Suchergebnisse

The variable hate speech is an indicator used to describe communication that expresses and/or promotes hatred towards others (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Ziegele, Koehler, & Weber, 2018). A second element is that hate speech is directed against others on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political conviction (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Waseem & Hovy, 2016) and typically uses terms to denigrate, degrade and threaten others (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, & Martínez, 2015). Hate speech and incivility are often used synonymously as hateful speech is considered part of incivility (Ziegele et al., 2018). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Hate speech (see also incivility) has become an issue of growing concern both in public and academic discourses on user-generated online communication. References/combination with other methods of data collection: Hate speech is examined through content analysis and can be combined with comparative or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, & Chen, 2017; Rowe, 2015). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012). Example studies: Research question/research interest: Previous studies have been interested in the extent of hate speech in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic or discussions on a specific platform or different platforms in comparatively) (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Poole, Giraud, & Quincey, 2020; Waseem & Hovy, 2016). Object of analysis: Previous studies have investigated hate speech in user comments for example on news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) and social live streaming services (e.g. YouTube, YouNow). Level of analysis: Most manual content analysis studies measure hate speech on the level of a message, for ...

This study is concerned with the use of speech acts in Indonesia Independence Day Speech. The objective of this study were to describe the types of speech acts of President's speech in 72nd Indonesia Independence Day 2017 , the most dominant types of speech act, and to described the reason why the most dominant types of speech acts used by him. This study was conducted by qualitative anaylisis method. The source of data in this study was Jokowi's speech in 72nd Indonesia Independence Day 2017, while the data were taken from his utterances in script of speech. The findings of this study showed that all types of speech acts, namely representative, directive, commissive, expressive and declarative The representative speech acts was the most dominantly used in his speech. The reasons of Jokowi used the representative speech acts were he could deliver the information about government's achievements in 2017 and the goals in the next year.

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Introduction -- 1: Where Does Free Speech End and Hate Speech Begin? -- 2: Hate Speech and Free Speech Are Not Relatives -- 3: Harmless Hate? There's No Such Thing -- 4: Hate Speech Is Risky Business -- 5: Free Speech Seems to Be Selective -- 6: Education Depends on Free Speech, Even Hate Speech -- 7: Hate Speech Is Unfitting in a Democracy -- 8: What If Hate Speech Were Criminalized? -- 9: Regulating Hate Speech Is Not Productive -- 10: It Can Be Difficult to Distinguish "Fighting Words" -- 11: There Is No "Hate Speech" Exception to the First Amendment -- 12: Hate Speech Is Harmful, but It Shouldn't Be Legislated -- 13: Free Speech Is Essential on College Campuses -- 14: In Defense of "Uncomfortable Learning" -- 15: Censoring Hate Speech Makes Sense -- 16: Hatred for Hate Speech Is Misplaced -- 17: Let's Make the Punishment Fit the Crime -- Organizations to Contact -- Bibliography -- Index -- Back Cover.

ABSTRACTThis study is concerned with pragmatics, focusing on the types of speech acts used in Julia Gillard's Speeches. This research was conducted by using qualitative descriptive design. There are four text"s speeches of Julia Gillard in this study taken from internet, There were 241 utterances. The results of data analysis showed the total numbers were: declarative 3,7%, representative 52,7%, expressive 6,2%, directive 12,0%, commissive 25,3%. It means that representative form is the most dominant type of speech acts used in Julia Gillard"s speeches. It is 52,7%. Representative is dominant because the speaker who delivered the speech is only person who becomes the center of attention and they are campaign or political speeches. Usually, the speakers would promote about their self and talk about their potency to be a good leader with all their goals to convince the hearer.Keywords: Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Political Speech

This study is concerned with pragmatics, focusing on the types of speech acts used in Julia Gillard's Speeches. This research was conducted by using qualitative descriptive design. There are four text's speeches of Julia Gillard in this study taken from internet, There were 241 utterances. The results of data analysis showed the total numbers were: declarative 3,7%, representative 52,7%, expressive 6,2%, directive 12,0%, commissive 25,3%. It means that representative form is the most dominant type of speech acts used in Julia Gillard's speeches. It is 52,7%. Representative is dominant because the speaker who delivered the speech is only person who becomes the center of attention and they are campaign or political speeches. Usually, the speakers would promote about their self and talk about their potency to be a good leader with all their goals to convince the hearer. Keywords: Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Political Speech

Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right's protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion.

