MERIDIUM International Conference University for Foreigners of Perugia

23-25 November, 2011

Whose meaning? The challenges of key word conceptualisations in a cross-

linguistic perspective

Cornelia IlieProfessor of English Linguistics

Malmö University, Swedencornelia.ilie@gmail.com; cornelia.ilie@mah.se

www.mah.se/corneliaIliewww.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?

LIBERTASThe 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. LibertyA 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. LibertyA 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

‘other people can’t stop us from saying what we want to say’

(It focuses on the right and goal of the locutor.)

liberty of the tongue

‘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 while deliberately ignoring the right of the co-locutor.)

Freedom of expressionThe 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 expressionThe 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 expressionThe 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 cartoonSweden

-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 controversyThe 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 DialogueThe 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