"Hate Speech, Thin Skin, and the Somatics of Language"

Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations

This paper explores the nature and linguistic mechanics of hate speech and, using both traditional analytic approaches from the philosophy of language – primarily the Austinian theory of speech acts and the Gricean framework for speaker meaning – as well as contemporary contributions to the literature, it examines the possibility of reclaiming words of hate in order to disarm them of their power to inflict harm – this possibility of linguistic disarmament is one that we take to be self-evidently desirable, especially from the perspective of those who might otherwise be vulnerable to the effects of hate speech. After establishing what constitutes hate speech, the paper moves on to consider how it operates and how it might come to change. We determine from our analysis that words of hate can only effectively be disarmed, as it were, through the process of reclamation. Thus, we then look at some case studies to elucidate the shifting nature of the meaning of hate words. Finally, operating on the basis of our normative goal of disarming this particular class of harmful words, we tie the preceding analysis together and advance our strategy for how to disarm hate words, as well as considering some objections that might be levied against our position.

Criminal Law and Philosophy

Contemporary public discourse is saturated with speech that vilifies and incites hatred or violence against vulnerable groups. The term “hate speech” has emerged in legal circles and in ordinary language to refer to these communicative acts. But legal theorists and philosophers disagree over how to define this term. This paper makes the case for, and subsequently develops, the first corpus-based analysis of the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” We begin by demonstrating that key interpretive and moral disputes surrounding hate speech laws—in particular, surrounding their compatibility with the rule of law, democracy, and free speech—depend crucially on the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Next, we argue, drawing on recent developments in legal philosophy, that corpus linguistics constitutes a distinctively promising tool for ascertaining the ordinary meaning of “hate speech.” Finally, we offer a proof of concept, by outlining, and analyzing the interpretive and moral implications...

This paper explores the nature and linguistic mechanics of hate speech and, using both traditional analytic approaches from the philosophy of language-primarily the Austinian theory of speech acts and the Gricean framework for speaker meaning-as well as contemporary contributions to the literature, it examines the possibility of reclaiming words of hate in order to disarm them of their power to inflict harm-this possibility of linguistic disarmament is one that we take to be self-evidently desirable, especially from the perspective of those who might otherwise be vulnerable to the effects of hate speech. After establishing what constitutes hate speech, the paper moves on to consider how it operates and how it might come to change. We determine from our analysis that words of hate can only effectively be disarmed, as it were, through the process of reclamation. Thus, we then look at some case studies to elucidate the shifting nature of the meaning of hate words. Finally, operating on the basis of our normative goal of disarming this particular class of harmful words, we tie the preceding analysis together and advance our strategy for how to disarm hate words, as well as considering some objections that might be levied against our position.

Valoda: nozīme un forma, 2022

The present study is concerned with the analysis of hate speech-an offensive discourse, which is harmful to democracy and to the members of targeted groups and/or individuals, whose inherent characteristics or public image is threatened. It seems reasonable to assume that the democratic and peace-loving world has been astounded by the offensive language often used by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a NATO leader and a representative of a European Union (EU) member state. Therefore, a speech by Hungarian Prime Minister V. Orbán (2022) delivered at the Bálványos Free Summer University and Student Camp on 23 July 2022, with an approximate research corpus of 9 000 words, has been selected as an object of the linguistic study. This speech has been referred to as a "racist tirade" (Coakley 2022), and European Parliament political group leaders have condemned his "openly racist declarations", breaching the EU values (EU Parliament Press Room 2022), to mention but a few reactions to the speech. This is even more alarming at present in the context of Russia's war against Ukraine, when Prime Minister V. Orbán's pro-Russian stance subverts the EU's fundamental values and hinders the EU decision-making process. The study employed InfraNodus and Wmatrix methodology for the thematic analysis, the analysis of keyness at the word, part of speech and semantic domain level focusing on the three aspects of discursive proximization that provide for the discussion on the ideological schism in the discourse space. The results of a micro-linguistic level study of the speech indicate that from the perspective of its form, the hate speech under analysis demonstrates Prime Minister V. Orbán's rather uncompromising stance towards the events being referred to, as well as his attitude towards the prospective action, which might be taken by the target audience. As a result, the qualitative research findings demonstrate that the hate speech under analysis exhibits the features of offensive discourse, created by means of context-dependent linguistic realizations.