Section 1: Physiological Framework for the Speech Production Process -- Organization of the Articulatory System: Peripheral Mechanisms and Central Coordination -- Respiratory Activity in Speech -- Acquisition of Speech Production: the Achievement of Segmental Independence -- Section 2: Coarticuiation and Other Connected Speech Processes -- Segmental Reduction in Connected Speech in German: Phonological Facts and Phonetic Explanations -- V-C-V Lingual Coarticuiation and its Spatiotemporal Domain -- Section 3: Models of Articulatory-Acoustic Relationships -- Compensatory Articulation During Speech; Evidence from the Analysis and Synthesis of Vocal-tract Shapes Using an Articulatory Model -- Articulatory Synthesis -- Articulatory-Acoustic Relationships in Fricative Consonants -- Articulatory-Acoustic-Phonetic Relations and Modelling, Regions and Modes -- Evidence for Nonlinear Sound Production Mechanisms in the Vocal Tract -- Section 4: Theories and Models of Articulatory Organization and Timing -- Testing Theories of Speech Production: Implications of Some Detailed Analyses of Variable Articulatory Data -- Speech as Audible Gestures -- Articulatory Perspectives of Speech Organization -- Speech Motor Timing -- The Acoustic and Physiologic Characteristics of Neurologically Impaired Speech Movements -- Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H and H Theory.

Speech Acts theories have been a considerable revolution in the developments of pragmatics as a discipline. However, pragmatics cannot be fully studied without taking in consideration discourse analysis, since they are closely joint with each other. Undoubtedly, political discourse has been a major domain of language use that has attracted the interests of researchers for a long while. This is because political discourse is a complex human activity that deserves critical study particularly because of its central place in the organization and management of society. This study investigates the role of language in the communication and interpretation of intentions by examining selected political speeches as pieces of discourse with specific goals. Since the politician`s speech is mainly concerned with persuading or making the others believe what you are saying, the Speech Acts play the most important role. It presents and documents some of the significant illocutionary acts that convey the intentions of speakers in political speeches. Firstly, we will provide the theoretical explanation of the two main theories concerning Speech acts, Austin`s and Searle`s ones. Secondly, we will try to analyze the first Edi Rama`s victorious political speech after the general elections held in Albania in June 2013 concerning Speech Acts and their categorizations. Article visualizations:

The purpose of this study is to explain the various forms of speech acts used in concession speeches. Concession speech is a term used in politics to describe speeches given by losing candidates after an election and after the overall vote, the result is known. The data of this study were taken from four types of concession speeches delivered by losing American candidates in the form of concession speeches: John McCain (2008), Mitt Romney (2012), Hillary Clinton (2016), and Donald Trump (2021). The method used in this study is a qualitative descriptive method because it uses words rather than numbers as a reference for the data to be studied, and it implies obtaining results for collecting the data included in the data sources and analyzing them to detect differences in concessions, speaking actions and Pragmatic discourse analysis approach to speech. The theory used is derived from the theory of Searle (1976), Cutting (2003), Holmes (2013), Leech (1947). The results show (1) five types of speech acts, namely representative (fact, statements, describing, and conclusion), expressive (thanking, congratulating, praising, and wishing) directive (inviting, requesting, suggesting, and ordering), and commissive (promising, offering), (2) the language function of each type of speech acts according to the context used by the concession speech, such as expressing gratitude, working together in building America, etc. (3) the most widely used in concession speech are expressive speech acts (thanking and praising) and representative speech acts (statements). The results of this study indicate that the losing candidate's sportsmanship supports the winning candidate and the various words used to say the same thing contributes to the development of English vocabulary.

This research investigates assertive speech acts in Donald Trump's presidential speeches. It classifies the assertive speech acts based on their illocutionary forces according to Bach and Harnish (1979). The data were taken from three speeches by Donald Trump. The results show that the illocutionary forces of assertive speech acts found in the speeches are affirming, alleging, asserting, avowing, claiming, declaring, denying, maintaining, propounding, saying, and stating. The act of stating is the most commonly used (44%). The findings suggest that Trump uses the act of stating mostly because he wants the hearer to believe him that the policies he has made are the best for the United States.

"Why are Australians getting free speech Wrong? Australia is the land of the 'Fair Go'. But does this extend to giving everyone the right to speak freely about politics? While most Australains take this vital freedom for granted, in Speech Matters political analyst Katharine Gelber shows why many of Australia's laws and policies are actually damaging our democratic ideals. A council officer shuts down a Sydney art exhibition that challenges the basis for the Iraq war; big day out organisers are attacked for asking attendees not to wear the Australian flag after the Cronulla riots. Gelber investigates a wide range of political expression to discover what value Australians place on free speech: from the national flag, hate speech and anti-terrorism laws to protest, campaigns against corporate actions and provocative art. Gelber considers the rules that regulate our speech and actions alongside the views of everyday Australians on these issues. What Gelber finds is a political culture that is failing free speech. In Australia, powerful companies can silence dissent,and even peaceful protest can be difficult to carry out. Filled with controversial examples to fuel the debate, Speech Matters challenges Australians to rethink freedom of speech. It's time to give everyone a voice in running the country."--Publisher's website

Debates about free speech and academic freedom—and their limits—have become sharper but also more confused. Conservatives demand greater restrictions, but so too do radicals worried that offensive speech may disrupt campus communities. Universities have a special responsibility to secure the right balance between free expression and offensive speech.