist:reciprocalsandreflexiveshaveopposing requirementsintheirscope(see12b).Thisissuehasnotbeenfinalised, althoughitseemslikelythatuniformityofdefinitionwilloutpollfolk functionalisminthisinstance,and soivo’a willalsobecomelong scope-withtheintroductionoftheexplicitlyshort-scopeanaphor lenei servingtocounterbalancethis.
6.LanguageDesign
LojbanisnotprimarilyintendedasanIAL-notwithstanding occasionalclaimsofitssuitabilityasanIAL,madewithinthe
21 Http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9703/msg00012.html,theannouncementoftheLojban Baseline,isan excathedra articulationofthispolicy. NickNicholas 165 community.However,justasthebehaviourof vo’a revealspeoples notionsoffolkfunctionalism,thetherapythatartificiallanguageusers applytomisconfigurationsintheirlanguagesystemsingeneralreveals whatmakesforsounddesigninartificiallanguages.Alanguagewhose communityendsuppracticingtherapyonitisclearlynot well-designed:theinitiallanguagedesignshouldforestalltheneedfor anysuchtherapy.Andwhilerobustlanguagecommunities(likethose ofEsperantoandnaturallanguages)cancopewithlanguagechange,a fragilelanguagecommunitycanbefatallydamagedbyit.Thefractious historyofIALprojects,andtheendlessdisputationsthathaveplagued them,areacautionarytaletoanyonewhowouldventureintothefield withanewproject. Ostensibly,anartificiallanguageintendedtobeeasilylearnedby humans--asIALsobviouslyare--shouldconformtothenormsofwhat isnaturalinhumanlanguage.Andiftwoalternativeconstructionsturn upinhumanlanguage,theobviouschoiceforanIAListhemost typologicallydiffusedconstruction:across-linguisticallyunmarked strategywillbemorereadilyacquiredbyagreaterproportionof languagelearners,fromawiderrangeoflanguagebackgrounds.From thispointofview,itisself-evidentthatanyIALwithreflexivesshould preferashort-rangeoveralong-rangereading:shortrangereflexives predominateamongthelanguagesoftheworld.Itwouldseemperverse foranylanguagecommunitytowishotherwise,andtoseekoutalong rangereflexive,unmotivatedeitherbyfirstlanguagetransferenceorany notionoflinguistic‘naturalness’. ButthisispreciselywhathashappenedwithLojban.Thelanguage communityisindeedsomewhat‘perverse’,givenitspreoccupationwith explicitnessandunambiguity.Butasshown,thechoiceofalong distancereflexiveisverywellmotivated,bythenatureoftheparadigm withinwhichthereflexiveisused.Theinconsistencybetweenshort distancereflexivesandtheLojbananaphorsystemhasledtotherapy onthelanguageundertakenbythelanguagecommunity. Astheexampleof vo’a shows,decisionsonwhatconstitutesa 166 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban naturalordesirablefeatureforanartificiallanguagecannotbetaken inisolation;linguisticfeaturescannotsimplybeselectedsurvey-style foralanguageintendedforrealusewithinalanguagecommunity.Just asalanguagehastobetypologicallyplausibletobereadilylearnable, sotoodoesithavetobeparadigmaticallyconsistent,andlinguistically coherent.Iftwosubsystemsofthelanguagearenaturalinthemselves, butinconsistentwitheachother,thelanguagecommunitywillrejectthe combination. Muchhasbeenmadeofthe‘linguisticintuition’Zamenhof displayedindesigningEsperanto,eventhoughhewasattimesquite naivelinguistically:
AccordingtoJespersen’sdefinition[...]interlinguistics“is concernedwiththestructureandbasicconceptsofalllanguages, intendingtoestablishanormforinterlanguages”.Infact,these wordsgivetherightideaabouttheworkingmethodsof interlinguists:inanalmostmechanicalwaytheymanipulatethe grammarsandvocabulariesofethniclanguages,andfollowing rigorouslyfixed(butinsufficientlymotivated)principles,they exhaustivelycollectallelementstheybelievenecessaryforthe idealplannedlanguage,withadmirableexactitude.Inthiswork Zamenhofandhistheoriescannotbeofuse:Zamenhofwasonly slightlyinterestedinminordetails,andhislanguageoftenshows signsofneglectandinattention.Butifinterlinguistswouldstudy attentivelyZamenhof’sreasoningandhypotheticalconsiderations, theymightstopplacingsomuchvalue apriori ondetails (Manders1950:15).
