Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building and Analysing an Online Hate Speech Corpus: The NETLANG Experience and Beyond

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hate Speech in Social Media

  • 282 Accesses

Abstract

This preliminary chapter is part of the Introduction to the book, “Online Hate Speech: Object, Approaches, Issues”, and it has a threefold purpose. First, it outlines the general theoretical framework of the volume by offering an overview of the most relevant linguistic approaches to hate speech to date. Then, it describes the genesis of the book, which stems from a four-year research project, netlang, by reporting on the construction and pre-processing of its online hate speech corpus, to which half the chapters resort in their analyses. Finally, it presents the collection by explaining the book’s design and layout, namely the three parts into which it is organised, and by introducing the internal and external contributions which integrate each of them, respectively by members of the project and by participants in its final conference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, the NETLANG project integrated linguists from five different European countries: besides Portugal, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, and Poland. It also integrated researchers from other areas besides linguistics: computer scientists, psychologists, law and education scholars. The project’s full title, which bears the initial adoption of a term (“cyberbullying”) which later came to be overshadowed and definitely replaced by “hate speech”, is “The Language of Cyberbullying: Forms and Mechanisms of Online Prejudice and Discrimination in Annotated Comparable Corpora of Portuguese and English” (ref. PTDC/LLT-LIN/29304/2017).

    See https://sites.google.com/site/projectnetlang/team

  2. 2.

    The phrase “disadvantaged groups” should be viewed from a variety of competing terms, such as “vulnerable groups”, “oppressed groups”, “protected groups”, and “minority groups”, each of which is bound to trigger a controversy of their own. See Chap. 2, Sect. 3.2.2.

References

  • Anderson, L., & Lepore, E. (2013). Slurring words. Noûs, 47(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argueta, C., Calderon, F. H., & Chen, Y.-S. (2016). Multilingual emotion classifier using unsupervised pattern extraction from microblog data. Intelligent Data Analysis, 20, 1477–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assimakopoulos, S. (2020). Incitement to discriminatory hatred, illocution and perlocution. Pragmatics and Society, 11(2), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assimakopoulos, S., Muskat, R. V., Van Der Plas, L., & Gatt, A. (2020). Annotating for hate speech: The MaNeCo corpus and some input from critical discourse analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2010). SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’10). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Badlani, R., Asnani, N., & Rai, M. (2019). Disambiguating sentiment: An ensemble of humour, sarcasm, and hate speech features for sentiment classification. W-NUT, 2019, 337–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J. (2010). Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(3), 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgarten, N., Bick, E., Geyer, K., Iversen, D. A., Kleene, A., Lindø, A. V., Neitsch, J., Niebuhr, O., Nielsen, R., & Petersen, E. N. (2019). Towards balance and boundaries in public discourse: Expressing and perceiving online hate speech (XPEROHS). In J. Mey, J. A. Holsting, & C. Johannessen (Eds.), RASK – International Journal of Language and Communication (Vol. 50, pp. 87–108). University of Southern Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beliaeva, N. (2022). Is play on words fair play or dirty play? On ill-meaning use of morphological blending. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 177–196). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Benesch, S. (2014). Defining and diminishing hate speech. State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, R. (2022). ‘Kill the invaders’: Imperative verbs and their grammatical patients in Tarrant’s the great replacement. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 222–240). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brindle, A. (2016). The Language of Hate: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of White Supremacist Language. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. (2018). Key Variables in Social Investigation. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, S., Diba, P., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2020). ‘You sick, twisted messes’: The use of argument and reasoning in Islamophobic and anti-Semitic discussions on Facebook. Discourse and Society, 31(4), 374–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, T. (2014). Being (im)polite: A forensic linguistic approach to interpreting a hate speech case. Language Matters, 45(3), 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, C., Robinson, M., & Palmer, A. (2020). Improving hate speech detection precision through an impoliteness annotation scheme. In 94th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New Orleans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J. (2021). Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., Iganski, P., & Sweiry, A. (2017). Linguistic impoliteness and religiously aggravated hate crime in England and Wales. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dadvar, M., Jong, F., Ordelman, R., & Trieschnigg, D. (2012). Improved cyberbullying detection using gender information. In Proceedings of the 12th Dutch-Belgian information retrieval workshop (pp. 23–25).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017). Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11, 512–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinakar, K., Reichart, R., & Lieberman, H. (2011). Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. Soc. Mobile Web, 11, 02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Armas, A., Soria-Ruiz, A., & Lewiński, M. (2023). Provocative insinuations as hate speech: Argumentative functions of mentioning ethnicity in headlines. Topoi, 42, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Đorđević, J. P. (2019). The sociocognitive dimension of hate speech in readers’ comments on Serbian news websites. Discourse, Context and Media., 33(2020), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, S. (2014). Language, gender, and sexual violence. In S. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 452–470). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, C., Gonçalves, J., Araújo, M., Pinheiro, P., Araújo, C., & Henriques, P. (2021). NetAC, an automatic classifier of online hate speech comments. In A. Rocha, H. Adeli, G. Dzemyda, F. Moreira, & A. M. Ramalho Correia (Eds.), Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies (pp. 494–505). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermida, I. (2014). A beached whale posing in lingerie: Conflict talk, disagreement and impoliteness in online newspaper commentary. Diacrítica, 27(1), 95–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermida, I. (2018). ‘Get the snip – And a job!’ Disagreement, impoliteness, and conflicting identities on the internet. Token: A Journal of English Linguistics, 6, 205–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermida, I., Pereira, F. & Dias, I. (2023). Social media mining for hate speech detection: Opinion and emotion conflict in adversative constructions. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, E., & Zollo, S. A. (2021). “How dare you call her a pig! I know several pigs who would be upset if they knew”: A multimodal critical discursive approach to online misogyny against UK MPs on YouTube. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 9(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2021). Ethics and Data Protection. Guidance note by DG Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu

  • Fersini, E., Nozza, D., & Rosso, P. (2018). Overview of the evalita 2018 task on automatic misogyny identification (AMI). In EVALITA – Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian: Proceedings of the Final Workshop, pp. 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehl, R. W. (2016). Power/freedom on the dark web: A digital ethnography of the dark web social network. New Media & Society, 18(7), 1219–1235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelber, K. (2017). Hate speech definitions & empirical evidence. Constitutional Commentary, 32, 619–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, K., Bick, E., & Kleene, A. (2022). ‘I am no racist but...’: A corpus-based analysis of xenophobic hate speech constructions in Danish and German social media discourse. In E. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 241–261). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, O., Pérez, N., García-Pablos, A., & Cuadros, M. (2018). Hate speech dataset from a white supremacy forum. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp. 11–20). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitari, N. D., Zuping, Z., Damien, H., & Long, J. (2015). A lexicon-based approach for hate speech detection. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10, 215–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godioli, A., Young, J., & Fiori, B. M. (2022). Laughing matters: Humor, free speech and hate speech at the European court of human rights. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law/Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 35, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker, C., & McGlashan, M. (2016). ‘Real men don’t hate women’: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics, 91, 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedger, J. A. (2013). Meaning and racial slurs: Derogatory epithets and the semantics /pragmatics interface. Language & Communication, 33(3), 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, P., Araújo, C., Ermida, I., & Dias, I. (2019). Scraping news sites and social networks for prejudice term analysis. In H. Weghorn & L. Rodrigues (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Applied Computing 2019 (pp. 179–189).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, J. (1995). Speech acts and pornography. In S. Dwyer (Ed.), The Problem of Pornography. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8, 216–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazienko, P., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Kanclerz, K., Karanowski, K., Miłkowski, P., & Kocoń, J. (2023). Human-centred neural reasoning for subjective content processing: Hate speech, emotions, and humor. Information Fusion, 94, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (2018). Impoliteness online: Hate speech in online interactions. Internet Pragmatics, 1(2), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoblock, N. (Ed.). (2022). The Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konikoff, D. (2021). Gatekeepers of toxicity: Reconceptualizing Twitter’s abuse and hate speech policies. Policy & Internet, 13(4), 502–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korecky-Kröll, K., & Dressler, W. (2022). Expressive German adjective and noun compounds in aggressive discourse. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (p. 197). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, P. G. (2014). Commenting on YouTube rants: Perceptions of inappropriateness or civic engagement? Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langton, R. (2018). The authority of hate speech. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, 3, 123–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, L. J., & Delgado, R. (Eds.). (1995). The Price We Pay: The Case against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography. Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leskova, A. (2016). “Black Humor” in Modern Europe: Freedom of Speech v. Racist Hate Speech. Or Where is the Line for Racist Humor? Doctoral dissertation, University of Sevilla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. (2012). A Cognitive Linguistics Overview of Offense and Hate Speech. Available at SSRN 2205178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, M., & Nübling, D. (2022). The neutering neuter. The discursive use of German grammatical gender in dehumanisation. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 118–139). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., & Forss, T. (2015). New classification models for detecting hate and violence web content. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K’15) (Vol. 1, pp. 487–495). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljubešić, N., Fišer, D., & Erjavec, T. (2019). The FRENK datasets of socially unacceptable discourse in Slovene and English. In Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, TSD 2019 (pp. 103–114). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo-Dus, N., Blitvich, P. G.-C., & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2578–2593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacAvaney, S., Yao, H. R., Yang, E., Russell, K., Goharian, N., & Frieder, O. (2019). Hate speech detection: Challenges and solutions. PLoS One, 14(8), e0221152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, S., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2020). Intentional and performative persuasion: The linguistic basis for criminalizing the (direct and indirect) encouragement of terrorism. Criminal Law Forum, 31(4), 473–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, C. A. (1993). Only Words. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. L., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattiello, E. (2022). Language aggression in English slang: The case of the-o suffix. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 34–58). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, P. (2022). Laughter is the Best Poison: Antagonistic Humor as the Handmaiden of Hate Speech. University of Michigan – Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musolff, A. (2017). Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, J. C. (2009). The idea of pollution. UC Davis Law Review, 43(1), 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobata, C., Tetreault, J., Thomas, A., Mehdad, Y., & Chang, Y. (2016). Abusive language detection in online user content. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunberg, G. (2018). The social life of slurs. In D. Fogal, D. Harris, & M. Moss (Eds.), New work on Speech Acts (pp. 237–295). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll, J. (2020). Offensive Language: Taboo, Offence and Social Control. Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, L. F. (2022). The power of a pronoun. In N. Knoblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 161–176). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özarslan, Z. (2014). Introducing two new terms into the literature of hate speech, “hate discourse” and “hate speech act”: Application of speech act theory to hate speech studies in the era of web 2.0. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi, 20, 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, K., & Sakki, I. (2023). ‘You truly are the worst kind of racist!’: Argumentation and polarization in online discussions around gender and radical-right populism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prażmo, E. (2020). Foids are worse than animals. A cognitive linguistics analysis of dehumanizing metaphors in online discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 21(2), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffone, A. (2022). “Her leg didn’t fully load in”: A digitally-mediated social-semiotic critical discourse analysis of disability hate speech on TikTok. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(4), 17–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj, S. M., & Usman, A. (2021). The use of mental spaces in the conceptualization of hate speech. GPH - International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 4(05), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B., Rist, M., Carbonell, G., Cabrera, B., Kurowsky, N., & Wojatzki, M. (2016). Measuring the reliability of hate speech annotations: The case of the European refugee crisis. In The 3rd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Computer-Mediated Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A., & Wiegand, M. (2017). A survey on hate speech detection using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media of the Valencia Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzman, L. H. (2002). Hate speech, illocution, and social context: A critique of Judith Butler. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(3), 421–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (2010). Problems in investigating keyness, or clearing the undergrowth and marking out trails…. In M. Bondi & M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in Texts (pp. 43–58). John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifi, M., Ansari, N., & Asadollahzadeh, M. (2017). A critical discourse analytic approach to the discursive construction of Islam in Western talk shows: The case of CNN talk shows. International Communication Gazette, 79(1), 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, L. A., Mondal, M., Correa, D., Benevenuto, F., & Weber, I. (2016). Analyzing the targets of hate in online social media. ICWSM, 687–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirulhaq, A., Yuwono, U., & Muta’ali, A. (2023). Why do we need a sociocognitive-CDA in hate speech studies? A corpus-based systematic review. Discourse & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926522112659

