Interpretive constructs: The case of incitement to violence and terror

This paper examines incitement as an interpretive construct, challenging the traditional view that incitement is a conventionalized speech act. Instead, it proposes that incitement is an indeterminate meta-pragmatic evaluation of speech-in-context. To outline this process, the study analyzes court records from judicial proceedings in Israel between 2016 and 2022, where individuals were charged with incitement to violence and terror under the Counter-Terrorism Law. The dataset consists of 30 court sessions in which it is argued before the court whether the various forms of speech count as incitement. The analysis revealed that actions judged as incitement include a broad range of linguistic and discursive strategies, such as hortative and imperative structures, positive-valence expressive speech acts, threats, long-form ideological and political speeches, and expressions of identification with terrorist organizations. The study identifies five evaluative categories used by the Israeli judiciary to assess whether speech constitutes incitement: frequency and duration of expressions, audience size, political context, probability of success, and likelihood of interpretation. The findings suggest that determining if speech counts as incitement involves an interpretive process from multiple perspectives, wherein the ascribed meaning potentially diverges in unreconcilable ways depending on the perspective used. The study highlights the critical role of third-party observers, such as judges, in the meaning-making process, emphasizing that the interpretation of incitement reflects a negotiation over values, narratives, and perspectives. This paper contributes to pragmatic theory by advocating for a broader understanding of interpretive constructs and their implications on meaning–making processes. • Incitement is an interpretive construct, not a conventionalized speech act. • The metapragmatic label is given to a myriad of linguistic and discursive resources. • Five evalutive catagories are used in the judicial maning-making process. • The ascribed meaning diverges in unreconcilable ways depending on storylines. • Observers have a critical role in the meaning-making process of interpretive constructs.