rss feed

Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict

image of Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
ISSN 2213-1272
E-ISSN 2213-1280

<p>The goal of the journal is to create a unique outlet for cutting edge research, and has a format, content and structure that reflect the rapidly growing interest in studies that focus on the language of aggression and conflict. The special focus on language use derives from the assumption that although aggression and conflict may manifest themselves through other means, they are fundamentally realized through language. Therefore, a thorough understanding of conflict and aggression needs to be anchored in an analysis of discourse.</p><p>The journal intends to be a forum for researchers who are interested in new tools and methods to investigate and better understand the language of aggression and conflict. Thus, JLAC is multidisciplinary in nature and encourages, supports and facilitates interaction and scholarly debate among researchers representing different fields including, but not limited to, linguistics, communication, psychology, anthropology, bi- and multilingualism, business management, second language acquisition, gender studies, etc.</p>

Volumes & issues:

Show / Hide descriptions

Latest content:


Most cited this month

  • “Uh. . . . not to be nitpicky,,,,,but…the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.”: An overview of trolling strategies
    • Author: Claire Hardaker
    • Source: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 58 –86
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This paper investigates the phenomenon known as trolling — the behaviour of being deliberately antagonistic or offensive via computer-mediated communication (CMC), typically for amusement’s sake. Having previously started to answer the question, what is trolling? (Hardaker 2010), this paper seeks to answer the next question, how is trolling carried out? To do this, I use software to extract 3,727 examples of user discussions and accusations of trolling from an eighty-six million word Usenet corpus. Initial findings suggest that trolling is perceived to broadly fall across a cline with covert strategies and overt strategies at each pole. I create a working taxonomy of perceived strategies that occur at different points along this cline, and conclude by refining my trolling definition.
  • Beyond conflicts: Origin and types of issues leading to argumentative discussions during family mealtimes
    • Authors: Antonio Bova, and Francesco Arcidiacono
    • Source: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2015, pages: 263 –288
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This paper sets out to investigate the issues leading parents to engage in argumentative discussions with their children during mealtimes. Within a data corpus of 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level, 107 argumentative discussions between parents and children aged from 3 to 9 years old were selected. The approach for the analysis is based on the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. The results show that family argumentative discussions unfold around issues that are generated both by parental prescriptions and by children’s requests. The parental prescriptions largely concern context-bound activities such as having to eat a certain food or the teaching of correct table manners. The issues triggered by children’s requests refer to a wide range of activities, mainly related to the activity of mealtimes but also related to the children’s behavior outside the family context. These results indicate that argumentative interactions between parents and children are not mere conflictual episodes that must be avoided, but they essentially have a broader educational function.
  • Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media
    • Author: Andreas Musolff
    • Source: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2015, pages: 41 –56
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Some Internet genres, in particular Weblogs and discussion fora, have a dubious reputation for giving voice to strongly polemical discourses or hate-speech. This paper investigates the use of dehumanizing metaphors, specifically metaphors, in British debates about immigration. It compares the range of metaphors used in Blogs with that used in online fora and in mainstream newspaper coverage and concludes that despite substantial variation, they can be categorised into four main scenarios, of which one includes dehumanizing metaphors such as depictions of immigrants as or . Whilst this kind of stigmatizing imagery occurs across the three different media genres, the samples also show significant quantitative and qualitative differences: dehumanizing metaphors occur most often and their potential for aggressive argumentation and polemics is exploited in more detail in Blogs than in the fora, and least in the mainstream press. It is then asked what cognitive import this differential usage has in view of a) the discourse histories of such metaphors and b) their most likely present-day semantic motivation. The paper concludes that while it is unlikely that present-day users have detailed knowledge of the etymological and conceptual histories of such metaphors, it is also improbable to assume a wholly “unconscious” or “automatic” use or reception in the respective community of practice, and that instead it is more likely that they are used with a high degree of “deliberateness” and a modicum of discourse-historical awareness.

  • Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults
    • Authors: José Mateo, and Francisco Ramos Yus
    • Source: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 87 –114
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • The aim of this paper is to explain the use of insults from a relevance-theoretic perspective. To that end, our analysis takes into consideration four variables that, we believe, play a major role in how insults are produced an interpreted: (a) the conventional or innovative nature of the insult; (b) the underlying intentionality (to offend, to praise or to establish/maintain social bonding; (c) the in/correct interpretation of the insult, and (d) the addressee’s reaction or lack thereof. The combination of these variables generates a twenty four case taxonomy that can account for and describe the use of insults in any given (cross)-cultural context. The proposed taxonomy will be here described and exemplified.
  • Face in conflict
    • Author: Derek Bousfield
    • Source: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 37 –57
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Studies of conflict and conflict resolution rarely concern themselves with the ways in which conflictive situations are triggered. Corsaro and Rizzo (1990), in considering interpersonal conflict and aggression do suggest that conflict begins with one antagonist taking challenging opposition to an ‘antecedent event’. Further, within linguistics, even those studies which take a perspective on the role of language in the genesis, conduct, and consequences of mass violence (see the collection of papers in Dedaic and Nelson 2003) ignore the role that ‘face’ (Goffman 1967), and facework can have at any stage. The main contentions of this paper, therefore, are that the concept of “face” cannot be ignored at any level or stage of interaction, that face and identity whilst distinct and discrete concepts interlink, and, finally, that both concepts apply in instances of ethnic or international conflict and aggression. As such, it is argued that face and identity must henceforth be considered central to research or theorising on all aspects of aggression, conflict and conflict resolution.
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address