35.729, Review: From Fear to Hate: Guillén-Nieto, Doval Pais, Stein (eds.) (2023)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-35-729. Sat Mar 02 2024. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 35.729, Review: From Fear to Hate: Guillén-Nieto, Doval Pais, Stein (eds.) (2023)

Moderators: Malgorzata E. Cavar, Francis Tyers (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Everett Green, Daniel Swanson, Maria Lucero Guillen Puon, Zackary Leech, Lynzie Coburn, Natasha Singh, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Justin Fuller <justin at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: 02-Mar-2024
From: Antonio Bianco [antonio.bianco1207 at gmail.com]
Subject: Applied Linguistics: Guillén-Nieto, Doval Pais, Stein (eds.) (2023)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.2842

EDITOR: Victoria Guillén-Nieto
EDITOR: Antonio Doval Pais
EDITOR: Dieter Stein
TITLE: From Fear to Hate
SUBTITLE: Legal-Linguistic Perspectives on Migration
SERIES TITLE: Foundations in Language and Law
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2023

REVIEWER: Antonio Bianco

SUMMARY

The volume (234 pages) comprises nine chapters, each presenting an
individual paper. Despite the diverse linguistic data, approaches, and
methodologies employed, each paper offers a comprehensive
understanding of hate speech – defined as “speech acts that can
potentially express hatred and generate hate in larger sections of the
population” (p. 11). This exploration is contextualized within the
broader global phenomenon of migration, examining it through three
overarching perspectives: language, discourse, and law (p. 18).

Chapter 1 (Emotion, language and law) – authored by Victoria
Guillén-Nieto, Antonio Dovail Pais and Dieter Stein – establishes the
necessary theoretical framework to comprehend the subsequent
contributions. In particular, it addresses the legal implications
associated with migratory movements and the imperative to protect
migrants/refugees from discrimination and incitement to hatred. In
this regard, the chapter explores the boundaries of hate speech,
differentiating it from freedom of expression (“hate speech belongs to
an area outside the limits of the legitimate exercise of freedom of
expression”, p. 7). Furthermore, the chapter investigates the complex
relationship between language, linguistics, and law. Of particular
interest is the discussion regarding the level of explicitness
(indirect vs. literal) of hate speech. Indeed, the level of directness
plays a significant role in the identification and resolution of hate
crimes (p. 12). The chapter ends with an in-depth examination of the
relationship between hate speech and the speaker's intentionality.
Finally, a brief summary of all subsequent chapters is provided for
the reader.

Chapter 2 (The dangerous individual in a time of migration: Periculum,
dominium, and dangerousness) – by Dyango Bonsignore – uses a
multidisciplinary approach – drawing on social sciences, criminology,
and linguistics – to analyze the relationship between the etymology of
'danger', its historical uses, and its application to the recent
migration crisis (p. 22). In addition, the author meticulously
reconstructs the origins of danger-related words 'periculum' and
'dominium' and explores the application of dangerousness and dominium
concepts in classical and contemporary criminology. This discussion is
subsequently used to explain the intricate relationship between
dangerousness discourse, migration, and criminalization in
contemporary discourse, shedding light on the complexities of the
so-called 'cri-immigration' (Stumpf 2006).

Chapter 3 (Language attrition as a problem for language analysis for
the determination of origin) – written by Monika S. Schmid – analyzes
critically the method of Language Analysis for the Determination of
Origin (LADO). This methodology is used in several countries to assess
whether refugees, without required documentation, are truthful about
their declared national origin (Patrick 2012). In sum, LADO tests
language proficiency on the language(s) “the refugee can be expected
to speak based on their claimed origin” (p. 49). The author, drawing
upon a substantial literature, pinpoints a significant drawback of
LADO, specifically: the refugees’ proficiency in the native
language(s) (L1) may progressively decrease (cf. language attrition),
and their way of speaking tends to be “perceived to be less-native
like than monolinguals residing in the country of origin” (p. 50).
Moreover, the chapter offers a detailed discussion of recent studies
on language attrition, delineates its main causes (e.g.,
traumatisation) and describes real-life cases of issues caused by
LADO.

Chapter 4 (“Once an alien has passed through our gates”: Noncitizens
in three US Supreme Court oral arguments) – penned by Laura M.
Hartwell – examines, from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective,
the expressions (e.g., aliens, noncitizens, felon) employed by
justices and advocates, during US Supreme Court arguments, to refer to
non-US citizens. In particular, the paper delves into three key
inquiries: (1) What are the trends in the appellations of the
noncitizen population by advocates and justices? (2) Are the
appellations influenced by ideology? (3) Have these appellations
undergone change over the past two decades?
The research draws upon transcripts from three oral arguments, with a
well-described corpus outlined in the paper, and employs the toolkit
AntConc (Laurence 2019) for lexical analysis of the transcripts.

