Article published In:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict: Online-First Articles

Understanding and appraising ‘hate speech’

ORCID logo | University of Reading | University of Nottingham

Hate speech has become a matter of international concern, permeating institutional and lay discussions alike. Yet, exactly what it means to refer to a linguistic act as ‘hate speech’ remains unclear. This paper examines the lay understanding of hate speech, focusing on (1) the relationship between hate speech and hate, and (2) the relationship between hate speech and offensive speech. As part of the second question, the paper considers how hate speech is defined as a legal matter in the UK Public Order Act 1986. The study adopts a corpus-based discourse analysis approach and examines 255 hate speech-related news articles and the general English Web 2020 corpus. Hate speech is a complex multifaceted phenomenon; while ‘hate’ is one of its core characteristics, it is not sufficient to assess a certain behaviour as hate speech. Threats, denigration of the targets based on a protected characteristic (age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability), the potential to cause harm and the intent to stir up hatred are also essential in distinguishing hate speech and offense.

Keywords: hate speech, ordinary meaning, legal discourse, offensive speech, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A case for studying the ordinary meaning of ‘hate speech’
    • 2.1Practical reasons for studying the ordinary meaning of ‘hate speech’
    • 2.2Theoretical reasons for studying the ordinary meaning of ‘hate speech’
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Hate and hate speech
    • 4.1When hate is not an emotion
    • 4.2Extreme negative evaluation as core meaning: Promotion of hate speech and countering measures
      • 4.2.1Perpetrating hate speech
      • 4.2.2Fighting hate
  • 5.Offence and hate speech
    • 5.1Hate speech as regulatable speech
    • 5.2The legal characterisation of hate speech
      • 5.2.1Uses of legal-related terminology beyond legal registers
      • 5.2.2Semantic mapping of “threatening”, “abusive” and “insulting”
        • a.Characteristics
        • b.Entities
        • c.Targets
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00082.vil
References
Assimakopoulos, Stavros
2020 “Incitement to Discriminatory Hatred, Illocution and Perlocution.” Pragmatics and Society 11(2): 177–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atanasova, Dimitrinka, and Nelia Koteyko
2015 “Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online Opinion-page Content on Climate Change: War, Religion, and Politics.” Environmental Communication. A Journal of Nature and Culture 11(4): 452–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basile, Valerio, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela Sanguinetti
2019 “Semeval-2019 Task 5: Multilingual Detection of Hate Speech against Immigrants and Women in Twitter.” In 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (pp. 54–63). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Brown, Alexander
2015 Hate Speech Law. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a “What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.” Law and Philosophy 36(4): 419–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b “What is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.” Law and Philosophy 361:561–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith
[1997] 2021 Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2004 Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Peter
2005 “Allegory, Blending, and Possible Situations.” Metaphor and Symbol 20(2): 115–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2021 “Impoliteness and Hate Speech: Compare and Contrast.” Journal of Pragmatics 1791: 4–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
2021 “The Metalinguistics of Offence in (British) English: A Corpus-based Metapragmatic Approach.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9(2): 185–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Paul Iganski, and Abe Sweiry
2017 “Linguistic Impoliteness and Religiously Aggravated Hate Crime in England and Wales.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, Alice
1995 English Guides 7: Metaphor. Helping Learners with real English. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Delgado, Richard
1982 “Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 17(1): 133–182 [URL]
Fairclough, Norman
1989 Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger
1991 Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire, and Mark McGlashan
2016 “ ‘Real Men don’t Hate Women’: Twitter Rape Threats and Group Identity.” Journal of Pragmatics 911:80–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2016 “The Role of English as a Scientific Metalanguage for Research in Pragmatics: Reflections on the Metapragmatics of ‘Politeness’ in Japanese.” East Asian Pragmatics 1(1): 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
2019 “Offence and Conflict Talk”. In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. by Matthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 196–214. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
2014 “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on.” Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
2004 Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
[1980] 2003 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas R., and Stephen C. Mouritsen
2018 “Judging Ordinary Meaning.” YALE Law Journal 127(4): 788–829. [URL]
2020 “The Corpus and the Critics.” The University of Chicago Law Review 88(2): 275–366. [URL]. DOI logo
Manning, John F.
2003 “The Absurdity Doctrine.” Harvard Law Review 116(8): 2387–2486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, Mari J.
1989 “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story.” Michigan Law Review 87(8): 2320–2381. [URL]. DOI logo
Millar, Sharon
2019 “Hate Speech: Conceptualisations, Interpretations and Reactions”. In The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. by Matthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 145–163. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouritsen, Stephen C.
2011 “Hard Cases and Hard Data: Assessing Corpus Linguistics as an Empirical Path to Plain Meaning.” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 13(1): 156–202. [URL]
Musolff, Andreas
2016 Political Metaphor Scenarios. Discourse and Scenarios. London/NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Jim
2013 “Situational Transformations: The Offensive-izing of an Email Message and the Public-ization of Offensiveness.” Pragmatics and Society 4(3): 369–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses
1999 “Towards a Theory of Metonymy.” In Metonymy in Language and Thought, ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden, 17–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rikhof, Joseph
2005 “Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 3(5): 1121–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rychlý, Pavel
2008 “A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score.” Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, 6–9, RASLAN. [URL]
Sanguinetti, Manuela, Fabio Poletto, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Marco Stranisci
2018 “An Italian Twitter Corpus of Hate Speech against Immigrants.” In Proceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018) (2798–2805). [URL]
Schmidt, Anna, and Michael Wiegand
2017 “A Survey on Hate Speech Detection Using Natural Language Processing.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media, April 3–7 2017, Valencia, Spain (pp. 1–10). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
Semino, Elena
2008 Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silaški, Nadežda, and Tatjana Đurović
2011 “The NATURAL FORCE Metaphor in the Conceptualisation of the Global Financial Crisis in English and Serbian.” Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 54(1): 227–245.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M., and Tammy Gales
2016 “Finding Ordinary Meaning in Law: The Judge, the Dictionary or the Corpus?” International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(2): 253–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte
2015 “Beyond Sarcasm: The Metalanguage and Structures of Mock Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 871: 127–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The Relationship between Irony and Sarcasm: Insights from a First-order Metalanguage Investigation.” Journal of Politeness Research 13(2): 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobia, Kevin, Brian Slocum, and Victoria Nourse
2023 “Ordinary Meaning and Ordinary People.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1711: 1–14.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy
2012 The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, William, and Julia Hirschberg
2012 “Detecting Hate Speech on the World Wide Web.” In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media, June 7 2012 Montréal, Canada, 19–26. Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]