International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, Vol 23, No 2 (2016)

Case report: Elonis v. United States

Jeffrey P. Kaplan
Issued Date: 21 Nov 2016

Abstract


The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Elonis v. United States (575 U.S. __ (2015)), a case about threats, and the underlying trial and appellate decisions, are analysed. Threats can be perlocutionary or illocutionary. When they are illocutionary, they are always indirect speech acts, requiring a Gricean chain of reasoning to infer their threatening nature. This has the consequence that every putative threat has, also, a non-threat interpretation, making it sometimes difficult to prove that an utterance was a threat. In this report, Anthony Elonis’s Facebook postings of allegedly threatening items are analysed pragmatically; the sophisticated linguistic reasoning used by the appeals court after Elonis’s conviction – involving semantic opacity – is described; and the final outcome of Elonis’s case, the Supreme Court’s decision, is analysed. That decision is both frustrating, because it leaves unresolved what the standard for proof is for threatening, and interesting, because the majority opinion, and, in particular, the dissent by Justice Alito, adduce a factor – recklessness – unnecessary to the linguistic analysis of threatening but relevant to the legal standard of proof for conviction for unlawful threatening.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.v23i2.29536

References


Ardal, P. 1979. Threats and Promises: A Reply to Vera Peetz. Mind 88 (352).586-87.

Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.

Author unknown. 2006. The new rule of lenity. 119 Harvard Law Review (8):2420-2441.

Eylon, Y. 2009. Just threats. Journal of moral philosophy 6.94-108.

Fillenbaum, S. 1976. On the phrasing and logic of conditional promises, threats, and warnings. Psychol. Res. 38.231-250.

Fraser, B. 1998. Threatening revisited. The international journal of speech, language, and the law 5 (2).159-173.

Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. The philosophical review 64.377-388.

___. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts. Academic Press.41-58.

Haigh, M., Stewart, A., J. Wood, & L. Connell. 2011. Conditional advice and inducements: Are readers sensitive to implicit speech acts during comprehension? Acta Psychologica 136.419-424.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. Longman.

Martin-Cabeza, M. 2009. Dangerous words: threats, perlocutions, and strategic actions. In Oleksy, W., & Stalmascacyk, P., eds., Cognitive approaches to language and linguistic data. Peter Lang.

Peetz, V. 1977. Promises and threats. Mind 86.578-581.

Nicoloff, F. 1989. Threats and illocutions. Journal of pragmatics 13.501-522.

Salgueiro, A. 2010. Promises, threats, and the foundations of speech act theory. Pragmatics 20:2.213-228

Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge U. Press.

___. 1975. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society 5.1-23.

___. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge U. Press.

Siegel, M. 2005. Finding conversational facts: a role for linguistics in court. International journal of speech, language, and the law 12 (2).255-278.

Seligman, D. 1995. A threat or a promise. The southern journal of philosophy XXXIII.83-96.

Shuy, R. 1993. Language crimes. Wiley-Blackwell.

Storey, K. 1995. The language of threats. Forensic linguistics 2 (1).74-80.

Verbrugge, S., K. Dieussaert, W. Schaeken, W. Van Belle 2004. Promise is debt, threat another matter: the effect of credibility on the interpretation of conditional promises and threats. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 58 (2).106-112.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: info@equinoxpub.com

Privacy Policy