Discursive Construction of Gendered Hate Speech in Domestic Violence Victims’ Narratives in Nigerian Court Series

Gendered hate speech remains a pervasive feature of domestic dispute discourse, particularly within legal setting where power, morality, and social norms intersect. This study examines gender-related hate speech through an analysis of Justice Court episodes by Funmi Asaolu. Using van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis, the study analyses spoken interactions in domestic violence cases that reveal both explicit and implicit hostile expressions. A qualitative analysis of 100 purposively selected utterances demonstrates that hate speech in this context operates through subtle discursive strategies rather than overt slurs. Lexicalisation and labelling, negative predication, moral evaluation and judgement, argumentation through pseudo-rational justification, and delegitimisation emerge as dominant strategies that construct stable negative identities and legitimise blame, exclusion, and symbolic violence. The findings reveal a strong gendered pattern, with women disproportionately subjected to moral condemnation related to sexuality, motherhood, and respectability, while men are more frequently evaluated through responsibility and credibility. The study shows that everyday language in domestic and quasi-institutional contexts functions as a powerful vehicle for gendered hate speech, reinforcing patriarchal ideologies and sustaining unequal power relations.