Chapter 5 (Improper entry by an alien on trial: the uncomfortable
linguistic past of 8 United States Code §1325 & 1326) – co-authored by
Mary C. Lavissière and Rachel C. Hill – aims to linguistically
demonstrate that 8 United States Code §1325&§1326 (Improper Entry or
Reentry by an Alien) were originally motivated by racial animus. To
achieve the goal, the authors compare two different corpora to observe
similarities and differences: one (REFERENCE corpus) containing
passages of laws classified as animated by racial animus by the US
Supreme Court, and another (TEST corpus) containing legislative
records from the passage of U.S.C. §1325&§1326. The analyses,
performed both qualitative and quantitative in nature (p. 98), utilize
two software programs (the functioning of which is clearly described
in the chapter): Iramuteq (Ratinaud 2014) and Sketch Engine (Kilgariff
et al. 2014). Significantly, the chapter provides a literature review
of the (legal) framework of U.S.C. §1325&§1326 and offers a detailed
section on the intricate relationship between the language of the law
and legal language. The goal is to test the idea that “the language of
the law found in the statutes cannot be separated from other
contemporary legal and political discourse” (p. 86).

Chapter 6 (Impoliteness categories in hateful online comments
targeting migrants in Lithuania) – written by Jūratė Ruzaitė –
quantitatively and qualitatively examines impoliteness strategies used
in abusive comments against migrants. The research data were gathered
from a Lithuanian news portal. It is noteworthy that the chapter also
provides a compelling analysis of the concept of impoliteness and its
connections with hate speech (“impoliteness formulae could therefore
play an important role in helping classify hate speech”, p. 124). The
most important section – accompanied by an extensive array of examples
– contains a thorough classification and description of various
impoliteness formulae (e.g., insults, threats, complaints) identified
in the corpus. In addition, the study lays the groundwork for future
research focused on the intensification of hate speech and the use of
irony as a strategy of impoliteness (p. 145).

Chapter 7 (Covert Islamophobia and anti-Semitism via conspiracy
theory) – authored by Fabienne Baider – has the main goal of examining
the discursive strategy of a specific form of covert hate speech:
anti-Semitic and Islamophobic conspiracy theories. As thoroughly
discussed in the paper, this covert strategy is more persuasive and
challenging both to identify and to prosecute than overt hate speech
(p. 169). The research is conducted on a dataset of Facebook posts and
comments extracted from mainstream news media (especially from Great
Britain). The research reveals that the majority of comments related
to conspiracy theory encompass the metaphor of invasion, portraying
Islamic people negatively; on the other hand, Jews are frequently
depicted as “leading agents behind the migrant invasion scenario” (p.
164). To enhance the analysis, the author – drawing upon Langton’s
studies (2012, 2018) – provides a theoretical description of overt and
covert hate speech and reflects on the authorship (epistemic and
practical) of hate speech acts.

Chapter 8 (The wording of hate speech prohibition: “You can’t see the
wood for the trees”) – by Victoria Guillén-Nieto – explores hate
speech prohibition’s legal approaches at international, common law,
and civil law levels, aiming to provide legal protection for minority
groups, such as migrants. The chapter underscores the complexity of
hate speech prohibitions, noting diverse terminology and technical
nuances that challenge their interpretation. The legal language
–characterized by imprecision, generalizations, and vague expressions
(p. 195) – prompts the author to advocate for the application of
linguistic theory, specifically Speech Act Theory (e.g., Brown & Yule
1983). Indeed, this theory, clarifying the macro- and micro-structures
of hate speech acts, enhances the hate speech’s conceptualizations
within a legal framework and can be of crucial aid for law’s wording.
Additionally, the chapter addresses an additional issue, namely:
hateful messages often tend to be implicit, thus rendering taxonomies
of expressions used to incite hatred less useful from a legal
standpoint (p. 194). So, the author emphasizes the valuable
contribution of trained linguists, significantly in gaining a more
profound understanding of the real meaning conveyed by speech acts.

