1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18070.mil
2020-07-13
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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 Review28 (4): 443–465. 10.1177/0894439310362735
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310362735 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackland, Robert, and Rachel Gibson
    2013 “Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology16 (3): 231–244. 10.1080/13645579.2013.774179
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.774179 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albu, Elena
    2016 “Love Britain? Vote UKIP! The Pragmatics of Electoral Tweets during the European Elections 2014.” InTweets from the Campaign Trail. Researching Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the European Parliamentary Elections, ed. byAlex Frame, Arnaud Mercier, Gilles Brachotte, and Caja Thimm, 145–169. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arrese, Juana I. Marín
    2017 “Multifunctionality of Evidential Expressions in Discourse Domains and Genres.” InEvidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. byJuana I. Marín Arrese, Gerda Haßler, and Marta Carretero, 195–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.271.09mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.09mar [Google Scholar]
  5. Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne H. Baider, and Sharon Millar
    2017Online Hate Speech in the European Union. A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Springer Briefs in Linguistics. Cham: Springer Open. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑72604‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72604-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Communication10: 1167–1193.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berger, J. M., and Bill Strathearn
    2013Who 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]
  8. Boromisza-Habashi, David
    2013Speaking Hatefully: Culture, Communication, and Political Action in Hungary. University Park, Penn.: Penn State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boye, Kasper
    2012Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brindle, Andrew
    2016The Language of Hate: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of White Supremacist Language. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731643
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731643 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Alexander
    2017 “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]
  12. Camp, Elisabeth
    2012 “Sarcasm, Pretense, and the Semantics/ Pragmatics Distinction”. NOÛS46 (2): 587–634. 10.1111/j.1468‑0068.2010.00822.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00822.x [Google Scholar]
  13. ECRI
    ECRI 2016 “ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 15 On Combating Hate Speech.” https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/GPR/EN/Recommendation_N15/REC-15-2016-015-ENG.pdf
  14. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. González, Montserrat
    2015 “Introduction.” Discourse Studies17 (2): 117–120. 10.1177/1461445615571807
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615571807 [Google Scholar]
  16. González, Montserrat, Paolo Roseano, Joan Borràs-Comes, and Pilar Prieto
    2017 “Epistemic and Evidential Marking in Discourse: Effects of Register and Debatability.” Lingua186–187: 68–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hanks, William F.
    2012 “Evidentiality in Social Interaction.” Pragmatics and Society3 (2): 169–180. 10.1075/ps.3.2.02for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.3.2.02for [Google Scholar]
  18. Haßler, Gerda
    2015 “Evidentiality and the Expression of Speaker’s Stance in Romance Languages and German.” Discourse Studies17 (2): 182–209. 10.1177/1461445614564522
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564522 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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 Studies5 (1):1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jensen, Eva Skafte
    2014: “Tale er Tale; Skrift er Skrift. Om sproget i de nye medier.” [Talk is talk; writing is writing] NyS, Nydanske Studier46: 11–38. 10.7146/nys.v46i46.17523
    https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v46i46.17523 [Google Scholar]
  21. Josey, Christopher S.
    2010 “Hate Speech and Identity: An Analysis of Neo-racism and the Indexing of Identity.” Discourse & Society21 (1): 27–39. 10.1177/0957926509345071
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509345071 [Google Scholar]
  22. Klein, Adam
    2012 “Slipping Racism into the Mainstream: A Theory of Information Laundering.” Communication Theory22 (4): 427–448. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2012.01415.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01415.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Marcoccia, Michel
    2004 “On-line Polylogues: Conversation Structure and Participation Framework in Internet Newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (1): 115–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mushin, Ilana
    2013 “Making Knowledge Visible in Discourse: Implications for the Study of Linguistic Evidentiality”. Discourse Studies15 (5): 627 –645. 10.1177/1461445613501447
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447 [Google Scholar]
  25. Perry, Barbara, and Ryan Scrivens
    2017 “The Maturation of Hate Crime Scholarship.” InHate Crime: Critical Concepts in Criminology, ed. byPhilip Bean, 1–42. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Tileagă, Christian
    2016The Nature of Prejudice: Society, Discrimination and Moral Exclusion. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Togeby, Ole
    2016 “The Borderline between Irony and Sarcasm”. InLet Us Have Articles Betwixt Us – Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood, ed. bySten Vikner, Henrik Jørgensen, and Elly van Gelderen, 421–438. Aarhus: Dept. of English, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2014Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016 “Discourse and Racism: Some Conclusions of 30 Years of Research.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Jacob Mey, 285–296. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_10 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wodak, Ruth
    2015The Politics of Fear. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zuleta, Lumi and Rasmus Burkal
    2017Hadefulde Ytringer i den Offentlige Online Debat. [Hateful Utterances in the Public Online Debate]. Copenhagen: Institut for Menneskerettigheder.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18070.mil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.18070.mil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): counter speech , Danish , discourse , evidentiality , hyperlinks , participant roles and stance
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