No, you all have it wrong. The candidates in the election are having a “hearing impaired girl on a pole” wrestling match, where who ever takes control of the poll can use the girl to further their own political stand point.
I never knew Vince Russo got into local elections…
No problem.
Actually, from your obvious lack of comprehension in this thread, I’m really not at all interested in what you think.
The reason IN THIS CASE that it’s important is that an individual has been punished for the mere act of using a particular language and not for what she may have been saying in that particular language.
Evidently one of those languages in which you are not fluent is written English.
Is this fighting ignorance thing too difficult?
Convince me that based on the cite in your OP that your conclusions are the only conclusions that can be drawn.
That is a conclusion I am unable to draw from the cite in your OP. It appears to me that the punishment (justified or not) is for causing a disturbance, not merely for using sign language.
Um, no. Remember, the dictionary is your friend.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
I refer you to definition 3a.
On the whole, I agree with most here – it looks like the principal/powers-that-be are ignorant jerks.
However, let’s throw something into the mix for fun. Let’s say the bus driver had decreed that there was to be no talking by anyone on the bus, due to past problems (this happened to me when I was in ninth grade, lo these many years ago). If the girl was the only one who continued to communicate, she is breaking the rule. As a result, she should be punished. Right?
Mine, but not yours, it would appear; and a pretty poor show from somebody who takes people to task for misplaced apostrophes. The fact that your dictionary uses the word “language” in the course of a definition of “speech” does not mean that they are identical (if they were, we wouldn’t need two separate words).
The principal definiton of speech in the OED is as follows:
It also contains the following illustrative example:
The principal definition of “language” is as follows:
What your definition 3a actually refers to, I think, is the use of “speech” in contexts such as the following:
In these contexts, it is quite clear that what is meant is the spoken language (i.e. the one uttered orally, with the vocal chords, tongue and so on). Unless, of course, the Jews of the Old Testament communicated with their servants by leaving Post-it notes on the fridge or the writer in 1875 knew a lot of first-language Anglo-Saxon speakers.
But perhaps even a better friend than the dictionary is common-sense. Are Egyption hieroglyphs “speech”? Are they a language? Would you say “I spoke to John yesterday” when you had in fact written him a letter? Can we talk about “Shakespeare’s Language” if we do not know how he spoke? What is the difference between “computer language” (e.g. COBOL) and “computer speech” (e.g. Stephen Hawking, Gorf)?
If Hibbins had put the word “language” in inverted commas, then you would have had a point. As it was, you were too keen to jump down his/her throat to think about what he had written (or spoken, perhaps?).
I see that you appended “I think” to the OED’s definitions. Get back to me after you’re on the editorial board of that esteemed tome.
No, he appended “I think” to the intent of the definition in YOUR dictionary. It seems perfectly clear to me that the OED confirms his stance and negates your argument.
Folks, we are arguing the linguistic definition of speech, meaning vocalized language, and the legal definition of speech which the Supreme Court, as the word is used in the Constitution, has taken to mean language in all its varied forms. Since this is a discussion of the legality of the school’s actions, we should use the legal definition.
Hibbins, I accept your explanation of your intent in putting speech in quotes. I recommend everybody else does, too, so we can go back to insulting the principal.
Monty, I realise that a gracious admission that you were in error is beond you, but a dignified silence on your part would have made you look marginally less moronic than your lame response.
dropzone,
What this side-argument is about is whether putting the word speech (in respect of Sign Langauge) in inverted commas implies that it is not language.
Otherwise, you’re right. There is a sense in which “speech” includes all forms of linguistic and non-linguistic expression.
And he (more or less) admitted he screwed up. Maybe it wasn’t a conscious realization, but it was close enough for me to recommend we get back to the topic at hand.
at what point did this thread go carreening out of control?
Grizz: Right about the time that Hibbins decided to imply that Sign Language isn’t a language and that obviously the child using the non-language (according to Hibbins) was bad-mouthing the driver if the driver couldn’t understand what the child was saying.
