MERIDIUM International Conference
University for Foreigners of Perugia
23-25 November, 2011
Whose meaning? The challenges of key
word conceptualisations in a crosslinguistic perspective
Cornelia Ilie
Professor of English Linguistics
Malmö University, Sweden
cornelia.ilie@gmail.com; cornelia.ilie@mah.se
www.mah.se/corneliaIlie
www.estidia.eu
“If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people
what they don’t want to hear.” (George Orwell)
“If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people
what they don’t want to hear.” (George Orwell)
“To lose freedom is awful; to lose the idea of freedom is
even worse.” (George Lakoff)
Freedom in Europe
Freedom
-
enshrined as a “European” value (since 1945)
-
a virtue at the core of European democracy
-
a prerequisite for a multilingual and multicultural Europe
-
associated with migration and migrants’ rights
How to ensure freedon for all the citizens of
Europe?
-
By stipulating coercive legislation?
-
By facilitating open and constructive dialogue between individuals and civil
society groups?
Language, cognition and key words
Raymond Williams (1976) - defined keywords in two ways: as significant,
binding words in certain activities, and as significant, indicative words in certain
forms of thought.
Language, cognition and key words
Raymond Williams (1976) - defined keywords in two ways: as significant,
binding words in certain activities, and as significant, indicative words in certain
forms of thought.
Edward Evans-Pritchard (1982) - proposed that the best approach to
investigating social structure was to frame it as a series of flexible, logical,
cognitive “maps” giving form and meaning to social behaviour.
Language, cognition and key words
Raymond Williams (1976) - defined keywords in two ways: as significant,
binding words in certain activities, and as significant, indicative words in certain
forms of thought.
Edward Evans-Pritchard (1982) - proposed that the best approach to
investigating social structure was to frame it as a series of flexible, logical,
cognitive “maps” giving form and meaning to social behaviour.
Anna Wierzbicka (1997) - devised a particular metalanguage that is used to
define and distinguish various shades of meaning connected with the same
concept:
How to define freedom?
LIBERTAS
The Latin concept of libertas denotes primarily the status of a “liber”, i.e. a
person who is not a slave, and it involves the negation of the limitations
imposed by slavery.
Libertas was a privilege and not a right.
Libertas is close to the notion of “positive freedom”, i.e. the wish of the
individual to be their own master (Isaiah Berlin 1968).
Freedom and Liberty
Freedom
- (philosophy) the quality or state of being free, or the absence of necessity,
coercion, or constraint in making a choice or executing an action.
- the state of liberation from slavery or the power of another person or
organisation or entity.
- the state of being outspoken or speaking one’s mind.
Freedom and Liberty
Freedom
- (philosophy) the quality or state of being free, or the absence of necessity,
coercion, or constraint in making a choice or executing an action.
- the state of liberation from slavery or the power of another person or
organisation or entity.
- the state of being outspoken or speaking one’s mind.
Liberty
- a state of being free to do as one pleases
- that state of being able to make a choice, which presupposes being
unrestricted, physically or mentally.
- being free from arbitrary or tyrannical control
Freedom vs. Liberty
A close semantic scrutiny of the two key words reveals a significant distinction:
-
The concept of freedom tends to be primarily used in connection with an
individual agent and the rights of the individual.
Freedom vs. Liberty
A close semantic scrutiny of the two key words reveals a significant distinction:
-
The concept of freedom tends to be primarily used in connection with an
individual agent and the rights of the individual.
-
The concept of liberty tends to be primarily used in connection with a collective
agent and the public rights of a social group.
Wierzbicka’s distinction
freedom of speech
liberty of the tongue
‘other people can’t stop us from
saying what we want to say’
‘one says what one wants to say
without taking other people’s
reactions into account’
(It focuses on the right and goal of the
locutor.)
(It focuses on the right and goal of the
locutor while deliberately ignoring the
right of the co-locutor.)
Freedom of expression
The concept of freedom of expression displays a dynamic complexity which
can be instantiated in two main ways:
(i) Freedom from X (e.g. from being offended, insulted, slandered, attacked)
Freedom of expression
The concept of freedom of expression displays a dynamic complexity which
can be instantiated in two main ways:
(i) Freedom from X (e.g. from being offended, insulted, slandered, attacked)
(ii) Freedom to X (e.g. to challenge, criticise, accuse, blame, slander)
Freedom of expression
The concept of freedom of expression displays a dynamic complexity which
can be instantiated in two main ways:
(i) Freedom from X (e.g. from being offended, insulted, slandered, attacked)
(ii) Freedom to X (e.g. to challenge, criticise, accuse, blame, slander)
In both cases, freedom of expression needs to be exercised with:
- responsibility (assuming responsibility for what one says)
and
- accountability (being held accountable for what one says)
Freedom from X – negative orientation
- NOT TO DO things that one doesn’t want to do
- being able to do things that one wants to do WITHOUT INTERFERENCE
from other people (English philosophers: Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart
Mill)
- “non-imposition”, or (Berlin’s notion of) “non-interference” - major cultural
themes in the Anglo-Saxon world
Wierzbicka metalinguistic definition
[freedom]
(a) someone X can think something like this:
(b) if I want to do something I can do it
(c) no one else can say to me: “you can’t do it because I don’t want this”
(d) if I don’t want to do something I don’t have to do it
(e) no one else can say to me: “you have to do it because I want this”
(f) this is good for X
(g) it is bad if someone cannot think this
Wierzbicka’s metalinguistic definition
[freedom]
(a) someone X can think something like this:
(b) if I want to do something I can do it
(c) no one else can say to me: “you can’t do it because I don’t want this”
(d) if I don’t want to do something I don’t have to do it
(e) no one else can say to me: “you have to do it because I want this”
(f) this is good for X
(g) it is bad if someone cannot think this
[liberty]
(a) everyone can think something like this
(b) if I want to do something because I think it is good I can do it
(c) no one can say: “this person can’t do it because I don’t want this”
(d) everyone thinks: this is good
The challenges of the Danish Cartoons
Denmark
-Publication of a cartoon that mocked the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish
daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten (September 2006).
