Caught in the cross-fire: Tackling hate speech from the perspective of language and translation pedagogy
-
Jelena Vujić
Jelena Vujić is Full Professor in English Language at the University of Belgrade. She teaches modules on Descriptive Grammar at the English Department while supervising a number of master and doctoral theses. She also teaches atMaster in Conference Interpreting and Translation (MCIT) at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade. She has published a wide range of papers and books on English lexicology, morphology, construction grammar, language of populism and hate speech etc. Vujić researches the current practices in translating hate speech, vulgarisms and offensive language. She is an editor-in-chief of the academic journal BELLS (Belgrade English Language & Literature Studies) and sits on editorial board ofPhilologia (Faculty of Philology, Belgrade). She acts as an expert evaluator for the Accreditation Board for Serbian Higher-Education Institutions., Mirjana Daničić
and Tamara AralicaMirjana Daničić is Assistant Professor in Translatology at the University of Belgrade. She teaches Non-literary translation at the English Department and Conference Interpreting atMaster in Conference Interpreting and Translation (MCIT) at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade. She supervises a number of master and doctoral theses tackling translation and interpreting issues. She has published papers and handbooks on translation and interpretation practice and teaching, EFL testing, literary studies. Daničić sits on editorial board ofPhilologia (Faculty of Philology, Belgrade). She has been actively engaged in a number of national and international projects in the areas of translating, interpreting, translation quality control. She is a member of the commission “Translation, Interpreting and Related Technology” at the Standardization Institute of Serbia.Tamara Aralica is a Contemporary English Language Lecturer at the University of Belgrade. She is specifically interested in the populism in political discourse and its implications on language pedagogy. She has published papers on various English language acquisition problems and attended a number of pedagogy-related conferences.
Abstract
Hate speech is a phenomenon which has been in the focus of scholarly interest of linguists, philosophers, sociologists, human-rights advocates, legal and media experts. Much of this interest has been devoted to establishing criteria for identifying what constitutes hate speech across disciplines. In this paper, we argue that hate speech has profiled as a distinct subgenre of the language of politics with typical patterns and ways of addressing which can be recognized in political campaigns across the world. Therefore, we present the findings of the case study of translation exercises of English and Serbian texts containing samples of hateful language during presidential campaigns in the USA and Serbia in 2016 and 2017. Our aim is to identify the linguistico-pragmatic commonalities of hate speech in Serbian and English and examine students’ attitudes towards ethically and morally challenging language contents in their mother tongue (L1) and English as their foreign language (L2). The results indicate that in both English and Serbian the same groups (e.g. members of ethnic minorities or LGBT population, women etc.) are targeted with the hateful language which in both languages uses vulgarisms, taboo words, sexist and chauvinistic declarative expressions to achieve political goals. In addition, L1>L2 and L2>L1 translation data indicate that personal moral and ethical norms in translators are stronger in L1 thus restrictively affecting translational L2>L1 output.
About the authors
Jelena Vujić is Full Professor in English Language at the University of Belgrade. She teaches modules on Descriptive Grammar at the English Department while supervising a number of master and doctoral theses. She also teaches at Master in Conference Interpreting and Translation (MCIT) at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade. She has published a wide range of papers and books on English lexicology, morphology, construction grammar, language of populism and hate speech etc. Vujić researches the current practices in translating hate speech, vulgarisms and offensive language. She is an editor-in-chief of the academic journal BELLS (Belgrade English Language & Literature Studies) and sits on editorial board of Philologia (Faculty of Philology, Belgrade). She acts as an expert evaluator for the Accreditation Board for Serbian Higher-Education Institutions.
Mirjana Daničić is Assistant Professor in Translatology at the University of Belgrade. She teaches Non-literary translation at the English Department and Conference Interpreting at Master in Conference Interpreting and Translation (MCIT) at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade. She supervises a number of master and doctoral theses tackling translation and interpreting issues. She has published papers and handbooks on translation and interpretation practice and teaching, EFL testing, literary studies. Daničić sits on editorial board of Philologia (Faculty of Philology, Belgrade). She has been actively engaged in a number of national and international projects in the areas of translating, interpreting, translation quality control. She is a member of the commission “Translation, Interpreting and Related Technology” at the Standardization Institute of Serbia.
