- Home
- e-Journals
- Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
- Previous Issues
- Volume 5, Issue, 2017
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict - Volume 5, Issue 1, 2017
Volume 5, Issue 1, 2017
-
Linguistic impoliteness and religiously aggravated hate crime in England and Wales
Author(s): Jonathan Culpeper, Paul Iganski and Abe Sweirypp.: 1–29 (29)More LessDespite its centrality to religiously aggravated hate crime recorded in England and Wales, the nature of the language used has been neglected in research. This paper, based on a unique dataset, aims to rectify this. It takes its approach from the field of linguistic impoliteness, a field that has yet to consider hate crime. Therein lies our second aim: To consider whether impoliteness notions can be usefully extended to the language of hate crime. In our data, we examine, in particular, conventionalized impoliteness formulae, insults, threats, incitement and taboo words. Whilst we reveal some linguistic support for the way religiously aggravated hate crime is framed in the law and discussed in the legal literature, we highlight areas of neglect and potential ambiguity. Regarding impoliteness, we demonstrate its effectiveness as an approach to these data, but we also highlight areas of neglect in that literature too, notably, non-conditional threats and incitement.
-
Addressing women in the Greek parliament
Author(s): Marianthi Georgalidoupp.: 30–56 (27)More LessIn accordance with numerous studies highlighting aspects of political and parliamentary discourse that concern the rhetoric of political combat, verbal attacks and offensive language choices are shown to be rather common in the context of a highly adversarial parliamentary system such as the Greek. In the present study, however, the analysis of excerpts of parliamentary discourse addressed to women reveals not just aspects of the organization of rival political encounters but, as far as female MPs are concerned, aggressive and derogatory forms of speech that directly attack the gender of the addressees. Drawing on data from video-recordings, the official proceedings of parliamentary sittings, and the media (2012–2015), the present study investigates aggressive/sexist discourse within this context. The theoretical issues addressed concern the impoliteness end of the politeness/politic speech/impoliteness continuum in the light of extreme cases of conflict in political/parliamentary discourse.
-
“Reservoir of rage swamps Wall St”
Author(s): Christiana Gregoriou and Laura L. Patersonpp.: 57–80 (24)More LessOriginating on New York’s Wall Street, the Occupy movement was “an international network of protests against social and economic inequality that began in [September] 2011 in response to the downturn of 2008” ( Thorson et al. 2013 , 427). Whilst there has been research on online activity in relation to Occupy, the scope of linguistic analysis to date has been somewhat narrow. Furthermore, the focus on new media has indirectly led to an absence of analysis of institutionally-endorsed traditional media texts. We adopt a mixed-method approach of corpus analysis and discourse analysis of national newspaper articles to answer questions such as ‘Is Occupy associated with a semantic field of violence and aggression?’ and ‘Who is represented as having agency?’ Our results indicate that, in our small corpus of media texts, Occupy and its supporters were predominantly portrayed negatively at the movement’s height; even though protesters are reported to have been peaceful in their majority, the English-speaking media we analysed still aligns them with language suggestive of aggression, conflict and even violence.
-
‘Victim playing’ as a form of verbal aggression in the Czech parliament
Author(s): Martina Berrocalpp.: 81–107 (27)More LessAs the core of political discourse is the struggle for power and scarce resources, conflict seems to be an essential component of political action and interaction. In addition, conflicts in parliament are manifested in many different ways. They range from disputes during the plenary sessions to more personal attacks in the question time. This paper, however, examines an atypical display of parliamentary discourse, namely a speech by a social democratic MP David Rath, which regarded a vote on his extradition and was delivered on 5 June 2012. This speech obviously did not fulfil the primary function of the parliamentary sessions, i.e. legislating and decision-making. Here the MP was given the opportunity to present his own version of events and ask fellow MPs to maintain his parliamentary immunity. The analysis revealed two intertwining discourse strategies. On the one hand, the MP who is charged with several criminal acts presents himself as a victim of a conspiracy. In that, he aims to divert attention from the criminal case while calling for sympathy and providing self-justification. On the other hand, he uses his time to verbally complain about his arrest, the conditions in which he is held in custody, and the people he holds responsible for his current situation; he uses verbal attacks to undermine and disqualify a number of overt and covert enemies. The key aim of the analysis is to explore how victimhood is constructed in discourse, what discourse strategies are observable at the macro-level and how they are reflected in the discourse structure and in the linguistic style.
-
Like & share if you agree
Author(s): Andrew Brindle and Corrie MacMillanpp.: 108–133 (26)More LessThis paper combines corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis methodologies in order to investigate the discourses and cyber activism of the British right-wing nationalist party, Britain First. A study of a corpus of texts produced by elite members of the group reveals a racist, xenophobic stance which constructs Islam and Muslims as the radical, dangerous ‘Other’. This creates a discourse of fear that threatens the way of life of the indigenous in-group of the British people. An investigation of the cyber activity of the group demonstrates that Britain First is able to achieve a significant amount of following on social media by publishing populist material that veils their true nature or ideological stance.
-
“Please protect the Jews”
Author(s): Shani Burkepp.: 134–155 (22)More LessThis research examined Facebook comments in response to Britain First’s ‘solidarity patrol’ video, in which Britain First is shown patrolling in Golders Green, North London, ostensibly to show support for the Jewish community after the shooting in the Kosher supermarket in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack. A Critical Discursive Psychological analysis was conducted on comments. Initial comments were identified as showing support and gratitude towards Britain First; however, comments became progressively anti-Semitic (e.g. by posing the rhetorical question, what benefits have Jews brought to Britain?). Results are discussed in terms of how Britain First has managed to achieve anti-Islamic rhetoric whilst trying to maintain support from the mainstream. This research has identified that discussions on Facebook have transitioned from Jews being constructed as vulnerable at the hands of Islamic extremism, to Jews being problematic and the aggressors.
-
What is conflict? What is aggression? Are these challenging questions?
Author(s): Karol Janickipp.: 156–166 (11)More LessThis paper takes up the question of definitions in general and definitions as related to research on language and conflict in particular. I anchor my discussion in the proceedings of the panel ‘Researching and Understanding the Language of Aggression and Conflict’ held at the recent IPrA conference (Antwerp, July 2015). However, I also refer to a selection of articles in the Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict (JLAC) and books on language and conflict. I point to the fact that disagreements about what words such as ‘conflict’’, ‘aggression’, and ‘hate’ mean often lead to unrewarding debates. I trace such disagreements to the philosophical commitments that researchers make (consciously or subliminally). Subsequently, I argue against the essentialist philosophical position, which encourages seeking one satisfactory definition of any concept/term/word. As an alternative, I try to promote a non-essentialist position that encourages us to proceed only with working definitions. Moreover, I advocate working definitions that relate to objects and activities that are as tangible as possible. This way we can avoid unrewarding disputes and contribute to making our research more meaningful and convincing.
Most Read This Month

-
-
The hate that dare not speak its name?
Author(s): Robbie Love and Paul Baker
-
- More Less