CDA of Hate Speech

JCL P-ISSN: 2074-9279
E-ISSN: 2520-3517
Journal of the College of Languages 2019, No.(39)
Open Free Access, Peer Reviewed Research Journal Pg.19 - 40
Est.1994 http://jcolang.uobaghdad.edu.iq
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Hate Speech
Asst. Prof. Mahdi I. Kareem al-Utbi( Ph.D.)

[email protected]
University of Baghdad, College of Languages, Department of English
Language.
(Received on 4/1/2018: Accepted on 24/1/2018)
Abstract
Online communication on social networks has become a never-given-

up way of expressing and sharing views and opinions within the realm of all
topics on earth, and that is that! A basis essential in this is the limits at
which "freedom of expression" should not be trespassed so as not to fall into
the expression of "hate speech". These two ends make a base in the UN
regulations pertaining to human rights: One is free to express, but not to hate
by expression. Hereunder, a Critical Discourse Analysis in terms of
Fairclough's dialectical-relational approach (2001) is made of Facebook
posts (being made by common people, and not of official nature) targeting
Islam and Muslims. This is made so as to recognize these instances of
"speech" as pertaining to freedom of expression or to hate speech. It is
concluded that the language of the posts and their semiotic details signify
that the texts therein represent hate speech which may amount sometimes to
call for genocide, and not a mere freedom of expression.
Key words: CDA, hate speech, social media, Facebook, freedom.
19
Journal of the College of Languages No. (39) 2019
1. Introduction
Indeed, the Internet has the non-negative feature of allowing people to

communicate at all levels, a state of affairs which is growing remarkably
fast. This sort of communication, however, may be either negatively- or
positively-directed towards others (Back et al., 2010). That is,
communication may be controlled so as to enhance or support good
relations with others; or, it goes on to appeal for the expression of hate
against others, i.e., by gathering thoseself-favoured views and beliefs and
creating a front of war against the "Others" who do not share these same
viewsand interests. This type of negative use of communication is judged
to be a sort of crime known as cyber-bullyingor cyber hate (seeJaishankar,
2008).
Amidst these two ends of expression springs up the nationally-and-

internationally-well-recognised right of all individuals for freedom of
expression, which is an essential outcome of the idea of equality among
people. As a concept, freedom of expression is an essential internationally-
guaranteed right for humans. The expression of opinions and information-
sharing both make an indicator of the level of democracy exercised within
societies. And so, tolerating others' thoughts and others' contrasting
interests will add support to the level of co-existence in modern
communities where multicultural co-living is predominant (Mihajlova, et
al. 2013, 5). But, the abuse of freedoms is a characteristic feature of some
humans, due to an array of reasons whose investigation is beyond the
limits of the present paper. Thus, freedom of expression may anyhow be
abused, and results in unexpected phenomena. Groups or individuals can
hold themselves superior to others, by race, ethnicity, religion, nation, or
else, and consequently, they will humiliate or ridicule any "others" not
20
belonging to their groups, who are beheld inferior to them (ibid); hatred
herein comes naturally of any instance of confrontation. Online media and
social networking will help facilitate such behavior due to the ease,
unlimited access, and "freedom" with which individuals deal with online
communication. Such a state of affairs resulted in making messages,
whose producers would for the most part stay unknown, spread at a
remarkably short time, and so the crime goes unnoticed andun-regulated
(Awan 2016, 2).
In this paper, those "texts", which are distributed in online media and
directed towards Islam and Muslims, and which include feelings of
intolerance and rejection against them, are tackled qualitatively by the
tools of Fairclough's approach to Critical Discourse Analysis(CDA) so as
to answer the following:
i- What image is presented of Islam and Muslims in non-Muslim

online media?
ii- Can this presentation amount to be seen as a form of "hate
speech"?
2. What is Hate Speech?
In general terms, there is no consensus as to what hate speech exactly is.

