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.