We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Spoken threats are a common but linguistically complex language crime. Although threatening language has been examined from different linguistic perspectives, there is limited research which critically addresses how people perceive spoken threats and infer traits such as threat and intent from speakers' voices. There is also minimal linguistic research addressing differences between written and spoken threats. By specifically analysing threats delivered in both written and spoken modalities, as well as integrating perceptual phonetic analysis into discussions on spoken threats, this Element offers perspectives on these two under-researched areas. It highlights the dangers of assuming that the way in which someone sounds correlates with, for example, their intention to commit harm, and explores potential problems in assuming that written and spoken threats are equivalent to one another. The goal of the Element is to advance linguistic knowledge and understanding around spoken threats, as well as promote further research in the area.
The relationship between language(s) and economics is a complex one. While it has been commonly held that linguistic homogeneity favors economic prosperity, a counter-argument suggests that multilingual capabilities may remove impediments to such prosperity: economic advantages may flow from bridging linguistic divides. Languages in contact are rarely of equal status, however, and some “small” varieties are particularly threatened today – most often, of course, by English. In a renewed and ecologically based attention to at-risk languages, the matter of rights has become central. After all, sustained and broadly accepted arguments for inherent language rights could put both speakers and their interactions with other communities on a stronger footing. My thesis here is that any meaningful support for language rights must be firmly grounded in law. Currently, this is very rarely the case and, therefore, much of the discussion about rights is really about claims to rights.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.