Chapter 9 (When the wording of the law is not enough: Hate speech
crimes in Spain) – authored by Antonio Dovail Pais – focuses on the
linguistic formulation challenges posed by hate speech crimes in
Spanish law. Specifically, these challenges pertain to the scope of
prohibitions and their relationship with the right to freedom of
expression (p. 201). The bulk of the paper delves into the analysis of
issues arising from the laws’ wording, making them difficult to
interpret and apply. For example, these challenges include excessive
vagueness, ambiguity regarding whether the action inciting hatred or
the resulting outcome should be punished, or if laws against hate
speech must necessarily be applied to vulnerable social groups. As
explicitly stated in the chapter’s introduction (p. 201), the author
also provides some strategies to address these problems. Additionally,
the chapter extensively examines both the origins of legal protection
for foreigners/citizens of different ethnicities in Spain and
subsequent updates and modifications, especially those concerning the
aggravating factors for racist actions (pp. 207-212).

EVALUATION

This volume is undeniably relevant, intellectually stimulating, and
adept in achieving its objectives.
In addition, it is worth specifying that the reading of the volume,
given the complexity of the topics addressed and the methodologies
used, may be recommended to the community of scholars in both the
legal and linguistic fields (particularly scholars of Pragmatics and
Critical Discourse Analysis).

Among the numerous merits of the volume, it is notable how the work
benefits from the synergy between studies employing quantitative
methodologies (e.g., chapters 4, 5, 6, 7) and those of a qualitative
nature (e.g., chapters 2, 3, 8, 9). The balance of these methodologies
enables the reader to gain a profound understanding of the phenomena
addressed in the volume (cf. SUMMARY) and to grasp their full
complexity.

Furthermore – particularly in the case of quantitative studies – it is
remarkable that the analyzed data differ in terms of textual typology
– for example, Facebook posts (Chapter 7), US congressional debates
and legislative discourses (Chapter 5), and news media comments
(Chapter 6). This aspect is particularly intriguing as it allows the
reader, on the one hand, to comprehend how hate speech is pervasive in
various communicative contexts (e.g., US Supreme Court, cf. Chapter 4
vs. digital platforms as Facebook, cf. Chapter 7) and, on the other
hand, to observe how hate speech may assume various linguistic forms
(e.g., literal vs. indirect) in relation to communicative contexts
and/or the perlocutionary purposes that different textual typologies
aim to achieve. These aspects benefit not only linguistics scholars
but also legal experts contemplating contexts and cases (e.g., text
types, linguistic forms) in which laws, targeting anti-immigration
rhetoric, should be applied.

Moreover, another merit of the volume is its crossroad positioning
among various fields of linguistics – such as Pragmatics (e.g.,
Chapter 6 and 8), Semantics and Lexicology (especially Chapter 4 and
5), and Legal Linguistics (particularly Chapters 8 and 9) – with the
aim of shedding full light on the phenomenon of hate speech. Indeed,
hate speech is a linguistically complex phenomenon (with legal
implications) that unavoidably requires, for legal action to be as
effective as possible, consideration of the different levels at which
language is structured.

In conclusion, it can be affirmed that future research on hate speech
will benefit from the theoretical and methodological models presented
and discussed in this volume.

REFERENCES

Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Kilgarriff, Adam; Baisa, Vít; Bušta, Jan; Jakubíček, Miloš; Kovář,
Vojtěch; Michelfeit, Jan; Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel Vít. 2014. The
Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography (1). 7-36.

Langton, Rae. 2012. Beyond belief: pragmatics in hate speech and
pornography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langton, Rae. 2018. The authority of hate speech. In Gardner, John;
Green, Leslie & Leiter Brian (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of
Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 123-152.

Laurence, Anthony. 2019. AntConc.
https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ (accessed 25/01/24).

Patrick, Peter. 2012. Language analysis for determination of origin:
Objective evidence for refugee status determination. In Lawrence M.
Solan & Peter M. Tiersma (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and
Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 534-546.

Ratinaud, Pierre. 2014. IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les analyses
multimensionnelles de textes et de questionnaires.
http://www.iramuteq.org (accessed 25/01/24).

Stumpf, Juliet. 2006. The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and
sovereign Power. American University Law Review (56). 367-420.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Antonio Bianco is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Linguistic Sciences
at the University of Bergamo and at the University of Pavia. He earned
his master’s degree in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics from the
University of Pavia in 2022. His research interests focus on the use
of humor in political discourse, discursive implicitness and
(linguistic) persuasive strategies.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please consider donating to the Linguist List https://give.myiu.org/iu-bloomington/I320011968.html


LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Equinox Publishing Ltd http://www.equinoxpub.com/

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-35-729
----------------------------------------------------------