  • Soffer, O. (2010). “Silent orality”: Toward a conceptualization of the digital oral features in CMC and SMS texts. Communication Theory, 20(4), 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2007). ‘Black this, black that’: Racial insults and reported speech in neighbour complaints and police interrogations. Discourse & Society, 18, 337–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarasova, E., & Fajardo, J. A. S. (2022). Adj+ie/y nominalizations in contemporary English: From diminution to pejoration. In N. Noblock (Ed.), The Grammar of Hate (pp. 59–73). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trindade, L. V. P. (2020). Disparagement humour and gendered racism on social media in Brazil. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(15), 2766–2784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Racism and the Press. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T.A. (2005). Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America. Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2021). Antiracist Discourse. Theory and History of a Macromovement. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasilaki, M. (2014). Name-calling in Greek YouTube comments. In C. Pérez-Arredondo, M. Calderón-López, H. Hidalgo-Avilés, & D. Pask-Hughes (Eds.), Papers from the 9th Lancaster University postgraduate conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching (pp. 90–110). Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, W., & Hirschberg, J. (2012). Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language in Social Media of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waseem, Z., & Hovy, D. (2016). Hateful symbols or hateful people? Predictive features for hate speech detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL Student Research Workshop, pp 88–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, D. A. (2022). When does speech perform regulable action? A critique of speech act theory’s application to free speech regulation. International Journal of Language & Law (JLL), 11, 78–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (2009). Reference, inference and the semantics of pejoratives. In J. In Almog & P. Leonardi (Eds.), The philosophy of David Kaplan (pp. 137–158). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, F. A., & Ruscher, J. B. (2021). Viral sticks, virtual stones: Addressing anonymous hate speech online. Patterns of Prejudice, 55(3), 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zampieri, M., Malmasi, S., Nakov, P., Rosenthal, S., Farra, N., & Kumar, R. (2019). Semeval-2019 task 6: Identifying and categorizing offensive language in social media (offenseval). arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08983.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was sponsored by FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal), under the auspices of the NETLANG project, ref. PTDC/LLT-LIN/29304/2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Isabel Ermida

Authors
  1. Isabel Ermida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel Ermida .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Isabel Ermida

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ermida, I. (2023). Building and Analysing an Online Hate Speech Corpus: The NETLANG Experience and Beyond. In: Ermida, I. (eds) Hate Speech in Social Media. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38247-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38248-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation