LINGUIST List 14.1022

Sun Apr 6 2003

Review: Pragmatics: Gelber (2002) Gelber Katharine

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

FUND DRIVE 2003

To give you an incentive to donate, many of our Supporting Publishers have generously donated some amazing linguistic prizes. As a donor you are automatically entered into this prize draw. To find out what's on offer and the rules etc., visit:

http://linguistlist.org/prizedraw.html

As of 1pm, 04/02/03, we only have $18,854.59 to go.

Target: $50,000 Total Raised: $31,145.41 Number of Donors: 650 Percentage of Subscribers Donated: 3.82%

Please consider making a $5 donation at:

http://linguistlist.org/donation.html

The LINGUIST List depends on the generous contributions from subscribers like you; we would not be able to operate without your help.

The moderators, staff, and student editors at LINGUIST would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continuous support.

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Simin Karimi at siminlinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Svetlana Kurtes, Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate

    Message 1: Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate

     Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 17:43:22 +0000
    From: Svetlana Kurtes <sk253yahoo.com>
    Subject: Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate


    Gelber, Katharine (2002) Speaking Back: The Free Speech Versus Hate Speech Debate, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 1.

    Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-2414.html

    Svetlana Kurtes, Language Centre, University of Cambridge, UK

    SYNOPSIS

    This monograph elaborates on the concept of hate speech, examining more closely an existing hate speech policy in practice in New South Wales, Australia over a period of ten years. Katharine Gelber (henceforth: the author) proposes a policy of 'speaking back', ''providing institutional, material and educational support to enable the victims of hate speech to respond'' (p. xiii).

    The book comprises an introduction and six chapters: 1) The problem: an example of racial anti-vilification laws in practice, 1989-1998; 2) Expanding speech liberties: a capabilities approach; 3) Speech as conduct; 4) Hate speech as harmful conduct: the phenomenology of hate speech acts; 5) Australia, the UK and the USA compared; 6) A policy of speaking back.

    There are two appendices: a) A summary of cases referred to in the book and derived from an empirical study into the operation of the NSW racial anti-vilification statute, 1989-1998;

    b) An outline of racial anti-vilification laws in Australian states, other than New South Wales, and federally as at 2001. The book also includes notes and references.

    The author defines the concept of hate speech, or vilification, as ''speech which is particularly harmful because it contributes to a climate of hatred and violence towards marginalised and disempowered sectors of the community'' (p. 1), violating ''the basic human dignity of its victims'' (ibid.).

    In Chapter 1 the author introduces the problem of hate speech within the framework of New South Wales (henceforth: NSW) legislation, more precisely a racial anti-vilification law enacted in 1989. All vilification in this context is treated as a public act (p. 19), which ''occurs via a medium in which it is possible for greater, rather than lesser, number of people to have heard the utterance'' (ibid.). Three empirical problems are presented, focusing on the issues of understanding the framework of the legislation, its application and finding an acceptable definition of hate speech in the legal context.

    Chapter 2 expands the argument by looking into current liberal and utilitarian understandings of free speech and the speech liberties. The author advocates a broader conception of the notions, which includes ''a consideration of what the exercise of, or ability to exercise, the speech liberty might be capable of doing in and for people's lives'' (p. 5). In particular, major concepts of capability theory are made use of. In essence an Aristotelian theory of ethics, capability theory was elaborated further by Nussbaum (1990), reviving Aristotle's concept of the 'excellent lawgiver', ''whose job is to ensure that every individual is able to enjoy and engage in activities conductive to human flourishing''(p. 39).

    Theoretical considerations are further broadened in Chapter 3. The author examines speech act theory, suggesting that speech is to be understood as a kind of conduct (pp. 6, 49ff). Austin's (1975) distinction between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts are re-examined and combined with elements of Habermas' (1984) theory of communicative action, namely the validity claims, ''the rules by which agreement may be reached on the meaning of a communication, the claims raised by a speaker in communicative action'' (p. 7). The author further maintains that a validity claims model provides a framework within which it is possible to identify hate speech acts.

    Chapter 4 provides a phenomenology of hate speech acts, which are defined as ''an utterance which perpetrates, perpetuates and maintains discrimination'' (p. 69). The author then looks more closely into three examples of allegations of hate speech acts, analysing them in terms of the proposed validity claims framework from the position of a critical hearer. Another important proposition is also made in this chapter. Namely, a policy of 'speaking back' is put forward. It can, according to the author, provide hate speech victims with the opportunity to respond, minimizing at the same time other negative perlocutionary effects of hate speech.

    Although the author emphasizes that a comprehensive examination of hate speech legislation across the world is difficult if not impossible to undertake, she has devoted Chapter 5 of her book to a comparative analysis of hate speech policies in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The analysis performed shows that policy implementation in each of the observed countries still shows certain weaknesses.

    The final chapter elaborates further on the idea of 'speaking back', or a process of 'institutionalised argumentation', allowing for ''the validity claims of hate speakers to be answered, in a manner which challenges the validity claims raised'' (p. 134). This process is also seen as capable of constituting ''a discursive construction of the goal of eliminating racist discrimination'' (ibid.).

    The author concludes that a hate speech policy as proposed in the book would allow ''policy makers to consider how to enhance participation in the exercise of the speech liberty'' (p. 137), but also to reconsider ''who might, under current circumstances, be excluded from exercising the speech liberty'' (ibid.).

    EVALUATION

    The present volume is a comprehensive, thoroughly examined and well documented study on a topic that straddles several disciplines, including discourse analysis, pragmatics, communication theory, sociology, politics and law. The innovative theoretical approach adopted, deriving basic claims from Austin and Habermas and developing them further, is quite adequately deployed, thus enabling an insightful analysis of this rather complex phenomenon. Even though the author puts an emphasis on the legal, political and communicative aspects of hate speech, the results of the analysis performed are no doubt relevant to other disciplines as well, most notably discourse analysis, rhetoric, semantics, etc.

    It would certainly be very interesting to see what results this analytical model would yield if applied to a different set of parameters. What immediately springs to mind is, for example, language of the media, or public communication in general, used by countries at war. It seems that the media coverage of some of the more recent conflicts, such as those in the Balkans or in the Gulf, is definitely worth looking into again by using Gelber's analytical model. Discourse analysts, who will no doubt welcome the appearance of this volume, should certainly feel invited.

    REFERENCES

    Austin, J L 1975. How to do things with words, 2nd edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Habermas, J 1984. The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and rationalization of society, Heinemann, London.

    Nussbaum, M C 1990. ''Aristotelian social democracy''. In R Douglass and G Mara (eds), Liberalism and the good, Routledge, New York.

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    Svetlana Kurtes holds a BA in English Philology and an MA in Sociolinguistics from Belgrade University and an MPhil in Applied Linguistics from Cambridge University. She worked as a Lecturer in English at Belgrade University and is currently affiliated to Cambridge University Language Centre. Her research interests involve contrastive linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics/stylistics, translation theory and language pedagogy.