Considering that the terminological and theoretical confusion characterising the definitions of insults and the associated speech acts is underlined by most of French linguistics studies, to what extend could a concept such as “libel”, coming from a different research field (law studies), enlighten the debate? The core of the problem seems to be about providing evidence about particular facts, so that the linguistic offense can be named as such. While linguistics rejects the truth-conditionality of insults, the French law on the contrary bases its criteria on this very notion. When polemical humour is involved, these nuances become crucial, since laughter is clearly based on subjective perceptions, but also because this type of discourse needs to transgress in order to become effective, as a case study based on the trial of a punk band will illustrate. .
Full Text Finder