., 2017

Semiotica, 2018

This text analyzes the question of linguistic violence in J. Derrida and in J. Butler and shows how this question implies a consideration of the relation between language and body. The starting point is Derrida’s critic of Austin’s theory of speech acts. Through this critic Derrida establishes a relation between speech acts and writing. This connection brings to the fore the importance of the iterability as a structural feature of speech acts. The iterability becomes fundamental in Butler’s analysis of hate speech in Excitable Speech. In this book the iterability is interpreted as the ritual character of the hate speech, which reveals its political dimension. Comparing Butler and Derrida’s ideas of speech act, I try in this text to make emerge the idea of a textual body as the possibility of the resistance to the linguistic violence.

Hate speech, 2022

This study aims to: (1) describe the linguistic forms typically used in hate speech; (2) reveal the interpretation and intention of hate speech, and (3) propose its pedagogical implication. This was descriptive qualitative research with content and a philosophic analysis approach. The data were excerpts containing hate language produced by figures collected from YouTube videos. The hate speech was linguistically manifested through the use of swear words, mental abnormality terms, the animal metaphor, insults which refer to characters, Arabic terms with negative meaning, and nicknames that call out physical characteristics. According to the interpretation in the Indonesian context, the speakers use hate language to vent negative feelings, insult, condemn, accuse, show disagreement, show dissatisfaction, wish bad luck, and threaten. The hate language appears to be an Indonesian phenomenon of language use, however, its forms and functions are determined by the contextual or philosophic background of the users. Some hate language in this paper was found to mask the speakers" defeat and incapability against the target of hate.

2019

Every electioneering period in Kenya witnesses ethnic animosity that is fuelled by hate speeches by protagonists. Language is used as a tool that evokes bitterness and thereby injuring one’s emotions leading to conflict. This has polarized this country politically. Besides understanding hate speech, this paper looks at ways in which language can be used as a tool for peace-building and enhancing national coherence. This paper borrows greatly from Cognitive Grammar as advanced by Langacker (2008). I have intentionally employed Langacker's thoughts of Schematization, Conceptualization, Categorization, Domains, Base and Profile among others. If a linguistic item (for instance a word) can arouse ethnic animosity, is there a way in which we can achieve a less offensive conceptualization of that word? Key to this paper is that meaning is viewed as grounded in embodied human experiences and that it resides in the mind of the language users as conceptualization. Conceptualization is an ...

Linguistik Online, 2017

Starting from the pressing issue of hate crime and hate speech, as addressed by several EU Framework Decisions and recently by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the article focuses on the complex and often contested relation of language and violence. Whereas recent accounts are usually concerned with the violent dimension of speech and language, the article approaches the question from a different methodological angle and asks in which way hatred and violence might be understood as a form of speaking and address. This approach is based on the more general thesis that it is possible neither to gain an adequate understanding of speech and language without considering their violent force, nor to gain an adequate account of interpersonal violence without considering its linguistic dimension. In order to support this view, it will be argued that it is precisely the symbolic-linguistic character of hate crime that is responsible for its particular injur...

2017

The last decade saw a growing interest for hate speech and the ways in which language reflects and perpetuates discrimination, with two main focuses of interest: a linguistic-oriented question about how slurs encode evaluation on the one hand, and a philosophical and psychological question about the effects elicited by slurs. In this paper, I show how the two questions are deeply related by illustrating how a certain linguistic analysis of derogatory epithets – the presuppositional one – can shed light on non-linguistic issues, namely what effects the use of slurs produce, especially concerning discrimination. I present a presuppositional account of slurs (Section 2) and I show how such an analysis provides convincing explanations of other non-linguistic phenomena: in particular, I consider the ways in which slurs reflect and spread discrimination by illustrating how they work in conversation (Section 3). In Section 4, I argue that some features of slurs presented in Sections 2 and 3, namely the fact that they always target a category and the fact that the derogatory content that they convey is presented as not open to discussion, make slurs particularly dangerous tools. I conclude by briefly assessing the question as to how one should respond when exposed to the use of slurs.