The science of linguistics studies human language and seeks to provide answers to questions about the nature, structure and relationship of language with the human brain and its functions, as well as the relationship of language with society. Hate speech is a manufactured linguistic product from a transmitter, with the aim of adversely influencing one or many recipients on both a psychological and moral level.

Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Malta, Mr. Stavros Asimakopoulos has researched hate speech and is the lead editor of the volume Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. I asked him about hate speech and the broader linguistic dimension of the subject. 

How does the science of linguistics analyze the expression "hate speech"? Should I dare to ask about the semantics and pragmatics of the words?

Although the expression "hate speech" is not a linguistic term, as it mainly belongs to the social and legal sciences, linguistics can offer quite useful information for its demarcation as a research subject. After all, when we talk about hate speech, we are literally talking about a phenomenon with very important ideological roots and implications, but which is basically linguistic. This assumption indeed begins in the branches of semantics and pragmatics, which are engaged in the examination of linguistic meaning and linguistic signification respectively. On the semantics side, certainly a common feature of hate speech is the use of specific offensive expressions that reproduce attitudes of discrimination. Pragmatics in turn offers us an extensive theoretical framework on the basis of which we can examine the communication of hatred and discrimination in specific circumstances. The important element here is that most of the phenomenon we call hate speech is composed of messages and statements that do not incite to hatred of discrimination directly, but implicitly target and consequently individualize the social groups that the relevant legislation tries to protect. On this basis, the tools offered by pragmatics for the analysis of linguistic interpretation can certainly help us understand not only the content of statements that fall into this category, but also the dimensions of the general phenomenon that it marks. Of course, going a step further, the discipline that has the most direct connection to the issue is that of discourse analysis, but I believe that this belongs more to the social sciences than to the traditional range of fields that fall under linguistics, as it extends to issues of ideology beyond language. To return briefly to the original question, which as far as I understand has to do with whether we can say something from a semantic or factual point of view about the term "hate speech" itself, I think that in a sense even these disciplines can reveal to us that when it is used as a term, this expression is characterized by a relative indeterminacy. Despite its literal meaning as a hateful speech, which most of us take for granted when discussing this phenomenon, this expression has historically arisen from a very specific issue of legal/institutional content. This issue was - and still is - aimed at addressing verbal incitement to hatred of discrimination and/or violence against clearly identified socially vulnerable groups. Since, admittedly, most of us consider that hate speech includes the entire spectrum of abusive and offensive speech regardless of the recipient, we use the term to refer to a multitude of verbal behaviors, many of which do not concern the socially vulnerable groups that need more immediate protection than it. This is, of course, legitimate, as it offers exposure to the general phenomenon and its negative effects, but at the same time there is a constant risk of being unwittingly disoriented from the original objective that introduced the term into the public sphere, which admittedly can have very serious social consequences. At the same time, with the confusion that prevails, when we believe that any offensive comment, even on a personal level, can be characterized as a reason for hatred, there is an increasing reaction from a large part of the population who feel that their otherwise free linguistic expression is being policed. I therefore think that if the limits of hate speech were clearer, the legal enshrinement of the rights that this phenomenon primarily affects would be much smoother and more transparent for the ordinary citizen.   

What is the relationship of language with the biological and psychological dimensions of the human body? 

Language is inextricably linked to both dimensions. First of all, it is an eminently organic product, since, although of a cognitive nature, speech needs a relative anatomical effort to express it. I am of course talking about the process of articulation of speech or visual-motor when it comes to sign languages. Apart from its obvious biological character, language is clearly connected with human psychology as it allows us not only to communicate, but also to understand emotions and behaviors that affect us in our daily lives. If you think about it, most of our conscious thinking is carried out linguistically, as the expression of many emotions is done verbally, such as, for example, an erotic confession or on the other hand a fight. Similarly, a verbal insult can directly affect our mood and psychology, something that mainly happens with abusive speech after all. In the context of hate speech, therefore, a linguistic meaning can easily influence our judgment and attitude as external observers, or cause us fear as targets.

Does hate speech fall into branches of linguistics, such as psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics? How is a person influenced by words? Do words hurt? 

I will start with the second question of whether a person is influenced by words. Specifically, the question "Do words hurt?" brings to mind the well-known saying "the tongue does not have bones and bones break!" which manages to ascribe very aptly the influence that language has on the human psyche. Hence the term verbal violence, which equally aptly reveals to us the extraordinary power that speech can have. And let's not forget, of course, the case of the submission, which can also potentially be realized verbally. As for the first question now, hate speech has been extensively studied by both linguists and philosophers of the language. Archetypally, and in connection with the discourse analysis I have already mentioned above, hate speech typically falls within the branch of sociolinguistics, and more specifically critical sociolinguistics, as it is above all a social phenomenon. On a theoretical level, however, the most popular approach comes again from the field of pragmatics. In this approach, hate speech is characterized as a linguistic act with a specific proselectic power and apolytic results, where the proselectic force is the one that reveals the intentions of the speaker while the apolytic results are related to the consequences that follow the act. In this light, hate speech can be characterized as a linguistic act with the optional power of incitement to an attitude of discrimination and the delective effect of silencing the social groups that it targets through the creation of a climate of intimidation. Therefore, hate speech is an act of oppression and submission. On this basis, we can also examine it from other perspectives such as, for example, that of psycholinguistics, which could provide us with evidence of the instinctive reaction of a victim or an observer to the production of hate speech.  

Is the transmitter, the one who unleashes written or spoken hate speeches to a person individually, or some group of people, influenced by this act? 

This is a question on which I unfortunately do not have a detailed opinion. I believe that he will obviously be affected by this act, but I am sure that any negative effect of it on his psychosynthesis cannot even be compared with the effects that hate speech brings to the social groups that are targeted.

Is there a difference between hate speech expression and hate speech? 

The truth is that these two expressions are synonymous in the consciousness of the ordinary citizen. Based on my answer to the first question, however, I think it would be useful to make a clear distinction between these concepts, as this way we will be able to preserve the legal connotation and usefulness of the term "hate speech". In my opinion, the concept of hate speech includes a much larger scope than that of hate speech, since it is not linked to legally guaranteed social groups. More specifically, I believe that it also includes the processes of fermenting attitudes of discrimination that ultimately lead to hate speech. So from a sociological point of view, the study of hate speech can give us additional tools to combat hate speech itself.

Stavros Asimakopoulos is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the University of Malta specializing in the field of Pragmatics and Critical Speech Studies using digital methods. He has researched hate speech individually and in the framework of the C.O.N.T.A.C.T. (http://reportinghate.eu/) research project and is the lead editor of the online hate speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective, which is available in free access at the following link: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72604-5