CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Pragmatics lost? Overview, synthesis and proposition in defining online hate speech

Baider, Fabienne·2020·Pragmatics and Society
DOI 10.1075/ps.20004.bai
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This article argues for a definition of online hate speech as a contextualised speech act that is part of a social process of alienation. It suggests that hate speech comes in degrees, is contextual, involves already existing power dynamics, and ‘others’ its targets by creating in/out groups. I first review the various stances towards understanding the phenomenon of online hate speech, including approaches that focus on online hate speech as an interaction shaped by its medium, while also emphasizing the need to consider the role of implicatures in speech acts when defining hate speech. Second, I argue that the relationality of online speech implies that any message is embedded in idiosyncratic socio-cultural norms, and that therefore a ‘one size fits all’ definition of hate speech is elusive. I conclude by suggesting that contextualized hate speech is embedded in a social process of alienation and should be understood as a continuum.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/ps.20004.bai

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inter-annotator agreement was calculated throughout the annotation process.

    “We calculated inter-annotator agreement throughout the process since linguistic features can be differently interpreted due to underlying human bias, such as a certain class perspective or 'normative expectations' (Baider, 2020; Postmes et al., 2000; Maronilakis et al., 2022).”

    From “Real men in the battlefield”: a hybrid AI–discourse analysis of online homophobia and transphobia (2026) · cites this paper as Baider, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baider, F.
Affiliations
University of Cyprus (CY)
Corresponding author
Baider, Fabienne
ORCID
Baider, Fabienne
Venue
Pragmatics and Society
Publisher
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Published
2020-07-13
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
196-218
ISSN
  • 1878-9714 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-9722
DOI
10.1075/ps.20004.bai
OpenAlex
W3041771213
Cited by
35
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
15.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
benjamins.com/content/customers/rights (unspecified)
Locations
Pragmatics and Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
online hate speech, speech acts, implicature, alienation, power relations, contextualization, sociocultural norms, definition of hate speech

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review