Rather, different authors provide parallel definitions. Following no
specific technical orientations, hate speech is any expression containing an
element of hatred against an individual or a group. It is employed for the
purpose of insulting a person or a group on the basis of race, ethnicity, or
religious belief (BEROHS 2016, 24). In UN legal contexts, "hate speech"
is categorised as "expressions that advocate incitement to harm […] based
21
upon the targets being identified with a certain social or demographic

group" (UNESCO 2015). In another project, namely the PRISM project,
hate speech is seen as pertaining to "every stance purporting to jeopardize
the rights of an ethnic, religious or national group, in clear violation of the
principles of equal dignity of and respect for the cultural differences
among human groups" (BEROHS 2016, 5). Awan (2016, 2) adds to the
list of differenceswhich make the raw material of hate speech. He sees it
as negatively depicting someone in regard to their "race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, sexual orientation or physical and mental disability" for
promoting hate and inciting violence (ibid). What seems to be a
comprehensive definition aiming at capturing instances of hate speech of
multi-faceted natures is that proposed by Cohen-Almagor (2011, 3) which
goes as follows:
Hate speech is defined as bias-motivated, hostile, malicious speech

aimed at a person or a group of people because of some of their
actual or perceived innate characteristics. It expresses
discriminatory, intimidating, disapproving, antagonistic, and /or
prejudicial attitudes towards those characteristics, which include
gender, race, religion, ethnicity, colour, national origin, disability
or sexual orientation. Hate speech is intended to injure,
dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade and victimize the
targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against
them.
As a relevant issue is the judgment of the level of hate. This is an

attempt at reaching a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of
hate speech; the judgment is taken from a qualitative perspective so as to
create a tool for measuring the level of hate. All in all, to have a better
approach to the contextualization of behaviours involving hate speech and
22
to think of their likely following consequences, the Anti-Defamation

League designed what is called the Pyramid of Hate tool as follows:
Fig. 1: Pyramid of Hate (after ADL Education Division: Pyramid of

Hate)
The pyramid displays those biased acts which would develop in their
complexity from bottom to top. At all levels, acts negatively influence
individuals and groups or society in general, but what is remarkable about
them is that the upper they get in the pyramid, the more life-threatening
they become. Thus, hate speech will be involved in "stigmatizing,
marginalizing, and intimidating members of distinct and vulnerable
groups" (BEROHS 2016, 6).
23
3. Nature of Online Media of Communication

As it is, the Internet does make the platform for all media of online
communication, and any attempt to look into the nature of such
communication will have to step into the realm of the Internet. The
Internet is still viewed as a theatre for opinion exchange which goes
beyond regulation. This is son since "anyone, anywhere, who has a
computer and a connection, can express themselves freely (italics mine)"
Staar 2004, 7). Naturally, the Internet is there as a lazy place for
discussing and reflecting upon social problems. Whenever and wherever,
people are able to log in and find all types of truths and facts that they are
desirous for. Because of such unregulated "freedoms", it makes itself a
tool for a controversial representation of social realities (ibid.). The
controversy is triggered because all views, true and untrue, extremist and
moderate, documented and non-documented, are displayed for free!(ibid.)
In this way, irresponsible individuals will take the lead to explain their
own beliefs as well as feel free to express contempt of others' beliefs!!!
4. What is CDA?
CDA is multidisciplinary in origin. Its roots are there in critical

linguistics as well as in sociolinguistics, text linguistics, and applied
linguistics. Also, its essence might be discerned in classical rhetoric, and
pragmatics as well (Weiss and Wodak 2003, 11). Of these terms, Critical
Linguistics and CDA are substitutable, as is noted by Wodak and Meyer
(2009, 121). The CDA beginnings are located within the late 1960s and
1970s of the previous century. It was then some sort of a social trend
having the aim of analyzing socio-political discourse employing a plethora
24
of methods for accomplishing the above-mentioned aim (van Dijk, 2010,

