Being (im)polite: A forensic linguistic approach to interpreting a hate speech case

References

• Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Botha, C. 1998. Wetsuitleg. ʼn inleiding vir studente. Pretoria: Juta & Co Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, T.R. 2012. ʼn Forensies-semantiese beskouing van die woordgebruik ‘onkoste’ in die hofsaak Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Labat Africa Limited. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(4): 487–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, R. and C. Kübbeler. 2011. Wortlautgrenze und Wörterbuch. Zerl 2 (2011). http://www.zerl.uni-koeln.de/archive/zerl-2-2011/2954 (accessed 30 March 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H.H. 1991. Responding to indirect speech acts. In Pragmatics: a reader, ed. S. Davis, 199–230. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: using language to cause offence. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, C.D., J.N. Levi, G.M. Green and J.P. Kaplan. 1994. Plain meaning and hard cases. Yale Law Journal 103(6): 1561–1625.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, C.D. and C.J. Fillmore. 1995. Using common sense: a linguistic perspective on judicial interpretations of ‘use a firearm’. Linguistic analyses of judicial decision-making. Washington University Law Quarterly 73(3): 1159–1214.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 219–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. and W. Nolan. 1981. The association of difference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27 ( Jan 1981): 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: essays on face to face behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H.P. 1996. Logic and conversation. In Readings in language and mind, ed. H. Geirsson and M. Losonsky, 121–133. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Griffen, P. and H. Mehan. 1981. Sense and ritual in classroom discourse. In Conversational routine, ed. F. Coulmas, 187–213. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, E.H. 1992. OCULAZE v OCULOSAN. Unpublished linguistic report.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, E.H. 1994. Errors in court: a forensic application of error analysis. South African Journal of Linguistics: Supplement 20: 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hubbard, E.H. 1995. Linguistic fingerprinting? A case study in forensic stylometrics. South African Journal of Linguistics: Supplement 26: 55–72.
   Google Scholar
• Hutton, C. 2009. Language, meaning and the law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janney, R.W. and H. Arndt. 2005. Intracultural tact and intercultural tact. In Politeness in language: studies in history, theory and practice, eds. R.J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 21–42. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kimberley, K. 2013. Baboons slur drama. The Herald. http://www.peherald.com/news/article/14302 (accessed 23 July 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Kloosterhuis, H. 2007. Verhullend argumenteren met taalkundige argumenten. In Alles afwegende: Bijdragen aan het vijfde symposium Juridische Argumentatie, 22 juni 2007 te Rotterdam, eds. E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H.J. Plug en, J.A. Pontier, 264–268. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.
   Google Scholar
• Kotzé, E.F. 2007. Die vangnet van die woord: forensies-linguistiese getuienis in ʼn lastersaak. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 25(3): 385–399.
   Google Scholar
• Kotzé, E.F. 2010. Author identification from opposing perspectives in forensic linguistics. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 28(2): 185–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness; or minding your P's and Q's. Papers from the ninth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, 13–15 April, ed. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305. Chicago, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Langford, I. 2000. Forensic semantics: the meaning of murder, manslaughter and homicide. Forensic Linguistics 7(1): 72–94.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Mabuza, E. 2014. Joburg man gets ‘death’ sentence for calling woman the k-word. Sunday Times Live. http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/14/joburg-man-gets-death-sentence-for-calling-woman-the-k-word (accessed 19 April 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Mouritsen, S.C. 2010. The dictionary is not a fortress: definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. Brigham Young University Law Review 2010(5): 1915–1980.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D.C. 1974. Statutory interpretation in Australia. Sydney: Butterworths.
   Google Scholar
• Prinsloo, A.F. 2004. Spreekwoorde en waar hulle vandaan kom. Cape Town: Pharos.
   Google Scholar
• Saeed, J.I. 2009. Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, P. 2007. Linguistic analysis of competing trademarks. Language Matters 38(1): 132–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J.R. 1991. Indirect speech acts. In Pragmatics: a reader, ed. S. Davis, 265–277. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solan, L.M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shuy, W.R. 2008. Fighting over words. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 529–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thumma, S.A. and J.L. Kirchmeier. 1999. The lexicon has become a fortress: the United States supreme court's use of dictionaries. Buffalo Law Review 47(1): 227–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts, R.J. 2005. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In Politeness in language: studies in history, theory and practice, eds. R.J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 43–70. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Werkhofer, K.T. 2005. Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and power of politeness. In Politeness in language: studies in history, theory and practice, eds. R.J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich, 155–202. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar