Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 229–257

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 8
Towards a relevance-theoretic account of hate speech

 | University of Warsaw, Poland
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.08lin
Abstract
Hate speech has been studied as a social, psychological and legal phenomenon in various frameworks offered by relevant disciplines, with most famous account being Judith Butler’s analysis of hate speech in terms of Austinian speech act theory. This chapter explores the possibility of applying relevance-theoretic analysis to hate speech. It argues that all kinds of hate speech, ranging from most direct to most covert, are instances of ostensive behavior that requires being processed together with some mental representations, corresponding to either intuitive or reflected beliefs about generalized inferiority of a group of people by virtue of their race, ethnicity, faith/atheism, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or etc. or, their corresponding meta-representations, for greatest (tentatively optimal) relevance.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Hate speech: Some legal, social and pragmatic issues
  • 4.Some terminological refinements
  • 5.Understanding covert hate speech in relevance-theoretic terms
  • 6.The ‘thin skin’ phenomenon vs. cognitive vigilance. Understanding of hate speech by targeted audiences
  • 7.Slurs and quasi-slurs
  • 8.The hate component
  • 9.Instances of non-literalness of hate speech
  • 10.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (50)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benesch, S. (2008). Vile crime or inalienable right. Defining incitement to genocide. Virginia Journal of. International Law, 48/3, 485–428.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012a). Susan Benesch interview with Timothy Garton Ash. [URL].
(2012b). Dangerous speech: A proposal to prevent group violence. [URL]
Bianchi, C. (2014). Slurs and appropriation: An echoic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 35–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilewicz, M., Marchlewska, M., Soral, W. & Wiśniewski M. (2014). Mowa nienawiści. Raport z badań sondażowych [Hate speech. A survey report] Warsaw: Fundacja im. Stefana Batorego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2014). Slurs and expletives: a case against a general account of expressive meaning. Language Sciences, 41, 1–14.
Brown, A. (2017a). What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law and Philosophy, 36 (4), 419–468.
(2017b). What is hate speech? Part 2: Family resemblances. Law and Philosophy. 36 (5), 561–613.
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech. A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croom, A. M. (2014). The semantics of slurs: A refutation of pure Expressivism. Language Sciences, 41, 227–242.
Czarnecki, G. (Ed.). (2009a). Raport o homofobicznej mowie nienawiści w Polsce [The report on homophobic hate speech in Poland], Warsaw: Kampania przeciw Homofobii.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Chronologia homofobicznych wydarzeń w roku 2008 [The chronology of homophobic incidents in 2008] . In G. Czarnecki (Ed.), Raport o homofobicznej mowie nienawiści w Polsce (pp. 17–24). Warsaw: Kampania przeciw Homofobii.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eizaga Rebollar, B. (2015). A relevance-theoretic perspective on metonymy. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173, 191–198.
Hom, Ch. (2008). The semantics of racial epithets. Journal of Philosophy, 105 (8), 416–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobsen, R. (2010). The interpretation of indirect speech acts in relevance theory. Journal of Linguistic Intercultural Education, 3, 7–23.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kowalski, S. & Tulli, M. (2003). Zamiast procesu. Raport o mowie nienawiści [Instead of a trial. A report on hate speech]. Warsaw: WAB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwok I. & Wong, Y. (2013). Locate the hate: detecting tweets against Blacks. In M. desJardins, & M. Littman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1621–1622). Bellevue, Washington: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leets, L. (2001). Explaining perceptions of racist speech. Communication Research, 28 (5), 676–706. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-Semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58 (2), 341–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leets, L. & Giles, H. (1997). Words as weapons: When do they wound? Investigations of harmful speech. Human Communication Research, 24, 260–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leets, L. & and Giles, H. (1999). Harmful speech in intergroup encounters: An organizational framework for communication research. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook vol. 22 (pp. 91–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leets, L., Giles H. & Noels K. (1999). Attributing harm to racist speech. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20, 209–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linde-Usiekniewicz, J. (2012). From conflict through compromise to collaboration: Semantics, syntax and information structure in natural languages. Warsaw: Nakładem Wydziału Polonistyki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Towards a relevance-theory account of hate speech. Keynote lecture presented at Interpreting for Relevance 2014, Warsaw, September 29–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a). Teoria relewancji jako narzędzie opisu „mowy nienawiści” [Relevance theory as a tool for describing ‘hate speech’] Studia pragmalingwistyczne, VII, 53–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Wybrane problemy rozpoznawania językowych cech „nawoływania do nienawiści” [Some problems in recognitions of linguistic features of “incitement to hatred”], ms. [URL].
Łaziński, M. (2014). Jeszcze o słowie Murzyn i o stereotypach. Po lekturze artykułu Margaret Ohii Mechanizmy dyskryminacji rasowej w systemie języka polskiego [More on the word Murzyn and stereotypes. Upon reading Margaret Ohias’ Mechanisms of racial discrimination in the system of Polish language]. Przegląd Humanistyczny, 5, 127–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, G. (2007). The reconstruction of hate language. In K. Gelber & A. S. Ackary Stone (Eds.), Hate speech and freedom of speech in Australia (pp. 34–81). Leichhardt: Federation Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateo, J. & Yus F. (2000). Insults: A relevance-theoretic taxonomical approach to their translation. International Journal of Translation, 12 (1), 97–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Towards an intercultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1 (1), 87–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D. (2013). ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: The role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 20–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nijałkowski, L. M. (2008). Mowa nienawiści w świetle teorii dyskursu [Hate speech in the light of the theory of discourse]. In A. Horolets (Ed.), Analiza dyskursu w socjologii i dla socjologii [Discourse analysis in and for sociology] (pp. 113–133). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Noorloss, M. (2011). Hate speech revisited. A comparative and historical perspective on hate speech law in the Netherlands and England & Wales. Cambridge UK – Portland (Or.): Intersentia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piskorska, A. (2012). Cognition and emotions – a joint effort at obtaining positive cognitive effects?. In A. Piskorska (Ed.), Relevance studies in Poland. Volume 4. Essays on language and communication (pp. 102–111). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Random House Dictionary. (2014). Dictionary.com Unabridged. [URL]
SN. (2007). Postanowienie Sądu Najwyższego–Izba Karna z dnia 5 lutego 2007 r. IV KK 406/06.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solska, A. (2012). Appealing and appalling: Puns and degrees of relevance. Paper delivered at Interpreting for Relevance: Discourse and Translation. Warsaw, September 25–26, 2012.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind & Language, 12 (1), 67–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, Ch., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 24 (4), 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner, W. & Hirschberg, J. (2012). Detecting hate speech on the WorldWideWeb. In A. Farzindar & D. Inkpen (Eds.) Proceedings of the workshop on semantic analysis in social media (pp. 19–26). Avignon: Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
Wilson, D. (1994). Relevance and understanding. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, A. Pollitt & J. Williams (Eds.), Language and understanding (pp. 35–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretense?. Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011a). The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives (pp. 3–32). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 128, 195–2013. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zegarac, V. (2012). U-Pragmatics and E-Pragmatics: Making a case for I-Pragmatics. Paper delivered at Interpreting for Relevance: Discourse and Translation. Warsaw, September 25–26, 2012.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chetty, Naganna, Sreejith Alathur, Dittin Andrews & Vishal Kumar
2021. 2021 6th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Security (ICCCS), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue