Cover not available
Article published In:
Hate speech: Definitions, interpretations and practices
Edited by Fabienne H. Baider, Sharon Millar and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics and Society 11:2] 2020
► pp. 240–260

The use of hyperlinking as evidential practice in Danish online hate speech

 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Southern Denmark
Using data from readers’ comments to news articles from a national Danish newspaper, the article addresses the nature and function of hyperlinks as evidential practice in relation to xenophobic hate speech. Hyperlinks refer to the use of URL addresses to link to websites; hate speech is understood broadly as stigmatising discourse. Adopting a discursive approach to evidentiality that accounts for a range of phenomena including source of knowledge, participant roles, epistemic stance and interactional force, hate speech related hyperlinks and their evidential functions were identified. While not prevalent in number, hyperlinks serve to legitimise negative stances towards minority groups but also support counter speech targeting prejudicial views. Links can be used as part of processes of metaphorical shift and sarcasm as well as to provoke hate speech in comment threads. As URL addresses are frequently textual, they can have evidential functions independent of the material that they link to.
Keywords: hyperlinks, evidentiality, discourse, Danish, counter speech, participant roles, stance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The discursive approach to evidentiality
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Hyperlinks related to hate speech
  • 5.Evidential functions of hyperlinks
    • 5.1From legislation to impalement
    • 5.2Sarcasm
    • 5.3Same link, different functions
    • 5.4Counter speech
  • 6.Discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18070.mil
References (31)
References
Ackland, Robert, Rachel Gibson, Wainer Lusoli, and Stephen Ward. 2010. “Engaging with the public? Assessing the online presence and communication practices of the nanotechnology industry.” Social Science Computer Review 28 (4): 443–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackland, Robert, and Rachel Gibson. 2013. “Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (3): 231–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albu, Elena. 2016. “Love Britain? Vote UKIP! The Pragmatics of Electoral Tweets during the European Elections 2014.” In Tweets from the Campaign Trail. Researching Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the European Parliamentary Elections, ed. by Alex Frame, Arnaud Mercier, Gilles Brachotte, and Caja Thimm, 145–169. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Arrese, Juana I. Marín. 2017. “Multifunctionality of Evidential Expressions in Discourse Domains and Genres.” In Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Juana I. Marín Arrese, Gerda Haßler, and Marta Carretero, 195–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne H. Baider, and Sharon Millar. 2017. Online Hate Speech in the European Union. A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Springer Briefs in Linguistics. Cham: Springer Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben-David, Anat, and Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández. 2016. “Hate Speech and Covert Discrimination on Social Media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of Extreme-right Political Parties in Spain.” International Journal of Communication 101: 1167–1193.Google Scholar
Berger, J. M., and Bill Strathearn. 2013. Who Matters Online: Measuring Influence, Evaluating Content and Countering Violent Extremism in Online Social Networks. London: The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence.Google Scholar
Boromisza-Habashi, David. 2013. Speaking Hatefully: Culture, Communication, and Political Action in Hungary. University Park, Penn.: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brindle, Andrew. 2016. The Language of Hate: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of White Supremacist Language. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Alexander. 2017. “What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.” Law and Philosophy 36 (4): 419–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camp, Elisabeth. 2012. “Sarcasm, Pretense, and the Semantics/ Pragmatics Distinction”. NOÛS 46 (2): 587–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ECRI. 2016. “ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 15 On Combating Hate Speech.” [URL]
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
González, Montserrat. 2015. “Introduction.” Discourse Studies 17 (2): 117–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Montserrat, Paolo Roseano, Joan Borràs-Comes, and Pilar Prieto. 2017. “Epistemic and Evidential Marking in Discourse: Effects of Register and Debatability.” Lingua 186–187: 68–87.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2012. “Evidentiality in Social Interaction.” Pragmatics and Society 3 (2): 169–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haßler, Gerda. 2015. “Evidentiality and the Expression of Speaker’s Stance in Romance Languages and German.” Discourse Studies 17 (2): 182–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Natalie, and Bev Holmes. 2013. “Web News Readers’ Comments: Towards Developing a Methodology for Using Online Comments in Social Inquiry.” Journal of Media and Communication Studies 5 (1):1–4.Google Scholar
Jensen, Eva Skafte. 2014: “Tale er Tale; Skrift er Skrift. Om sproget i de nye medier.” [Talk is talk; writing is writing] NyS, Nydanske Studier 461: 11–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josey, Christopher S. 2010. “Hate Speech and Identity: An Analysis of Neo-racism and the Indexing of Identity.” Discourse & Society 21 (1): 27–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Adam. 2012. “Slipping Racism into the Mainstream: A Theory of Information Laundering.” Communication Theory 22 (4): 427–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel. 2004. “On-line Polylogues: Conversation Structure and Participation Framework in Internet Newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2013. “Making Knowledge Visible in Discourse: Implications for the Study of Linguistic Evidentiality”. Discourse Studies 15 (5): 627 –645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, Barbara, and Ryan Scrivens. 2017. “The Maturation of Hate Crime Scholarship.” In Hate Crime: Critical Concepts in Criminology, ed. by Philip Bean, 1–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tileagă, Christian. 2016. The Nature of Prejudice: Society, Discrimination and Moral Exclusion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Togeby, Ole.2016. “The Borderline between Irony and Sarcasm”. In Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us – Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood, ed. by Sten Vikner, Henrik Jørgensen, and Elly van Gelderen, 421–438. Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2014. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Discourse and Racism: Some Conclusions of 30 Years of Research.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob Mey, 285–296. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2015. The Politics of Fear. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zuleta, Lumi and Rasmus Burkal. 2017. Hadefulde Ytringer i den Offentlige Online Debat. [Hateful Utterances in the Public Online Debate]. Copenhagen: Institut for Menneskerettigheder.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Geyer, Klaus
2023. Entmenschlichende Metaphern in ethnotroper („fremdenfeindlicher“) Hatespeech in sozialen Medien. In Digitale Pragmatik [Digitale Linguistik, 1], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. 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.