--- by JLS
------ for the GC
---- I AM ASHAMED TO ADMIT I HAVEN'T YET seen Avatar ('why?' -- meaning, why are you ashamed, rather than why haven't I seen it -- detecting some mock apologetic tone which is usually of the hateful type) but found this in today's World Wide Words thing ed. by M. Quinion:
"NUME NA'VI If you have long envied students of Klingon, you can
now startle them with your knowledge of Na'vi, the language of the
big blue aliens in Avatar: http://www.learnnavi.org/."
And I have NOT checked that either, but hey.
I wonder:
--- vocabulary of Na'vi: does it range over ALL types of predicabilia as in English, or is it narrower than English in scope? Or broader? Who was the linguistic adviser in film? (I recall a French film called "Fire!" had Anthony Burgess as advisor and was based on the idea of prehistoric man's language.
--- syntax, semantics, I don't care much, but...
--- pragmatics, yes. Are there implicatures in Na'vi? Of what type? Do they follow the co-operative principle (As Kramer said, "South Park" on earth features the tricky expression, 'on earth', as ambiguous -- seeing that South Park is an anime. In the case of Na'vi, it's not even there. I assume they DO follow the cooperative principle and even the four conversational categories: to wit: qualitas, quantitas, relatio and modus. Why, they possibly had a Stagirite among them.
If you can provide your favourite Na'vi implicature do. Recall that in Na'vi, the implicatures are in English. I.e. what follows the 'implicature' sign, +>, is NOT an utterance, but a proposition in 'so-mis-called' Mentalese (in the Na'vi thing). So, I wonder if 'some', in Na'vi, has the implicature, 'not all'. Etc.
--- When Argentine J. Campanella received the Oscar for best-foreign film this last edition of the Oscars, he remarked, with an accent, "I'm glad "Avatar" wasn't nominated for best foreign-language film, for I wouldn't be in this podium elsewise".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I like neither na'vi nor klingon as the future global language. Especially when you have to dress up for it :D
ReplyDeleteBut we also need a future international language. One which is easy to learn, as well !
And that's not English! Esperanto? Certainly yes!
If you have a moment see http://eurotalk.com/en/store/learn/esperanto or see http://lernu.net
JL -
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you start off talking about the language but end up talking about the speakers:
--- pragmatics, yes. Are there implicatures in Na'vi? Of what type? Do they follow the co-operative principle ... . I assume they DO follow the cooperative principle and even the four conversational categories: to wit: qualitas, quantitas, relatio and modus.
Languages don't have implicatures; people do.
Excellent points, Kramer -- and I'll try to learn more about Klingon (I'm ashamed to say I don't know much about it) so that I can comment on Brian Barker's points.
ReplyDeleteBut Kramer is exactly right. It's speakers. Not having seen Avatar I wouldn't know if the things (blue things) that 'do the Avatar talk' in "Avatar" do qualify as 'speakers'. I know that R2D2, in Star Wars does not -- the thing hasn't got a MOUTH!
I suppose to qualify as a speaker you need a few things. Yesterday I saw this Argentine film, "Dos Hermanos", which is breaking local records, and read the novella -- which is available in googlebooks. It is in the Argentine language. But at one point the writer writes, "And then she gave out her 'speach'". Not necessarily a 'typo', because in the Argentine lingo, 'speach' is 'speech'. But the point: to be able to be a speaker you have to be able to give the 'speech'. (Hence the idea of a Speak, say, as in "Brave New World").
Since I'm not, as a philosopher, interested in those minor aspects -- such as a mouth and a tongue, and teeth -- that linguists are interested in, I don't care for speakers and care, to irritate linguists, for utterers.
It's 'utterers' who implicate. But this is controversial. Grice has this hateful example.
A: Are you playing squash with us tonight?
B displays a bandaged leg.
--- He provides an 'utterance'. But what does the utterance 'mean' or 'implicate'? At the level of the 'utterance', it is indistinct which verb we use because 'mean' and 'implicate' are SYNONYMOUS. Grice follows his intuitions there: The utterer IMPLICATES that he won't be playing squash; NOT that he has a bandaged leg.
But surely a clumsy speaker could have said, "I have a bandaged leg", in which case he would have said that he has a bandaged leg, and he would have implicated or meant or implied not that he has a bandaged leg but that he won't be playing squash.
I expect the same holds for Na'vi. Or not (to use a Kramerianism).
I don't see the fuss about "utterance." It's a label. It doesn't need an intrinsic accuracy. Indeed, it is short in this context for "communicative behavior." Hence, CB radio, and "Ready when you are, C.B."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking in a language is just one available CB. A CB token can take any form from gesticulation to utterance to silence to body-language to semiotically charged attire. CB tokens can be piggy-backed on other behaviors (driving a flashy car, from point A to point B, for example, or the aforementioned attire). I'm not sure, really, why anyone bothers to distinguish one CB from the other.
Implicature seems to me independent of the CB mode. Rather, I see implicature as the (unspoken) parts of the syllogism entailed in most (all?) CBs:
If I have a bandaged leg, I cannot play squash tonight.
I have a bandaged leg.
Therefore, I cannot play squash tonight.
One could fine-tune this line of thought to include inferences from bandaged leg to bad leg, or from "cannot play" to "will not be playing," but the point is that only the minor premise, the bandaged leg, is made explicit by word or deed, i.e., by CB. The rest of the syllogism is already available to A, so the CB need only supply the bandaged leg and, thereby, invoke those other elements.
To what extent, then is what we call U's implicature anything more than an appeal to A's database. Where does the implicature end? Does
You need to tighten the bolt
implicate
You will need a bolt tightener to solve this problem
Or:
You will have to obtain a bolt-tightener if you don't have one. The store's are closed so you're screwed if you don't have a bolt-tightener.
It's fairly easy to ascertain where the explicit stops and the implicit begins. But where does the implicit end?
Yes, you are right. I mean, you are explicitly right. More comments anon, I hope.
ReplyDelete--- One problem here, that we may want to address under a separate thread is what Kramer calls "CB", for 'communicative behaviour'. Indeed, I will refer to this right now in a separate entry called 'vehicle for meaning' or something.
ReplyDelete