621). The full form of CDA however is the product of the very late 1980s
and the early 1990s. As such, CDA proves to have had no systematic
method of analysis, nor a specific toolkit was there to carry out such an
analysis objectively, and so biasness is never fully out! No matter how, the
main aim of CDA is the explanation of how relationships of dominance
and inequality are maintained and reproduced in discourse. The basis
therein is the belief that language is not powerful by itself, but it is
powerful when made use of by powerful people (Weiss and Wodak 2003,
14). Upon such a broad conception, CDA may be defined generally as the
study of discourse in its social context (Wodak 2001). But as a very
technical trend, it may be defined as "a tool for deconstructingthe
ideologies of the mass mediaand other elite groups and for identifying and
defining social, economic, and historical power relations between
dominant and subordinate groups" (Henry and Tator 2002, 72). This
definition implies that in every CDA endeavor there is the question of how
texts make a reproduction of the represented ideology of the world.
For the purpose of the present study, one major approach, from
among three prominent ones, is presented as a toolkit of analysis. It is that
of Fairclough's (2001) dialectical-relational approach. Fairclough's view of
CDA is based upon two essential notions: language is a form of social
action, and is capable of deconstructing the social machinery of power in
texts. Fairclough's basic notion in his theory of discourse is "the order of
discourse". The idea here is that different discourses are overall controlled
by different networks. He (2001, 24) writes:
We always experience the society and the various social institutions

within which we operate as divided up and demarcated, structured
25
into different spheres of action, different types of situation, each of

which has its associated type of practice.
To Fairclough then, orders of discourse are always different and

independent, but they are related to each other by the type of discourse and
the way they are interwoven into the structure of discourse. In these
orders, power relations greatly matter to him, specifically when the 'orders'
are located within the limits of 'power relations'. Power here is not only
seen as operating within certain class relations or certain class struggles,
but is manifested extensively between 'men and women', 'ethnic groups',
'age groups', and 'other social groups' which are not stereotypical in
specific institutions (ibid, 28). The analytical framework for any issue is to
be processed in terms of the following schema (after Abdul-Jabbar and
Kareem (2013, 23) :
a- Specifying a social problem having a semiotic aspect; locating it

outside the text and identifying its semiotic aspects.
b- Specifying the obstacles for the problem to be tackled by
analysing: (i) the practices in which it is located, (ii) the
relationships of its semiotic aspects to other elements within
particular practices, (iii) its semiotic aspects through showing its
structural analysis or order of discourse, its interactional analysis
, its interdiscursive analysis, and its linguistic and semiotic
analysis.
c- Judging whether the social order or network of practices needs
the problem.
d- Identifying possible ways to overcome the problem. And,
e- Reflecting upon the analysis critically.
26
5. CDA of Anti-Islamic Hate Speech on Facebook
A number of posts on Facebook targeting Islam and Muslims are

analysed in accordance with Fairclough's model (2001). The keywords
used to search for the posts included Anti-Islam, Ban Islam, and Ban
Sahriah Law. The total number of posts is six posts no more, so as to
avoid redundancy and repetition. Each post has be thought of as a
representation of a certain issue of difference, and consequently, all will
be revealing of the amalgam of nearly all problematic issues. The roman
numbered procedures represent the stages of applying the analytical tool
just named.
a- Specification of the Problem: The social problem manifested in all

the posts is the hatred expressed against Islam and Muslims. This
has never been produced overnight in one part of the world; it has
been a consequence of a good number of events upon a very long
period, when the effect thereof was scattered over a very good
number of countries. Events such as the first World Centre Trade
bombing in USA (1993), the 11th of September 2001 events, the
British vs. Asian Muslim youth violence in England (2001), the
Madrid bombings (2004), the London bombings (2005), and
Stockholm bombings (2010) all contributed to worsening the scene.
These mostly terrorist attacks, planned and designed by
irresponsible individuals or groups, created the problem. But, let
one never forget to look at the other side of the coin! These events
are related to other stream of events: the Western, most particularly
American, view towards the Arab-Israeli conflict and the relevant
Palestinian intifadas (1987; 2000), the headscarf issue in France
27
(1989), the Cartoon crisis in Denmark (2006), the British Minister

declaration of his wish to see women with no face cover (2006), the
burning of the Quran in Florida (2011), the official ban of Burqa in
France (2011). These two-end events, especially after the 11th of
September events, created two fronts in the West: We "the west",
and Others "the Muslims"! People there in the west began
questioning the reason behind having Muslims living amongst
them.
b- Specifying the Obstacles for the Problem: Here, the discussion
will take the Facebook posts (See Appendix 1)one at a time, since
each encapsulates a certain aspect of the problem.
1- Post One is made of two parts, linguistic and pictorial. The linguistic is
in the form of a headline including (7) lexical items. These do not include
any bad or aggressive word or meaning. It is this: "Gathering of
moderate Muslims demonstrating for peace". It is written in bold black
and is situated at the top end of the post within a realm of white space,
taking an oval shape from below. Approximately, it takes one fifth of the
whole post. As for the pictorial, it is made of three-section of very many
multi-rows of empty chairs, being looked at from behind. The colour of
the chairs ranges from greyish-black to grey, and ends as greyish-white.
Now, what does it say about Muslims? Is it good? Or, bad? As far as its
semiotic significance, simply as it is, it says: Muslims, who are supposed
to be peaceful, are far away from being as such! Empty chairs means that
the supposition is but a claim, not a fact. They say they want and call for
peace, but this is hypothetical, because even if they were to demonstrate
for peace, it would be just an act of body and a word of tongue. It would
be empty of spirit and a way from mind and soul. This is meant by the
empty chairs. Or, it means that they would never do such a demonstration,
28
not even in body; or, it means, if they were absent from here, i.e., the
place for demonstrating for peace, they would be present there, i.e., the
place where to call for war and instability.
2- Post Twois again made of two intermixed parts, pictorial and linguistic:
the background is an image of ordinary people walking in the daylight in a
street in a civilized western country. What is to be taken as unusual,
however, is the presence of two Muslim women who are fully covered in
black. The linguistic part is represented by two separate texts, one
vertically situated at the left fifth of the image, and the other is
horizontally shown on about the middle of the image and taking nearly
two quarters of the full remaining space. The vertical text reads as follows:
"WHAT A DEPRESSING SIGHT TO SEE IN A CIVILIZED
WESTERN COUNTRY". Here again there is nothing aggressing in the
literal meaning of the words. But, if taken along with semiotic
symbolization of the image, aggressiveness and harshness appear readily.
It is this: it is very depressing to see and have veiled and fully covered
Muslim women in our country. The horizontal text is: "IS THIS THE
FUTURE OF THE WEST?" This is an affirmative rhetorical question. It
means: "This should never be the future of the west". The way these two
texts are represented on the image is symbolically significant. The top-to-
bottom vertical representation form indicates the lowering spirit of the
people there to see strange non-belonging individuals among themselves.
If these strange people lived where they do not belong, they would
domineer the scene. This is the symbolic end which is shown in the
horizontal representation of the rhetorical question. Taken together, the
two parts of the texts will be as follows: if we, the west, allow strange
non-belonging people to live among us, they, the others, will control the
scene in our country, and so, they should be kicked out. We should not
29
permit them to transfer their own tradition of personal freedom-restrain

into our communities because they are bad and unknown to us. They have
covered identities. We are open to others, and others should be open to us.
If not, they have to leave our country.
3- Post threeinvolves two figures of men, the kicker to the right side, and
the kicked to the left. The kicked, while carrying the "Koran", is thrown
into a hole just below him. Below the two figures, there is a text which is
an assertive statement logically uttered by kicker while doing the kicking.
The text says: "THIS IS EUROPE" (colour in original text). Here, there is
a very clear indication of the negative attitude towards Muslims. There is
no difference between the two men, but the "Koran". Symbolically
enough, it is believed that the Kickers, people of Europe, think that the
Kicked, the Muslims, are extremists because of their religious book. They
are to the left, and being also kicked by those extremists of the right.
Again, the difference lies in the religious belief, no more.
4- Post four is totally pictorial. It is animage showing a public
demonstration with people, men and women, in a civilized country
carrying lollipop-figured signs prohibiting Islam. Islam is referred to by
drawings of mosques on the signs. There is the Flag of Germany. What
else one could say about such an image? No more than "Islam is
prohibited, and then Muslims should never allowed to come into our
country, and those inside it should be kicked out".
5- Post five is a circle with its circumference represented as wide black.
The centre of the image has two men, one standing and lifting up a pig to
hit the Other, and the "Other" is thrown to the ground and begging not to
be hit with the pig. On the wide black circumference, there is written:
"GOOD NIGHT MUSLIM PRIDE".Then, it is a matterof PRIDE of, not
an individual, but a full community. Muslims are proud of,amongmany
30
differentissues, of eating Halal; the very notorious thing thatthey despise

most is pork, the flesh of the pig. Muslims are very sensitive to pigs, even
when beholding them, how about eating their flesh. It is disgusting!
Because of such a reality, the man is about to hit the Muslim with pig; the
pride is gone when somebody is tortured by something of which he is
completely irritative. It is being saluted with GOOD NIGHT, because the
Muslim and his PRIDE are going to be kicked and forgotten. The hitter
wants to say: "Idespise you in the same way you despise pigs!!!".
6- Post six is mostly linguistic, and so it is very clear as to what is the
intention thereof.It is an image of an orange background having at the
upper part the following text: "Have You Made Your NEW YEAR'S
RESOLUTION to avoid Halal Certified products and services?". Right
below it, there exists a pile of Halal products headed by "BOYCOTT
‫"حالي‬. The lower part comprises this wish: "HAPPY NEW YEAR from
BOYCOTT HALAL!".As in Post five, Muslims are very proud of eating
Halal certified foods and products. The westerners want to oppose the
Muslims, and try and avoid what Muslims look for. The post makes an
advertisement special to New Year decisions. It calls for making up one's
mind at the New Year and avoid Halal foods and products. A logical
consequence follows here: which is more appropriate, to avoid the
products, or the individual(s) consuming them???
c- Judging the need for the problem: Unfortunately, looking at the
way the west perceives of Muslims might reveal how the problem is
created. The whole picture is that there is a mandatory relation
between the "West" and the "Others". The "Others" are living among
the Westerners", but the "Others" enjoy what the "Westerners" enjoy
of rights and freedoms, whether at the personal or social levels.
These both live together, and are free to express opinions and
31
attitudes. The difference thereof is being aggravated because of the

difference in religious and cultural norms and beliefs which will
always come to the surface once "freedoms" confronted. So, the
problem persists as logically enough as there are people of different
views and perspectives when looking at matters pertaining to
ordinary life. The problem is needed in so far as it can be seen as an
essential aspect of positive end. People do communicate either
positively when differences are overlooked and so eliminated; or
negatively when differences are stressed and made outstandingly
prominent.
d- Identifying possible solutions:Any problem would permit some
solutions appropriate to its context and structure. The problem in
hand is a social problem created because of a variation in
perspectival views. People worldwide are eager always to live
peacefully, where all feel safe and unthreatened. And, when we
consider the social structure of the western community, we are faced
by a multi-layer network of social practices, native and non-native.
Native beliefs and traditions work as a solidifying force bringing
together the individuals so as to form a unity, which at the same time
work ahead to tackle non-native issues. These are practiced by non-
native citizens who adhere to different array of beliefs, traditions,
and social practices. Any chance to have those two types of
individuals –in our case, the Westerners and the Non-westerners, i.e.,
Muslims, interact, there might be a moment for clash, specifically,
when either is not satisfied with the other as to any aspect of
religious belief or social tradition. A possiblesolution to such a
problem is purely rational-based. One has to think of the other as
equal, and is free to have his own belief and practices. Let's not
32
forget that it is more commonly ordinary people who trespass the