Tamara Aralica is a Contemporary English Language Lecturer at the University of Belgrade. She is specifically interested in the populism in political discourse and its implications on language pedagogy. She has published papers on various English language acquisition problems and attended a number of pedagogy-related conferences.
Appendix I
Examples containing political hate speech in English
Text sample A
“Donald Trump says Clinton’s bathroom break during the debate is ‘too disgusting’ to talk about”, by Jenna Johnson, December 21, 2015, The Washington Post
“She was favored to win, and she got schlonged”, Trump said, turning a vulgar noun for a large penis into a verb.
During a CNN interview after the debate, Trump said of Kelly: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever”.
In recent weeks, he has repeatedly commented on her pantsuits, said she lacks the “stamina” and “strength” needed for the presidency, and accused her of sleeping too much.
This latest attack seems to be in response to a comment Clinton made about Trump during the Saturday night debate: She said that the Islamic State terrorist group has used video of Trump's controversial comments on Muslims to recruit new members...
“And it turned out to be a lie -- she's a liar!” Trump said to roaring cheers.
“I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them”, Trump said of the journalists who cover him. “I would never kill them. I would never kill them... I would never kill them, but I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people”.
Text sample B
“Hillary Clinton Ad Focuses on Trump's Remarks about Women”, by Tessa Berenson, September 23, 2016, CNN
The spot shows images of different young women looking at themselves in the mirror overlaid with real soundbites of Trump saying things like, “I'd look her right in that fat ugly face of hers”, and...
“A person who is flat chested is very hard to be a 10”.
“Does she have a good body, no? Does she have a fat (expletive)?Absolutely,” he says as the girls onscreen self-consciously appraise their own looks.
Text sample C
“Hillary’s Foul Language Is Deplorable”, by Arissa Danron, Oct 11 2016, Townhall
The world took a collective gasp when Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables”.
In Ed Klein’s previous book, The Truth about Hillary, we read about Hillary asking for her supposedly beloved husband, Bill Clinton, by shouting, “Where’s the miserable co*ksucker?”
In Unlimited Access, by Gary Aldrich, Hillary Clinton got people to keep their distance by saying, “Stay the fu*k back, stay the fu*k away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fu*king do as I say, okay!”
Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Ware Joseph Califano, wrote in Inside of Hillary declaring, “You sold out, you motherfu*ker! You sold out!”
In a discussion on the media frenzy about her email scandal, Hillary was quoted as saying, “It’s more right-wing bullsh*t on top of more right-wing bullsh*t.”
In reference to FBI director James Comey, Hillary told a friend that was interviewed for Guilty as Sin, “That a**hole has been after me forever!” That “a**hole” is the leader of one of the premier intelligence agencies in the world.
Text sample 4
The Guardian, September 26, 2016
Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables” which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it”.
She went to note “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America”.
She previously said in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 “that you could put Trump’s supporters in two big baskets. They’re what I call the deplorables. The racists and the haters and the people who are drawn because they think he can somehow restore an America that no longer exists.” The Democratic nominee went on to suggest these voters represented “the paranoiac prejudicial element within our politics”.
The Republican nominee came to political prominence in 2011 by repeatedly suggesting without any evidence that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and launched his campaign by suggesting Mexico was deliberately sending rapists into the US. This has long been fodder for attack for Clinton who, in an August speech in Reno, Nevada, railed against Trump as “a man with a long history of racial discrimination”.
However, Clinton had never tried to tie Trump’s voters to the Republican nominee, insisting in the Reno speech “this is not conservatism as we have known it. This is not Republicanism as we have known it.” Instead, she characterized Trump as the vanguard of a “paranoid fringe” which had taken control of the Republican party.”
Appendix II
Examples containing political hate speech in Serbian
Text sample 1
“Milenko Jovanov: Vuk Jeremić je okružen najvećom kriminalnom bandom u Srbiji!” 20/3/2017,Politika
Najveća kriminalna banda u Srbiji danas je u okruženju Vuka Jeremića, saopštio je danas potpredsednik Glavnog odbora Srpske napredne stranke Milenko Jovanov.
“Braćom Burgije, Paucima i drugim kriminalcima, kao i celokupnim narko tržištem u Srbiji upravlja njegova žena”, Nataša Jeremić, piše u saopštenju.
“Isti taj Jeremić bio je saučesnik u 16-godišnjoj pljački Vojvodine od strane Demokratske stranke, kada su pljačkana čak i deca sa smetnjama u razvoju, a podržavao je i kada su njegove žute kolege donosile Statut, kojim su od Vojvodine htele da prave državu”, ističe se u saopštenju.
Umesto što laže i izmišlja, Jeremić bi najzad mogao da kaže ko mu je dao ogromne pare za kampanju i šta od njega traži zauzvrat, dodao je Jovanov. “Možda bi to dalo odgovor i zašto su najveći kriminaci u njegovom okruženju, zaključuje se u saopštenju”.
Text sample 2
“SNS: Jeremić nije patriotski kandidat, već prevarant”, 10/2/2017, Beta
Potpredsednik Glavnog odbora Srpske napredne stranke Milenko Jovanov ocenio je danas da Vuk Jeremić “nije nikakav patriotski predsednički kandidat, već prevarant”.
Text sample 3
“OVO JE TA PRISTOJNA SRBIJA?!? Posle protesta ostali zastrašujući grafiti na ulicama Beograda!”6/4/2017, Informer
Učesnici takozvanih “spontanih studentskih protesta”, koji se treći dan zaredom održavaju u Beogradu i drugim gradovima u Srbiji ispisali su skandalozne grafite upućene Aleksandru Vučiću na zgradi Zadužbine Đoke Vlajkovića i zdanju Istorijskog muzeja ispred ulaza u Ministarstvo kulture
Naime, vandali koji se lažno predstavljaju kao akademski građani, očigledno zaslepljeni ogoljenom mržnjom prema izabranom predsedniku Srbije napisali su “Smrt Vučiću”, a jednako skandalozan grafit sa porukom “Smrt Vulinu” takođe se pojavio na ulicama prestonice.
Da je samo pitanje trenutka kada će protesti huligana postati nasilni, jasno je i na osnovu video snimka koji objavljujemo, a na kome se vidi kako pojedini učesnici protesta divljački razbijaju flaše nedaleko od Narodne Skupštine.
Podsetimo, pretnje Vučiću danas je na Fejsbuku uputio jedan od demonstranata koji je sramno poručio da “Vučića čeka metak”.
Text sample 4
“OTKRIVAMO: Jankovićeva žena tražila dizanje bune!”5/4/2017, Informer Slavica Janković, supruga dosovskog NATO kandidata Saše Jankovića, posvađala se sa mužem zbog insistiranja na nasilnim protestima! Kako saznajemo, Slavica je na nedavnom sastanku u Jankovićevom štabu otvoreno rekla da se zalaže za dizanje bune protiv vlasti.
Text sample 5
BRUKO SUJETNA! Saša Janković na Tviteru blokirao novinara Birna, jer mu je tražio da čestita Vučiću!, 3/4/2017, Informer
Text sample 6
“PIZDA SA BRADOM! DRAŠKOVIĆ ZABIO NOŽ U LEĐA VUČIĆU: Napao i Rusiju, a žena mu od Rusa mesečno dobija 7.000 evra!” 3/4/2017, Informer
Vuk Drašković, koji se godinama na izborima šlepa uz SNS, podržao Jankovićeve “spontane proteste”!?! Drašković napao i Rusiju, a njegova žena Danica svakog meseca u NIS zarađuje 771.000 dinara!
