Slovnični in pragmatični vidiki naklonskosti v slovenščini v družbeno nesprejemljivih komentarjih na Facebooku
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2023.1.33-68Ključne besede:
korpusno jezikoslovje, naklonskost, skladnja, pomenoslovje, pragmatika, sovražni govorPovzetek
V članku predstavimo slovnično in pragmatično rabo epistemskih in deontskih naklonskih izrazov v korpusu družbeno sprejemljivih in nesprejemljivih komentarjev v slovenščini, ki so bili objavljeni na platformi Facebook. Za potrebe analize oblikujemo seznam naklonskih izrazov, ki pomensko pripadajo zgolj eni vrsti naklonskosti, kar nam omogoča učinkovite in točne korpusne poizvedbe in zanesljivo interpretacijo kvantitativnih rezultatov. V članku pokažemo, da so deontski naklonski izrazi, ne pa tudi epistemski, statistično značilno bolj pogosti v družbeno nesprejemljivih komentarjih, pri čemer še posebej izstopajo v komentarjih z nasilno vsebino. Kvantitativne izsledke nadgradimo s kvalitativno analizo diskurzivne vloge naklonskih izrazov. V kvalitativnem delu tako raziščemo, kako se pragmatične sporazumevalne strategije, med njimi pragmatično omejevanje in ojačevanje pomena propozicije ter blaženje potencialne grožnje posameznikovi integriteti, sklapljajo s temeljnimi skladenjskimi in pomenoslovnimi značilnostmi naklonskih izrazov, na primer njihovo naklonsko stopnjo in stavčno skladnjo.
Prenosi
Literatura
Assimakopoulos, S., Baider, F. H., & Millar, S. (2017). Online hate speech in the European Union: a discourse-analytic perspective. Cham: Springer Nature. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72604-5
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask, 12(1), 3–20.
Ayuningtias, D. I., Purwati, O., & Retnaningdyah, P. (2021). The Lexicogrammar of Hate Speech. In Y. Wirza et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (pp. 114–120). Indonesia: Atlantis Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.018
Baranzini, L., & Mari, A. (2019). From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 116–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.002
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899
Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Chiluwa, I. (2015). Radicalist discourse: a study of the stances of Nigeria’s Boko Haram and Somalia’s Al Shabaab on Twitter. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 214–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2015.1041964
Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological society, 85(1): 110–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1987.tb00714.x
Cvrček, V. (2021). Calc 1.03: Corpus Calculator. https://www.korpus.cz/calc/. Last accessed: 20. 12. 2022.
Delgado, R. (2019). Understanding words that wound. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503351
Evkoski, B., Pelicon, A., Mozetič, I., Ljubešić, N., & Kralj Novak, P. (2022). Retweet communities reveal the main sources of hate speech. PloS one, 17(3), e0265602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265602
Fidler, M., & Cvrček, V. (2015). A data-driven analysis of reader viewpoints: Reconstructing the historical reader using keyword analysis. Journal of Slavic linguistics, 23(2), 197–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2015.0018
Fišer, D., Erjavec, T., & Ljubešić, N. (2017): Legal framework, dataset and annotation schema for socially unacceptable online discourse practices in Slovene. In Z. Waseem et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the first workshop on abusive language online (pp. 46–51). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-3007
Gelber, K., & McNamara, L. (2016). Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities, 22(3), 324–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2015.1128810
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Izett, C. D. (2004). Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston and A. N. Katz (eds.): Figurative Language Comprehension (pp. 143–164). New York: Routledge.
Gonzálvez García, F. (2000). Modulating grammar trough modality: a discourse approach. ELIA, 1, 119–136.
Green, M. (2017). Conversation and common ground. Philosophical Studies, 174(6), 1587–1604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0779-z
Halliday, M. A. (1970). Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of language, 6(3), 322–361.
He, A. W. (1993). Exploring modality in institutional interactions: Cases from academic counselling encounters. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13(4), 503–528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1993.13.4.503
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives (Vol. 36). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001
Krek, S. et al. (2019). Corpus of Written Standard Slovene Gigafida 2.0. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1320. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI.
Lenardič, J., & Fišer, D. (2021). Hedging modal adverbs in Slovenian academic discourse. Slovenščina 2.0: empirical, applied and interdisciplinary research, 9(1), 145–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4312/slo2.0.2021.1.145-180
Lenardič, J., & Pahor de Maiti, K. (2022). Slovenian Epistemic and Deontic Modals in Socially Unacceptable Discourse Online. In D. Fišer & T. Erjavec (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Technologies and Digital Humanities (pp. 108–116). Ljubljana: Institute of Contemporary History.