limits of freedom of expression and cut across others' freedoms.
e- Reflecting upon the analysis: The analysis was made of a selected

number of posts downloaded from Facebook. The posts are
reflective of the view of the Westerners towards Muslims. The
qualitative approach took nearly all aspects of semiotic significance
in the posts into consideration. The linguistic and the pictorial issues
have been given due amount of discussion and analysis. If the
number of posts is seen as limited, this is because any attempt to
search for anti-Islam and anti-Muslim posts will lead you to find a
great number of them, and so many are being overused again and
again on many other pages on Facebook. Add to this, why there is
hate towards Muslims is mostly because of their own beliefs. This
might take different ways: the Quran, the mosque, the veiled-
women, prayer-performance, and Halal. These are recurrent issues to
wage hatred towards Islam and Muslims. Unfortunately, however,
such hatred is extensively felt towards them because of some
irresponsible individuals who transformed a distorted image of Islam
as being terroristic!
6. Conclusions
Out of the analysis above, a number of points may be taken as a

conclusive statement.
i- Islam is represented by the westerners in these Facebook posts as an

unwanted unity that should be terminated.
33
ii- Islamic traditions, such as headscarf or veil, and Halal products, are
rejected and should never be allowed in the West.
iii- The practices targeting Muslims are readily recognized as a very
serious level of hate speech which may upon many occasions amount to
genocide.
iv-Hatred may be perceived as a form of fear from Islam, i.e., westerners
feel Islamophobic, and so they do not want Islam spread in their own
countries.
v- Hatred is expressed against Islam because it is thought to be as
rejecting personal freedoms, and so it does not allow women to uncover
their heads. Consequently, it is seen as unbelonging to west. Its cultural
norms are totally different.
vi-Also, Islam is perceived of unwelcoming change; it may never be
influenced by modern culture and openness.
7. Recommendations
In so far as we are relating a delicate issue of difference, it is important to
make clear some points in due position. As has been announced from the
very beginning that the posts are made by common people and not
pertaining to official opinions, it is recommended that, in order to help
change the extremist views against Islam among the common people,
forums and social meetings along with pages on Facebook, targeting both
the educated and the common people, need to be held so as help tell the
very sense of Islamic belief in peaceful co-existence with all other non-
Muslims, and not to be misled bythe evil deeds of the extremist Islamists
who would never reflect the reality of the religion of mercy. And, a mindful
call for all people on earth is put forward: Never to judge a belief by the
deeds of only dozen of its believers. By so, extremists will not be able to
reach their goals!
34
References
I- Abdul-Jabbar, L. and Kareem, R. (2013) " Critical Discourse

Analysis: Basics and Methodology",The International Journal of
Language Learning and Applied Linguistics, Vol. 2 (4), 20-27.
II- ADL Education Division: Pyramid of Hate, available at:
http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Pyramid-of-
Hate.pdf
III- Awan, I.(2016)"Islamophobia on Social Media: A Qualitative
Analysis of the Facebook’s Walls of Hate", International Journal of
Cyber Criminology, Vol. (10), Issue 1, 1-20.
IV- Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C.,
Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010) "Facebook profiles reflect
actual personality, not self-idealization", Psychological Science, 21,
372-374.
V- "Backgrounds, Experiences and Responses to Online Hate Speech:
A Comparative Cross-Country Analysis" (BEROHS) (2016)
National Reports elaborated by Olga Jubany and Malin Roiha,
available at:
http://www.unicri.it/special_topics/hate_crimes/Backgrounds_Expe
riences_and_Responses_to_Online_Hate_Speech_A_Comparative_
Cross-Country_Analysis.pdf
VI- Cohen-Almagor, R. ( 2011) "Fighting Hate and Bigotry on the
Internet", Policy & Internet, 3 (3), 1-26.
VII- Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power (2nd ed.) London:
Longman
VIII- Henry, F. and Tator, C. (2002) Discourse of Domination:
racial bias in the Canadian English-Language Press.Toronto:
Toronto University Press.
IX- Jaishankar, K. (2008). "Cyber Hate: Antisocial networking in the
Internet", International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(2), 16-20.
X- Mihajlova, E., Bacovska, J. and Shekerdjiev, T.(2013) Freedom of

