WHEN HATE SPEECH LEADS TO HATEFUL ACTIONS: A CORPUS AND DISCOURSE ANALYTIC APPROACH TO LINGUISTIC THREAT ASSESSMENT OF HATE SPEECH A Dissertation submitted to the FaCulty of the Graduate SChool of Arts and SCiences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in LinguistiCs By Alexandria Marsters, M.S. Washington, DC April 1, 2019 Copyright 2019 Alexandria Marsters All Rights Reserved ii WHEN HATE SPEECH LEADS TO HATEFUL ACTIONS: A CORPUS AND DISCOURSE ANALYTIC APPROACH TO LINGUISTIC THREAT ASSESSMENT OF HATE SPEECH Alexandria Marsters, M.S. Thesis Advisor: Natalie SChilling, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Inspired by reCent aCts of mass violence motivated by hate, this work considers hate speeCh from a sociolinguistiC perspeCtive by combining corpus analysis and disCourse analytiC methods. The goals of this work are twofold. First, this research aims to propose a comprehensive definition of hate speeCh by leveraging the linguistiC body of knowledge in conjunction with insights from legal sCholarship, cross-disCiplinary aCademiC work, lexiCography, and non-aCademiC perspeCtives colleCted through a two-part survey. This work then employs the definition of hate speeCh that is developed to build two corpora of hate speeCh, one authored by those who went on to commit violence and the other by those who did not, called “Hunters” and “Howlers” respeCtively aCCording to the threat assessment paradigm of Calhoun and Weston (2009; 2012). These data are used to address the seCond goal – to enriCh future threat assessment protocols by identifying language patterns whiCh correlate with violent behavior by the authors of hate speeCh. A bottom-up and top-down corpus analysis is complemented by a disCourse analytiC case study whiCh focuses on positioning and stancetaking within two texts, one Hunter and one Howler, to identify a number of linguistiC forms and functions that differentiate the Hunters’ hate speeCh from the Howlers’. iii DEDICATION Dad, there are more than 80,000 words in this dissertation, but I have no words for how much I miss you. This is for you. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My name is on this dissertation, but that doesn’t begin to refleCt the many people without whom this work would never have happened. First, I would like to thank my wonderful Committee – Heidi Hamilton, Tammy Gales, and espeCially my advisor Natalie SChilling. There were twists, turns, and more than a few delays in this work and the support and encouragement I reCeived throughout it all from the three of you was beyond words. Natalie, you always managed to find all the things I was hoping you wouldn’t notiCe in every draft and never failed to help me make them better. From the moment I stepped foot into your classroom as a master’s student through our previous collaborations and now this dissertation, I am a much better writer, analyst, and linguist than I ever thought I could be beCause of your tremendous guidance and expertise. SeCond, I need to thank my colleague and dear friend Lauren Johnson, who has been my sounding board, my editor, my cheerleader, and has been more helpful than I could ever tell you. I know this work forced you to confront some dark plaCes on the internet and you faCed them (and all my bad drafts) with courage and kindness. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Dr. David Brown. You got me on traCk with Wmatrix and my corpus analysis. I am so grateful for your help. iv I also need to thank those who supported me personally in my long road to completing this projeCt. A big thank you to my LPRU family, espeCially Maria ACevedo and Megan Ratti, who were endlessly supportive and always helped me defleCt when people asked “how’s the dissertation going?” and “are you almost finished?” To my parents and my brothers, Matthew and Frank, you are all I ever could ask for in a supporting and loving family. You encouraged me, commiserated with me, and loved me even when I was stressed and felt like this was never going to end. There has never been anything I tried that you didn’t believe I could aChieve. Matthew and Frank, you are my brothers by blood, my best friends by choiCe, and two of the greatest gifts in my life. To my very-soon-to-be husband Sean, I could not have done this without you. You were the only thing that got me through when my Word file was corrupted 10 minutes after I had finished the final table of contents. You gave me the strength to do this when I didn’t believe that I could. Through all the frustration and doubt, no one has been more supportive. You are my sun and stars. You are the champion of my heart. I love you. Finally, to my handsome pup Loki, I will be more fun now that I’m not glued to my computer every day after work. We will play with so many squeaky toys, I promise. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Motivations and ImpliCations of Research ............................................................... 2 1.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 Research Question 1 ........................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Research Questions 2 and 3 ................................................................................ 8 1.2.3 Research Questions 4 and 5 ................................................................................ 9 1.3 Brief Summary of Results ...................................................................................... 10 1.4 Dissertation Outline ................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 2 Defining Hate SpeeCh ....................................................................................... 14 2.1 SpeeCh ACt Theory ................................................................................................. 16 2.1.1 Threats as SpeeCh Acts ..................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 Incitement and Insults as SpeeCh ACts ............................................................. 22 2.2 Legal Definitions of Hate SpeeCh ........................................................................... 24 2.3 ACademiC and LexiCographiC Definitions of Hate SpeeCh ..................................... 29 2.4 Hate SpeeCh Survey ................................................................................................ 40 2.4.1 Initial Survey Design ........................................................................................ 41 2.4.2 Initial Survey Respondents ............................................................................... 45 2.4.3 Initial Survey Results ....................................................................................... 47 2.4.4 Follow-up Survey ............................................................................................. 56 2.5 Comprehensive Definition of Hate Speech ............................................................ 63 Chapter 3 A Corpus Analysis of Hunter and Howler Hate SpeeCh .................................. 71 3.1 Hunters vs Howlers: Those Who ACt and Those Who Don’t ................................ 75 3.2 Threat Assessment Literature Review .................................................................... 80 3.3 Corpus AnalytiC Methods ....................................................................................... 92 3.4 SystemiC Functional LinguistiCs ............................................................................ 99 3.5 Stance ................................................................................................................... 105 3.6 Text SeleCtion ...................................................................................................... 107 3.7 Corpus Analysis ................................................................................................... 115 3.7.1 First Person Singular Nominative Personal Pronouns ................................... 122 3.7.2 Modals ............................................................................................................ 127 3.7.3 Verbs of Violence and Anger ......................................................................... 134 3.7.4 Slurs and Epithets ........................................................................................... 139 3.7.5 Evaluative Modifiers ...................................................................................... 141 3.8 DisCussion ............................................................................................................ 145 Chapter 4 Analysis of Positioning and Stance in Two Examples of Hate SpeeCh ......... 152 4.1 TheoretiCal Foundations ....................................................................................... 156 4.1.1 Positioning Theory ......................................................................................... 156 4.1.2 Stance ............................................................................................................. 161 4.1.3 EpistemiC DisCourse Analysis ........................................................................ 166 4.2 Text SeleCtion ....................................................................................................... 174 4.3 Hunter’s and Howler’s SelF-Positioning .............................................................