lake.scar.utoronto.caEditor for this issue: <>
lake.scar.utoronto.ca>Ellen Contini-Morava's analysis of sister Souljah's remarks seems clear well- supported. Does this kind of analysis hold up in court? Or does the law prefer to stick to a contextless, literal interpretation of speech? Ron Smyth smythMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
samsara.law.cwru.edu>I am a law teacher, not a linguist, but after reading the transcript I think it clear that the remarks by Sister Souljah were intended as a statement of the rioters' thought processes and not as an incitement to violence. Even if they were supposedly S.S.'s own thoughts, they still would not be an incitement to violence. She never said that whites or anyone else should be killed; she just said that if blacks were going to kill, then why not kill some whites for a change. One can, after all, believe that killing is wrong and still believe that the killer killed the wrong person. There is an ancient law case where the defendant lifted up his cane and said to the plaintiff, "were it not Assizes time, I would trounce you"--or words to that effect. This was held not to be an assault, because it was conditional, but it would have been an assault if the words had simply been "I'll trounce you." (The raising of the cane was also essential to the plaintiff's case--mere words without physically threatening acts can never constitute an assault.) I think this case, which is know to every first year law student, is squarely in point. Peter D. Junger Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH Internet: JUNGERMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>I am not sure whether I can stay linguistic on this question, so I will set off my admitted prejudices on the matter at the outset. Lisa Williamson (aka Sr. Souljah) has spent a certain amount of time around the Columbia Campus saying anti-lots-of-people things that were clearly not indirect discourse. Among the things that stuck in my mind, because I felt implicated, was a line like one of the problems with losing all our black men was that "lots of us have to marry faggots." I am not sympathetic with this person and question Jackson's judgment in having her address the rainbow coalition at all. I can be counted on, then, to see the worst. Here's the worst I can come up with. First of all, it seems like this question-answer exchange was not felicitious. Williamson did not answer the question; instead I think she gave a deliberately ambiguous sort of answer that was perhaps both indicative of her thinking of the gang members' view and perhaps simply empty jargon. "A week where you go out and kill white people." what week? what white people? There was no real reference to these NPs. What it was was [sic] simply buzz words. This kind of buzz word-laced meaningless is typical of political fanatic talk (among other varieties) and is precisely designed to be impossible to pin down; it is therefore impossible to argue with. Have you ever tried to argue with a Moonie or a Hare Krishna? It is the same thing, here. On the other hand I think it would make a fascinating discourse study to examine talk of cults and cult-like political groups. . . . Michael NewmanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
brownvm.brown.edu>Interviewer: But even the people themselves who were perpetrating that violence, did they think it was wise? Was that wise, reasoned action? Souljah: Yeah, it was wise. I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? You understand what I'm saying? Sr Souljah responds to the question about the logic of the rioters' actions by attempting to represent what she understands to be their attitude as explicit logical reasoning. Mr. Clinton has an opportunity to characterize her as advocating violence, perhaps, because she brackets her indirect discourse with the phrases "I mean" and "You understand what I'm saying?" If the logic in question is what Sr Souljah means and what she is saying, then she's advocating violence. But the phrases seem pretty clearly to serve as challenges to the interviewer, whom Sr Souljah might well regard as deliberately obtuse. "I mean" seems to signal an attempt to "break down" something the interviewer (and the audience whose attitudes are projected by the interviewer) will have trouble understanding. "You understand what I'm saying?" tests to see whether the explanation has had any effect. This reminds me of Marx's observation that working-class readers would find CAPITAL easy to understand, since it dealt with their own conditions, whereas bourgeois readers might never be able to understand it. I'm also reminded of Chomsky's statement in re Orwell's problem that even the clearest, best-supported analyses of political injustice will be dismissed one way or another by the vast army of paid and volunteer PR flunkies who are always active on behalf of those who can reward them. -- RickMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
compuserve.com>I think it is irresponsible to treat remarks like this as food for analysis. While I do not agree with censorship, I think that treating this racist discourse as ordinary material for study is plainly wrong and inappropriate. To do it would only open the door to analyze *all* types of racist/hate literature, thus glorifying it and giving it stature. Michael Sikillian AnnotextMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
sbchm1.chem.sunysb.edu>There is NO non-trivial linguistic content to this discussion. I protest this use of Linguist. Peace and Understanding JA Given SUNY [Moderators' response: We certainly understand your position--in fact, we had a long, troubled discussion over whether to post Contini-Morava's message in the first place. The decision turned on whether there is "linguistic content," not whether it's "non-trivial linguistic content." Our policy has been, simply, to post material which would be considered "linguistic content" to any subfield of linguistics, without trying to judge whether it might be considered trivial by some subscribers (discussions of Klingon and linguistics in titles come to mind). Questions of interpretation, especially legal interpretation, of texts such as this one are often explored in discourse analysis (we recalled, for example, a special issue of _Text_ on "Discourse, Racism, and Ideology"); and this influenced our decision to post the message. What worried us was that--unlike Klingon or linguistics in titles-- the linguistic content in this discussion was likely to become merely the vehicle for the expression of political opinion. In the end, we decided to post the message (with hortatory headnote) as an experiment. If the message generates linguistic discussion, we'll continue to post responses. If it doesn't, we'll cut off the discussion and be more cautious in the future. -Helen & Anthony]Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue