Harmonizing and humanizing political discourse: The contribution of peace linguists.

Abstract

So far as I know, you are the first person to connect the communicative dimension directly with the notion of peace. Of course the peaceful solution of human problems is of central concern to Habermas and his use of the notion of communicative competence, and many people would regard communicative problems as barriers to peace. But the sharp conjunction of the phrase communicative peace seems to go farther, and even suggest, not only mediation, but meditation, the achievement of a peace within persons that is more than absence of conflict, but a state of being. I do fear that the limitations of the earth, the pressure of population against them, may make the next century more horrible than the present one, if there is not a radical change, if governments and peoples do not abandon much of what has seemed desirable, possible, necessary until now. If we are not able to share the world, we will surely live in unending violence. Perhaps attention to the conditions of communicative peace may help achieve the social and personal requisites for such sharing.Dell Hymes (personal communication, August 30, 1993) To me, communicative peace means using all of our human intelligence to breach the gaps between people, to have them find their commonalities, and above all, to treat each other with dignity and respect. This process does not mean compromising the truth, as one sees it, but recognizing that other's perspective of the truth may be different-and just as "correct." Milton Schwebel (personal communication,

Word differences in news media of lower and higher peace countries revealed by natural language processing and machine learning

“…This leads us to ask, what are the properties of "peace speech" that are the other face of the coin from "hate speech"? Peace speech is a basic linguistic structure that may help to build and sustain peacefulness between people and between groups [18][19][20][21]. There is only limited empirical evidence identifying the specific features and effects of peace speech [2].…”

English for peace: toward a framework of Peace Sociolinguistics

“…When talking about language and peace, Gomes de Matos (2000: 339) makes an important distinction between “communicating about peace” and “communicating peacefully, constructively, humanizingly”. In the realm of language studies, yet another distinction can be drawn between these two ways of looking at peace and a third way, namely peace that is negotiated from the interaction among languages, language varieties, and users of different languages and varieties.…”

“…This search, to a certain extent (together with the above‐mentioned desire to promote language uses that harmonize rather than antagonize), is what has given rise to Peace Linguistics or Peacelinguistics (as spelt by Crystal, 1999 and 2004), an interdisciplinary branch of Linguistics and Peace Studies which concerns itself with the relationship between language, communication, education, and peace (Gomes de Matos, 2000). As a branch of Linguistics, Peace Linguistics is situated alongside Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics insofar as all three look at issues of language in use, its effects and connotations.…”

“…The groundbreaking work of Gomes de Matos (1993) results from an application of concepts of Peace Linguistics, particularly communicative peace, to education in Brazil, a movement which fortunately upholds the empowering qualities of another great Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (1970). In working with the concept of communicative peace, Gomes de Matos (2000: 345) argues:…”

Lingua Franca as a Hidden Barrier to Conflict Resolution

“…While these psychological barriers can make a resolution seem unattainable, subtle changes in phrasing when communicating conflict-relevant peace building measures have already been found to increase the acceptance of peace building measures during conflict (Idan et al 2018). Furthermore, avoiding aggressive language, communicating differences constructively, and communicating in a manner that is as humanizing as possible when engaging in diplomatic communication improves the chances of conflict resolution (Gomes de Matos 2000Matos , 2001Matos , 2006. Here, we examine how changing the language of communication, rather than its content and phrasing, influences the peace building process.…”