EvenallowingfortheEsperantopolemic,itisclearthatEsperanto issuccessfulasacoherentlinguisticsystem.The'genius'ofEsperanto neednotbesoughtinmysticalterms;itfollowsfromthesuccessful integrationofthegrammaticalfeaturesofthelanguageintoacohesive whole.Asimilarcohesionshouldbeadesideratumofartificial NickNicholas 167 languagedesigningeneral,andlanguagetherapydemonstratestheneed forit,andtheconsequencesofignoringit. AcomplementaryinstanceoftherapyinLojbanhasbeenthe resumptionoftheformerlydeprecatedacronymanaphors.Inthis instance,thetherapycanbedescribedintermsinternaltotheanaphor paradigm:thesplitbetweenhighlocalityanaphorsandhighpersistence anaphorsisindeedunnaturalintermsofhumanlanguage,andisbeing increasinglyrejectedbyLojbanists.Whiletherewillalwaysbeaniche for ri,itisnotimpossiblethatacronymswillintimedisplace ko’V anaphors.Thisservesasareminderthatnaturalnessitselfisstill importantinlanguagedesign,particularlywhenitinvolvessuch communicativefundamentalsasreferenttracking.Sosuccessful languagedesignneedstobalancethepotentiallyconflictingimperatives oftypologicalnaturalnessandparadigmaticcoherence.
References
Ariel,M.1990. AccessingNoun-phraseAntecedents. London:Routledge. Boulton,M.1960. Zamenhof:CreatorofEsperanto. London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Brown,J.C.1960.Loglan. ScientificAmerican 202.6,5363. Brown,J.C.1989. Loglan1:ALogicalLanguage. Gainesville,FL:The LoglanInstitute,4thEd. Buchholz,O.&WFiedler.1987. AlbanischeGrammatik. Leipzig:VEB VerlagEnzyklopa¨die. Cole,P.,G.Hermon,&C.Huang.2001. SyntaxandSemantics33: Long-distanceReflexives.SanDiego:AcademicPress. Cowan,J.W.1997. TheCompleteLojbanLanguage. Fairfax,VA:The LogicalLanguageGroup. Croft,W.1991. SyntacticCategoriesandGrammaticalElations:The CognitiveOrganizationofInformation. Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press. Croft,W.2000. ExplainingLanguageChange:AnEvolutionaryApproach. 168 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban
LongmanLinguisticsLibrary.NewYork:Longman. Darnell,M.etal.1998. StudiesinLanguageCompanionSeries41: FunctionalismandFormalisminLinguistics.Amsterdam:J.Benjamins. Gallis,A.1956. TheSyntaxofRelativeClausesinSerbo-CroatianViewedon aHistoricalBasis.Oslo:Aschehoug. Givo?n,T.1983.TopicContinuityinDiscourse:AnIntroduction.InT.Givo?n (ed.), TopicContinuityinDiscourse:AQuantitativeCross-languageStudy 1-42. Gola쨒b,Z.&V.A.Friedman.1972.TheRelativeClauseinSlavic.InP.M. Peranteau,J.N.Levi&G.C.Phares(eds), TheChicagoWhichHunt: PapersfromtheRelativeClauseFestival 30-46. Hage?ge,C.1993. CurrentIssuesinLinguisticTheory94:TheLanguage Builder.Amsterdam:J.Benjamins. Householder,F.W.,K.Kazazis,&A.Koutsoudas.1964. ReferenceGrammar ofLiteraryDhimotiki. Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversity. Jahr,E.H.1989.LanguagePlanningandLanguageChange.InL.E.Breivik &E.H.Jahr(eds.), LanguageChange:ContributionstotheStudyofits Causes 99-113. Kalocsay,K.&G.Waringhien.1980. PlenaAnalizaGramatikodeEsperanto. Rotterdam:UniversalaEsperanto-Asocio,4thEd. CaptainKrankor.1992.FromtheGrammarian’sDesk. HolQeD 1.3,4-6. Manders,W.1950. InterlingvistikokajEsperantologio. Purmerend, Netherlands:J.Muusses. Papazafiri,I.1994. LathistiKhrisitisGlossasMas. Athens:Smili,9thEd. Scott,J.E.1985).VividLanguageandLanguageChange.InA.Ahlqvist(ed.), Papersfromthe5thInternationalConferenceonHistoricalLinguistics, AmsterdamStudiesintheTheoryandHistoryofLinguisticScience 21, 304-315. Shoulson,M.1995.Interview:Okrandon -bogh andMore. HolQeD 4.2,5-6. Turner,R.&N.Nicholas.2001. LojbanforBeginners. AvailableatURA