Expression and Hate Speech. Skopje: Polyesterday.
XI- Staar, S. (2004) "Hate Speech: What is there to be worried about",
OSCE Conference on 'Guaranteeing Media Freedom on the
Internet', Amsterdam.
XII- UNESCO (2015) Countering online hate speech, available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf.
35
XIII- Van Dijk, T. (2010) "Critical Discourse Analysis", in D.

Schoffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (Eds.) The Handbook of
Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
XIV- Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. (2003)"Introduction: Theory,
Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis", inWeiss, G.
and Wodak, R. (2003)(Eds.) Discourse Analysis: Theory and
Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
XV- Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009) "Critical Discourse Analysis:
history, agenda, theory, and methodology", in R. Wodak and M.
Meyer (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
sage Publications Ltd.
XVI- Wodak, R. (2001) "What Critical Discourse Analysis is about- a
summary of its history, important concepts, and its development",
in Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: sage Publications Ltd
Appendix 1: The Posts
Post 1:
36
Post 2:
Post 3:
37
Post 4:
Post 5:
38
Post 6:
39
‫‪Journal of the College of Languages‬‬ ‫‪No. (39) 2019‬‬
‫تحليل خطابي نقذي لخطاب الكراهية‬
‫أ‪.‬م‪.‬د‪ .‬ههذي عناية كرين العتُبي‬

‫جاِعح تغذاد‪ /‬وٍٍح اٌٍغاخ ‪ /‬لضُ اٌٍغح االٔىٍٍزٌح‬
‫خالصة البحث‬
‫ٌمذ صاس اٌرىاصً عٓ غشٌك األٔرشٔد فً ِىالع اٌرىاصً اإلجرّاعً وصٍٍح ال ٌّىٓ أتذًا اٌرخًٍ‬
‫عٕها ٌٍرعثٍش عٓ اَساء و اٌّشاسوح تها فٍّا ٌرعٍك تىافح أٔىاع اٌّىاظٍع عٍى وجه األسض‪ ,‬و هزا‬
‫هى اٌحاي و ال غٍش! و األصاس فً هزا هى اٌحذود اٌرً ٌجة اأال ذرعذاها "حشٌح اٌرعثٍش" فرمع فً‬
‫حٍز "خطاب اٌىشاهٍح"‪ .‬و غشفا اٌمعٍح هزاْ ٌّثالْ أصاصًا فً لىأٍٓ األَ اٌّرحذج اٌّرعٍمح تحمىق‬
‫اإلٔضاْ‪ :‬اٌشخص ُح ٌش فً اٌرعثٍش‪ ,‬و ٌىٕه ٌٍش حُشًا فً اٌىشاهٍح تاٌرعثٍش‪ .‬و فً هزا اٌثحث‪ ,‬ذىظفُ‬
‫ِماستح فٍشوالو اٌجذٌٍح‪-‬اٌعاللٍح ٌٍعاَ ( ‪ )2001‬فً ذحًٍٍ إٌّشىساخ (اٌرً ٌٕششها عىاَ إٌاس‪ ,‬و‬
‫ً‬
‫ذحٍٍال خطاتًٍا ٔمذًٌا‪ .‬و‬ ‫ٌٍضد راخ غثٍعح سصٍّح) اٌرً ذضرهذف اإلصالَ و اٌّضٍٍّٓ فً اٌفٍضثىن‬
‫ٌهذف هزا اٌرحًٍٍ إٌى ذصٍٕف األِثٍح ِٓ ذٍه "اٌخطاتاخ" عٍى أٔها حشٌح ذعثٍش أو أٔها خطاب‬
‫اْ ٌغح إٌّشىساخ و ذفاصٍٍها اٌشِزٌح ذذي عٍى أْ ٔصىصها هً‬ ‫وشاهٍح‪ .‬و ٌمذ أظهش اٌثحث َّ‬
‫خطاب وشاهٍح لذ ٌصً فً تعط االحٍاْ إٌى اٌذعىج ٌإلتادج‪ ,‬وٌٍضد ِجشد حشٌح ذعثٍش و حضة‪.‬‬
‫الكلوات لوفتاحية‪ :‬ذحًٍٍ اٌخطاب إٌمذي‪ ,‬خطاب اٌىشاهٍح‪ِ ,‬ىالع اٌرىاصً اإلجرّاعً‪ ,‬اٌفٍضثىن‪,‬‬
‫اٌحشٌح‪.‬‬
‫‪About the author:‬‬
‫‪Dr. Mahdi I. Kareem al-Utbiwas born in Baghdad 1975, got his BA‬‬
‫‪in English Language and Literature from the Dept. of English, College of‬‬
‫‪Arts, University of Baghdad in 1998. From the same Department, he got‬‬
‫‪his M.A. in 2001 and Ph.D. 2008. He has a number of published and‬‬
‫‪accepted-for-publication papers nationally and internationally. He is a co-‬‬
‫‪author of "The Guide: A Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, English-‬‬
‫‪Arabic". His areas of research are mainly Discourse Analysis, Syntax,‬‬
‫‪Morphology, Lexicography, and Translation.‬‬
‫‪Email: [email protected]‬‬
‫‪40‬‬