Ljubešić, N., Fišer, D., & Erjavec, T. (2019). The FRENK datasets of socially unacceptable discourse in Slovene and English. In K. Ekštein (Ed.), International conference Text, Speech, and Dialogue. TSD 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v. 11697 (pp. 103–114). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27947-9_9
Ljubešić, N., Fišer, D., Erjavec, T., & Šulc, A. (2021). Offensive language dataset of Croatian, English and Slovenian comments FRENK 1.1. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1462. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI.
Lorenzi-Bailly, N., & Guellouz, M. (2019). Homophobie et discours de haine dissimulée sur Twitter: celui qui voulait une poupée pour Noël. Semen. Revue de sémio-linguistique des textes et discours, 47. doi: 10.4000/semen.12344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.12344
Luukka, M. R., & Markkanen, R. (1997). Impersonalization as a form of hedging. In R. Markkanen and H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and Discourse, Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts (pp. 168–187). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807332.168
Martins, A. (2020). Metalinguistic negation. In V. Déprez & M. T. Espinal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Negation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830528.013.20
Marušič, F. L., & Žaucer, R. (2016). The modal cycle vs. negation in Slovenian. In F. L. Marušič & R. Žaucer: Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.08mar
Močnik, M. (2019). Slovenian ‘dopuščati’ and the semantics of epistemic modals. In Proceedings of 27th Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics meeting (FASL 27). Michigan: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1
Pahor de Maiti, K., Fišer, D., & Ljubešić, N. (2019). How haters write: analysis of nonstandard language in online hate speech. In J. Longhi and C. Marinica: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora for the Humanities (CMC-Corpora2019). Paris: CLARIN K-Center for CMC.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Palmer, F. R. (2014). Modality and the English modals. Oxon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315846453
Roeder, C. F., & Hansen, B. (2006). Modals in contemporary Slovene. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 52, 153–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/wsj52s153
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2016). Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92(4), e296–e325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Language, mind, and knowledge, 7, 344–369.
Siegel, A. A. (2020). Online hate speech. In N. Persily & J. A. Tucker (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform (pp. 56–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108890960.005
Sindoni, M. G. (2018). Direct hate speech vs. indirect fear speech. A multimodal critical discourse analysis of the Sun’s editorial “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”. Lingue e Linguaggi, 28, 267–292.
Stegovec, A. (2019). Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 27(1), 47–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09150-x
von Fintel, K. (2006). Modality and Language. In D. M. Borchert (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Second Edition (pp. 20–27). Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.
Vukovic, M. (2014). Strong epistemic modality in parliamentary discourse. Open Linguistics, 1(1): 37–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0003
Winter, S., & Gärdenfors, P. (1995). Linguistic modality as expressions of social power. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18(2), 137–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500000147
Prenosi
Objavljeno
Kako citirati
Številka
Rubrike
Licenca
Avtorske pravice (c) 2023 Jakob Lenardič, Kristina Pahor de Maiti
To delo je licencirano pod Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi 4.0 mednarodno licenco.
Prispevki v reviji Slovenščina 2.0 so dostopni po licenci Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Tudi pri objavi prispevkov v reviji Slovenščina 2.0 velja licenca Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). Po tej licenci avtorji obdržijo avtorske pravice, hkrati pa uporabnikom dovolijo reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javno priobčitev in predelavo avtorskega dela (tudi za komercialno uporabo in predelavo), če navedejo avtorja ter citirajo delo in ga širijo naprej pod istimi pogoji. Dovoljenje niti s strani avtorja niti s strani izdajatelja revije za vse to torej ni potrebno. Predelavo in nadgradnjo dela sme uporabnik distribuirati, dati v najem ali priobčiti javnosti le pod pogoji te iste licence, novejše različice te licence z istimi elementi, kot jih vsebuje ta licenca, ali z drugo nacionalno licenco Creative Commons, ki vsebuje iste elemente licence kot ta licenca.
Pri reviji Slovenščina 2.0 med avtorji in izdajateljem niso sklenjene nobene dodatne pogodbe ali dogovori, avtorji torej avtorske pravice in pravice nadaljnjega širjenja obdržijo brez omejitev.
Pri reviji Slovenščina 2.0 avtorjem dovoljujemo in jih spodbujamo, da svoje besedilo, ki je bilo objavljeno v reviji Slovenščina 2.0, objavijo še kje drugje na spletu (npr. v institucionalnih repozitorijih, na osebnih spletnih straneh), vendar s pripisom, v katerem je razvidno, da je naša revija besedilo objavila prva.
