Article published in:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 5:1 (2017) ► pp. 156–166

What is conflict? What is aggression? Are these challenging questions?

| University of Bergen, Norway
This paper takes up the question of definitions in general and definitions as related to research on language and conflict in particular. I anchor my discussion in the proceedings of the panel ‘Researching and Understanding the Language of Aggression and Conflict’ held at the recent IPrA conference (Antwerp, July 2015). However, I also refer to a selection of articles in the Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (JLAC) and books on language and conflict. I point to the fact that disagreements about what words such as ‘conflict’’, ‘aggression’, and ‘hate’ mean often lead to unrewarding debates. I trace such disagreements to the philosophical commitments that researchers make (consciously or subliminally). Subsequently, I argue against the essentialist philosophical position, which encourages seeking one satisfactory definition of any concept/term/word. As an alternative, I try to promote a non-essentialist position that encourages us to proceed only with working definitions. Moreover, I advocate working definitions that relate to objects and activities that are as tangible as possible. This way we can avoid unrewarding disputes and contribute to making our research more meaningful and convincing.
Keywords: conflict, aggression, definitions, meaning, essentialism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What’s the problem? Do we have a definitional problem?
  • 3.Conclusion: What’s the solution then?
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 16 October 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.07jan
References
Ardington, Angela
2013 “Negotiating Shared Perspectives that Move in and out of Sociability. Play and Aggression in Technologically Mediated Communication.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1(2):165–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bealer, George
1987 “The Philosophical Limits of Scientific Essentialism.” Philosophical Perspectives 11:289–365. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, Arturo
1999 “After Nature. Steps to an Anti-essentialist Political Ecology”. Current Anthropology 40(1):1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Matthew, and Simone Schuller
2015 “Representing ‘Terrorism’. The Radicalization of the May 2013 Woolwich Attack in British Press Reportage.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1):128–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vivian, and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit
1994 “Essence and Modality. The Second Philosophical Perspective Lecture.” Philosophical Perspectives 81:1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, Garth. L.
1991 Essentialism: A Wittgensteinian Critique. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hamelink, Cees J.
2011 Media and Conflict: Escalating Evil. London: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire
2013 “Uh…Not to be Nitpicky,,,,,but…the Past Tense of Drag is Dragged, not Drug.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1(1):58–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janicki, Karol
2006 Language Misconceived. Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janicki. Karol
2010 Confusing Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janicki, Karol
2015 Language and Conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan Education. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z.
2014 “Heckling – a Mimetic-interpersonal Perspective.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2(1):1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kampf, Zohar
2015 “The Politics of Being Insulted. The Uses of Hurt Feelings in Israeli Public Discourse.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1):107–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1982 Categories and Cognitive Models. LAUT (Series A, No. 96)Google Scholar
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
La Porte, Joseph
1997 “Essential Membership.” Philosophy of Science 64(1): 96–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maitra, Ishani, and Mary Kate McGowan
2012 “Introduction and Overview”. In Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech, edited by Ishami Maitra, and Mary Kate McGowan, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2014 “Bald-faced Lies as Acts of Verbal Aggression.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 2(1):127–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(The) New Oxford American Dictionary
2005 Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl
1945 The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume 21. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1979 Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard
1999 Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1978 “Principles of Categorization”. In Cognition and Categorization, edited by Eleonor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, 28–46. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2003 Third edition. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul
1975 “Essential Properties. Some Problems and Conjectures.” The Journal of Philosophy 72(9):233–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid
2006 Second edition. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy
2012 The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1958 Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Full-text

What is conflict? What is aggression? Are these challenging questions?
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Blitvich, Pilar Garcés-Conejos
2018. Globalization, transnational identities, and conflict talk: The superdiversity and complexity of the Latino identity. Journal of Pragmatics 134 ► pp. 120 ff. Crossref logo
Culpeper, Jonathan & Michael Haugh
2021. The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9:2 ► pp. 185 ff. Crossref logo
Haugh, Michael & Lara Weinglass
2020.  In Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication, ► pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo
Márquez Reiter, Rosina & Sara Orthaber
2018. Exploring the moral compass. Internet Pragmatics 1:2 ► pp. 242 ff. Crossref logo
Márquez Reiter, Rosina & Sara Orthaber
2020.  In (Im)politeness and Moral Order in Online Interactions [Benjamins Current Topics, 107], ► pp. 37 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.