CDA of Hate Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDA of Hate Speech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDA of Hate Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JCL P-ISSN: 2074-9279

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Hate Speech

Asst. Prof. Mahdi I. Kareem al-Utbi( Ph.D.)

(Received on 4/1/2018: Accepted on 24/1/2018)

Online communication on social networks has become a never-given-

Key words: CDA, hate speech, social media, Facebook, freedom.

Indeed, the Internet has the non-negative feature of allowing people to

Amidst these two ends of expression springs up the nationally-and-

i- What image is presented of Islam and Muslims in non-Muslim

2. What is Hate Speech?

In general terms, there is no consensus as to what hate speech exactly is.

upon the targets being identified with a certain social or demographic

Hate speech is defined as bias-motivated, hostile, malicious speech

As a relevant issue is the judgment of the level of hate. This is an

to think of their likely following consequences, the Anti-Defamation

Fig. 1: Pyramid of Hate (after ADL Education Division: Pyramid of

3. Nature of Online Media of Communication

CDA is multidisciplinary in origin. Its roots are there in critical

of methods for accomplishing the above-mentioned aim (van Dijk, 2010,

We always experience the society and the various social institutions

into different spheres of action, different types of situation, each of

To Fairclough then, orders of discourse are always different and

a- Specifying a social problem having a semiotic aspect; locating it

5. CDA of Anti-Islamic Hate Speech on Facebook

A number of posts on Facebook targeting Islam and Muslims are

a- Specification of the Problem: The social problem manifested in all

(1989), the Cartoon crisis in Denmark (2006), the British Minister

permit them to transfer their own tradition of personal freedom-restrain

differentissues, of eating Halal; the very notorious thing thatthey despise

attitudes. The difference thereof is being aggravated because of the

forget that it is more commonly ordinary people who trespass the

e- Reflecting upon the analysis: The analysis was made of a selected

Out of the analysis above, a number of points may be taken as a

i- Islam is represented by the westerners in these Facebook posts as an

I- Abdul-Jabbar, L. and Kareem, R. (2013) " Critical Discourse

X- Mihajlova, E., Bacovska, J. and Shekerdjiev, T.(2013) Freedom of

XIII- Van Dijk, T. (2010) "Critical Discourse Analysis", in D.

Appendix 1: The Posts

‫تحليل خطابي نقذي لخطاب الكراهية‬

‫أ‪.‬م‪.‬د‪ .‬ههذي عناية كرين العتُبي‬

‫‪About the author:‬‬

You might also like