Well, that’s just a flat-out lie, Tom. First: I’m not in error. The dictionary, and common use of the term itself, refute the claim that speech is not language. Second: I have, graciously even, admitted my errors when I have been wrong.
As to looking moronic, I rather think you’re fishing there.
And there you go and admit that I was not in error. How about a gracious admission from you, the apparent moron in this case?
I shan’t bother explaining it again. Those who are capable of understanding what is, after all, a fairly simple distinction (backed up by straightforward evidence and simple argument) will have done so by now.
Monty must you put words in my mouth?
I apologized for my misuse of quotes about the word speech, it was an error made in haste nothing more sinister than that. If you would like to continue to dwell on the possible subconscious implications of this minor point be my guest, but I assure you I am a better judge than you of what I intended.
I suggested that sign language just as vocalized speech could be offensive and/or lead to an unsafe situation on the bus. You make the assumption that the friends of the punished girl are the only ones on the bus capable of understanding sign language.
In reference to this:
I wondered if it is OK to make defamatory remarks and/or hateful remarks if the person they are directed at does not understand the language being used. What if others can understand the language used? In my OP it may appear that I am stating for a fact that the bus driver did not know sign language. That is information I was not able to glean from the article. I was simply attempting to describe a hypothetical situation in which the school might see itself as justified in making the ban.
My original intent was to point out that the article cited in the OP doesn’t contain enough information to draw a conclusion regarding the appropriateness of the punishment without making a number of assumptions.
Hibbins:
And I asked how the person could be offended if they didn’t know the language being used. Your response so far has been to ask if I think it’s okay to defame others in a language they don’t understand. Please attempt to use a brain and understand that’s not an answer to my question. Heck, I even reworded the question to show that the person could just as well be the subject of a complimentary conversation!
I reiterate: the principal of the school sent the child’s parents a letter informing them their child would be punished for using Sign Language. The letter did not say “for cursing in Sign Language” or “for cursing” or even “for saying bad things about the school officials.” It merely said she would be punished for using Sign Language. You’re surely not advocating that a child who curses in English on the bus would be punished if that child continued to speak in English on the bus at any time in the school year, are you? This is an identical situation to that!
So far, from the evidence at hand, the issue, according to the school, is that the child is refusing to quit using Sign Language and for that she shall be punished.
As I said earlier in this thread, sometimes all you need is a little evidence. When presented with a dead body, you can safely say “Hey, that’s a dead body.” In this case, the “dead body,” so to speak, is the letter sent to the child’s parents by the principal.
I do not. I make the observation that the school driver obviously does not understand Sign Language. And I make an inference that, possibly due to the already existing legislation, the school officials are grasping at straws for a way to punish the child.
That’s your version. But the question I asked earlier still stands – what if the bus driver had said “No talking on this bus!” Not saying that’s what happened, but I do know situations like that have occurred in real life (mine, to be exact). If the girl continued to sign, she was talking (to use your own argument). That would warrant punishment, would it not? If the girl knew that communication with her peers wasn’t allowed on the bus, and then continued to communicate, she was breaking a rule.
Just trying to point out that there could be other reasons for the administration’s stance apart from “grasping at straws for a way to punish the child.”
Monty said:
Hypothetically speaking; a third party that understood what was being said could translate. Maybe the party be spoken about wasn’t the one offended, an administrator reviewing security tapes from the bus could have been offended, another student could have been offended by what was being said. I simple think that there could be plausible scenarios however unlikely they may be.
I am still curious though about your answer to my question. Is offensive language, hate speech, and/or defamatory remarks acceptable if the person they are directed at doesn’t understand the language?
I think you have gotten so hung up on your belief that in my OP I was intentionally belittling sign language that you are failing to see that I am not arguing that you are wrong to say the school is being heavy handed or retaliatory. I simply do not see where there is enough evidence in the article you cite in your OP for one to only come to the conclusion that the school is in the wrong.
will y’all stop sniping at each other if you know that the school district backed down ?