- Violent demonstrations erupted across the Middle East.
- After an international boycott by Arab countries which cost the Danish
economy several billion dollars, the Danish paper issued an apology to defuse
the international controversy.
The challenges of the Danish Cartoons
Denmark
-Publication of a cartoon that mocked the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish
daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten (September 2006).
- Violent demonstrations erupted across the Middle East.
- After an international boycott by Arab countries which cost the Danish
economy several billion dollars, the Danish paper issued an apology to defuse
the international controversy.
Europe
France Soir, Germany’s Die Welt, La Stampa in Italy and El Periodico in Spain
all carried some of the drawings.
The reactions to the Swedish cartoon
Sweden
-The controversy started with a series of drawings by Swedish artist Lars Vilks
which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a roundabout dog.
-The controversy gained international attention after the Örebro-based regional
newspaper Nerikes Allehanda published one of the drawings to illustrate an
editorial on self-censorship and freedom of religion.
-The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Islamabad said Pakistan condemned the
publication in very strong terms: “Regrettably, the tendency among some
Europeans to mix the freedom of expression with an outright and deliberate
insult to 1.3 billion Muslims in the world is on the rise.”
EU policy in the cartoon controversy
The European Union’s message: we need to protect the rights of
individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, rather
than the religions as such.
In 2009 the EU Council adopted a special text on the freedom of religion and
belief. This text reflects the values of laïcité (secularism) and affirms the need
to provide adequate and effective guarantees of the freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. It underlines that the freedom of expression is
intrinsically linked to it, citing in particular the right to criticise religion.
The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue
The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue launched in 2008 by the Council of Europe
stipulates a number of restrictions with regard to the freedom of expression:
Some expressions are so gratuitously offensive, defamatory or insulting as to
threaten a culture of tolerance itself – indeed that may inflict not only
unconscionable indignity on members of minority communities but also expose them
to intimidation and threats. Inciting hatred based on intolerance is not compatible
with respect for fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and
the Court’s jurisprudence.
The European Convention on Human Rights has however set a high bar against
restrictions on free expression, indicating that even expressions that “offend, shock
and disturb” should be protected. This means, for example, a certain licence to
criticise another’s religion (as a system of ideas which they can choose to embrace).
As for the media, the basic principle is the defence of freedom of expression even if
there is however a recognition of the special duties and responsibilities of journalists
who must be free to express their opinions – including value judgements – on
matters of public concern, but who are also responsible for the collection and
dissemination of objective information.
Dimensions of the freedom of expression
Concrete manifestations of the freedom of expression can take different forms
in terms of:
-
the sphere of interaction: Public vs. Private (we cannot always say in public
what we say in private)
Dimensions of the freedom of expression
Concrete manifestations of the freedom of expression can take different forms
in terms of:
-
the sphere of interaction: Public vs. Private (we cannot always say in public
what we say in private)
-
the target if the interaction: Individual vs. Collective (the emphasis may be on
an individual’s personal characteristics or on group/ethnic stereotypes)
Dimensions of the freedom of expression
Concrete manifestations of the freedom of expression can take different forms
in terms of:
-
the sphere of interaction: Public vs. Private (we cannot always say in public
what we say in private)
-
the target if the interaction: Individual vs. Collective (the emphasis may be on
an individual’s personal characteristics or on group/ethnic stereotypes)
-
the nature of potential offence: Intentional vs. Non-intentional (the targeted
person/s is/are expected or not expected to feel insulted, get hurt, etc.)
Wierzbicka’s metalinguistic definition revisited
[freedom]
(a) someone X can think something like this:
(b) if I want to do something I can do it
(c) no one else can say to me: “you can’t do it because I don’t want this”
(d) if I don’t want to do something I don’t have to do it
(e) no one else can say to me: “you have to do it because I want this”
(e’) no one else can say to me: “you can’t do it because you are acting
irresponsibly”
(f) this is good for X
(g) it is bad if someone cannot think this