Vuk Drašković, lider propalog Srpskog pokreta obnove koji se na izborima godinama šlepa uz SNS i politički preživljava samo zahvaljujući koalicionoj milosti Aleksandra Vučića, podržao je Jankovićeve “spontane proteste”!?![14]
Drašković je istovremeno napao i Rusiju, licemerno zaboravljajući da njegova supruga Danica od Rusa svakog meseca dobija 7.000 evra! Danici Drašković, naime, kao članu Odbora direktora Naftne industrije Srbije, firme koja je u većinskom vlasništvu ruskog “Gasproma”, mesečno isplaćuju čak 771.000 dinara!
Lider raspalog SPO je svoju izdaju koalicionih partnera obelodanio na Tviteru nizom objava u kojima otvoreno kritikuje Vladu Srbije i medije koji kritički pišu o “spontanim protestima” iza kojih se kriju Saša Janković i Vuk Jeremić, podržani prljavim kešom Džordža Soroša.
Miscellaneous examples of headlines
Čanak nazvao radikale“čoporom krvoločnih, zapuštenih primata”. 11/11/2016, Informer
Šešelj odgovara “Za razliku od nas, Čanak nije ni primat. To je još neko nedefinisano u nauci biće. Rodilo se, ljuljalo ga. Mozga nema, a rečito, debelo, kao da je za to spremano, kao da je tovljeno za neku gala proslavu, tako da je teško reći šta je. Čovek nije sigurno”. 13/11/2016, Political TV show Pravac, TV Pink as reported in Informer
Govor mržnje odbornika SNS: “Ko je bre normalan pederima dao pare iz budžeta?” 5/2/2016, Blic
Appendix III
Survey
Assess which of the above examples can be classified as hate speech (state the number of the example):
(a) These examples are certainly hate speech:
(b) These examples cannot be classified as hate speech:
(c) I’m not sure whether these examples can be classified as hate speech:
Classify the above examples based on the semantic content and references into one of the following four categories (state the number of the example):
(a) taboos and vulgarisms
(b) misogynistic, sexist expressions targeted to the members of a specific gender
(c) racially-oriented and offensive expressions against a particular ethnic group
(d) chauvinistic expressions against members of the LGBT population
(e) expressions targeted against physically or mentally challenged persons
Classify the above examples by their intensity (state the number of the example on the lines provided below):
(a) of high intensity
(b) of moderate intensity
(c) of low intensity
(d) none of the above (enter your own description)
Classify the above examples by their acceptability (enter the number of the example on one of the lines provided below):
(a) absolutely acceptable (acceptable for the context, medium, and discourse in which it is used)
(b) partially acceptable (acceptable and appropriate for the context or discourse, but not for the medium in which it is used)
(c) absolutely unacceptable (unacceptable in the context, for the medium or discourse in which it is used)
Classify the above expressions by the translatability criterion.
(a) It was possible to find the proper translation equivalents for the following examples which have the same intensity, relevance and meaning in the target language:
(b)It was possible to find the proper translation equivalents for the following examples which have the lower intensity, relevance and meaning in the target language than in the source language:
(c) It was possible to find the proper translation equivalents for the following examples which have the stronger intensity, relevance and meaning in the target language than in the source language:
Which of the examples do you perceive as:
(a) explicit hate speech
(b) implicit hate speech
Do you think that hate speech has profiled in the political discourse as a separate subregister which is recognizable both in Serbian and in English? (Circle Yes or No)
YES NO
State the problems, impressions, difficulties, challenges and incitements you have faced while translating the above texts (please use up to 100 words).
References
Altman, Andrew. 1993. Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical Examination. Ethics 103. 302–317.10.1086/293497Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2006. Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account London and New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203099919Search in Google Scholar
Baider, Fabienne. 2018. “Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics (Special issue on Narrating Hostility 14(1). 69–92.10.1515/lpp-2018-0004Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Alex. 2015. Hate Speech Law – A Philosophical Examination New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315714899Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Alex. 2017a. What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law and Philosophy 36. 419–468. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/63210/1/Published_manuscript.pdf (accessed 28.03.2018).10.1007/s10982-017-9297-1Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Alex 2017b. What is hate speech? Part 2: Family resemblances. Law and Philosophy 36. 419–468. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/63210/1/Published_manuscript.pdf (accessed 28.03.2018).Search in Google Scholar
Boromisza-Habashi, David. 2012. Speaking Hatefully: Culture, Communication and Political Action in Hungary State College: Pennsylvania State UP.Search in Google Scholar
Chiang, Shiao-Yun. 2010. “Well, I’m a lot of things, but I’m sure not a bigot”: Positive Self Presentation in Confrontational Discourse On Racism. Discourse and Society 21. 273–294.10.1177/0957926509360653Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1986. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164771Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975752Search in Google Scholar
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). 2015. General policy recommendation on combating hate speech Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ecri-european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance-brochure/16808c6e42 [accessed 13 May 2017]Search in Google Scholar
Gelber, Katharine. & McNamara Luke. 2013. Freedom of Speech and Racial Vilification in Australia: ‘The Bolt Case’ in public discourse. Australian Journal of Political Science 48:4, 470-484, 10.1080/10361146.2013.842540Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics 7. 171–194.10.1163/18773109-00702002Search in Google Scholar
Kopytowska, Monika & Fabienne Baider. 2017. From stereotypes and prejudice to verbal and physical violence, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics (Special issue on The pragmatics of othering: Stereotyping, hate speech and legitimizing violence13(2).133–152.Search in Google Scholar
Kopytowska, Monika (ed.). 2017. Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.93Search in Google Scholar
McLaughlin Martin & Javier Munoz-Basols. 2016. Ideology, Censorship and Translation across Genres: past and present Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1095579 (accessed 13/5/2018).Search in Google Scholar
Nida, A. Eugene. 2001. Contexts in Translating Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.41Search in Google Scholar
Saldanha, Gabriela & Sharon O’Brien. 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315760100Search in Google Scholar
Schӓffner, Christine (ed.). 2004. Translation Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853597350Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Spivak, C. Gayatri. 2000. The Politics of Translation. In L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader 397–416 New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
University of Helsinki’s project Mutual Understanding Available at: www.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/mutual-understanding/about [accessed 3 May 2017].Search in Google Scholar
Technau, Björn. 2018. Going beyond hate speech: the pragmatics of ethnic slur terms, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics (Special issue on Narrating Hostility 14(1). 25–43.10.1515/lpp-2018-0002Search in Google Scholar
Valdeόn, A. Roberto. 2008. Anomalous news translation: Selective appropriation of themes and texts in the internet. Babel 54(4). 299–326.10.1075/babel.54.4.01valSearch in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives
- Going beyond hate speech: The pragmatics of ethnic slur terms
- Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility
- “Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” framing the LGBT subject in online comments
- In search of hate speech in Lithuanian public discourse: A corpus-assisted analysis of online comments
- The “legitimation” of hostility towards immigrants’ languages in press and social media: Main fallacies and how to challenge them
- “Rivers of blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction
- Strategies of othering through discursive practices: Examples from the UK and Poland
- Salam-Online: Preventive Measures against extreme online messages among Muslims in Germany. Insights into a pilot project at the Center for Islamic Theology, Münster
- Caught in the cross-fire: Tackling hate speech from the perspective of language and translation pedagogy
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives
- Going beyond hate speech: The pragmatics of ethnic slur terms
- Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility
- “Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” framing the LGBT subject in online comments
- In search of hate speech in Lithuanian public discourse: A corpus-assisted analysis of online comments
- The “legitimation” of hostility towards immigrants’ languages in press and social media: Main fallacies and how to challenge them
- “Rivers of blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction
- Strategies of othering through discursive practices: Examples from the UK and Poland
- Salam-Online: Preventive Measures against extreme online messages among Muslims in Germany. Insights into a pilot project at the Center for Islamic Theology, Münster
- Caught in the cross-fire: Tackling hate speech from the perspective of language and translation pedagogy