Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Assimakopoulos, Stavros
    2020 “Incitement to Discriminatory Hatred, Illocution and Perlocution.” Pragmatics and Society11(2): 177–195. 10.1075/ps.18071.ass
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18071.ass [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 Culture11(4): 452–469. 10.1080/17524032.2015.1024705
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1024705 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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.” In13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (pp.54–63). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/S19-2007.pdf. 10.18653/v1/S19‑2007
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S19-2007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Alexander
    2015Hate Speech Law. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315714899
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017a “What is Hate Speech? Part 1: The Myth of Hate.” Law and Philosophy36(4): 419–468. 10.1007/s10982‑017‑9297‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2017b “What is Hate Speech? Part 2: Family Resemblances.” Law and Philosophy361:561–613. 10.1007/s10982‑017‑9300‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-017-9300-x [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler, Judith
    [1997] 2021Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crisp, Peter
    2005 “Allegory, Blending, and Possible Situations.” Metaphor and Symbol20(2): 115–131. 10.1207/s15327868ms2002_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2002_2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2021 “Impoliteness and Hate Speech: Compare and Contrast.” Journal of Pragmatics1791: 4–11. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.019 [Google Scholar]
  11. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
    2021 “The Metalinguistics of Offence in (British) English: A Corpus-based Metapragmatic Approach.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(2): 185–214. 10.1075/jlac.00035.cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00035.cul [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan, Paul Iganski, and Abe Sweiry
    2017 “Linguistic Impoliteness and Religiously Aggravated Hate Crime in England and Wales.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict5(1): 1–29. 10.1075/jlac.5.1.01cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.01cul [Google Scholar]
  13. Deignan, Alice
    1995English Guides 7: Metaphor. Helping Learners with real English. London: Harper Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Delgado, Richard
    1982 “Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review17(1): 133–182https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/hcrcl17&i=141
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and Power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fowler, Roger
    1991Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hardaker, Claire, and Mark McGlashan
    2016 “‘Real Men don’t Hate Women’: Twitter Rape Threats and Group Identity.” Journal of Pragmatics911:80–93. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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 Pragmatics1(1): 39–71. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.27610
    https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.27610 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2019 “Offence and Conflict Talk”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 196–214. Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-12 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2014 “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on.” Lexicography1(1): 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2004Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    [1980] 2003Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, Thomas R., and Stephen C. Mouritsen
    2018 “Judging Ordinary Meaning.” YALE Law Journal127(4): 788–829. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45097958
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2020 “The Corpus and the Critics.” The University of Chicago Law Review88(2): 275–366. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26986409. 10.2139/ssrn.3727504
    https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727504 [Google Scholar]
  25. Manning, John F.
    2003 “The Absurdity Doctrine.” Harvard Law Review116(8): 2387–2486. 10.2307/1342768
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1342768 [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  27. Matsuda, Mari J.
    1989 “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story.” Michigan Law Review87(8): 2320–2381. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol87/iss8/8. 10.2307/1289306
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1289306 [Google Scholar]
  28. Millar, Sharon
    2019 “Hate Speech: Conceptualisations, Interpretations and Reactions”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byMatthew Evans, Lesley Jeffries, and Jim O’Driscoll, 145–163. Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑9
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mouritsen, Stephen C.
    2011 “Hard Cases and Hard Data: Assessing Corpus Linguistics as an Empirical Path to Plain Meaning.” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review13(1): 156–202. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cstlr13&i=156
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Musolff, Andreas
    2016Political Metaphor Scenarios. Discourse and Scenarios. London/NY: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Driscoll, Jim
    2013 “Situational Transformations: The Offensive-izing of an Email Message and the Public-ization of Offensiveness.” Pragmatics and Society4(3): 369–387. 10.1075/ps.4.3.05odr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.4.3.05odr [Google Scholar]
  32. Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses
    1999 “Towards a Theory of Metonymy.” InMetonymy in Language and Thought, ed. byKlaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden, 17–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  33. Rikhof, Joseph
    2005 “Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.” Journal of International Criminal Justice3(5): 1121–1133. 10.1093/jicj/mqi082
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqi082 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rychlý, Pavel
    2008 “A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score.” Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, 6–9, RASLAN. https://nlp.fi.muni.cz/raslan/2008/raslan08.pdf#page=14
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanguinetti, Manuela, Fabio Poletto, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti, and Marco Stranisci
    2018 “An Italian Twitter Corpus of Hate Speech against Immigrants.” InProceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018) (2798–2805). https://aclanthology.org/L18-1443.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schmidt, Anna, and Michael Wiegand
    2017 “A Survey on Hate Speech Detection Using Natural Language Processing.” InProceedings 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. https://aclanthology.org/W17-1101.pdf. 10.18653/v1/W17‑1101
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-1101 [Google Scholar]
  37. Semino, Elena
    2008Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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 lingvistiku54(1): 227–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Solan, Lawrence M., and Tammy Gales
    2016 “Finding Ordinary Meaning in Law: The Judge, the Dictionary or the Corpus?” International Journal of Legal Discourse1(2): 253–276. 10.1515/ijld‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, Charlotte
    2015 “Beyond Sarcasm: The Metalanguage and Structures of Mock Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics871: 127–141. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017 “The Relationship between Irony and Sarcasm: Insights from a First-order Metalanguage Investigation.” Journal of Politeness Research13(2): 209–241. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0037 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tobia, Kevin, Brian Slocum, and Victoria Nourse
    2023 “Ordinary Meaning and Ordinary People.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review1711: 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Waldron, Jeremy
    2012The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086 [Google Scholar]
  44. Warner, William, and Julia Hirschberg
    2012 “Detecting Hate Speech on the World Wide Web.” InProceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media, June 7 2012 Montréal, Canada, 19–26. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W12-2103.pdf
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; hate speech; legal discourse; offensive speech; ordinary meaning
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error