Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Heteroglossia and Identifying Victims of Violence and Its Purpose as Constructed in Terrorist Threatening Discourse Online

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Unlike one-to-one threats, terrorist threat texts constitute a form of violence and a language crime that is committed in a complex context of public intimidation, and are communicated publicly and designed strategically to force desired sociopolitical changes [19]. Contributing to law enforcement and threat assessors’ fuller understanding of the discursive nature of threat texts in terrorism context, this paper examines how language is used dialogically to communicate threats and to construct both the purpose of threatened actions and the victims. The paper uses a critical discourse analytic approach and takes a set of eleven digital threat texts made by two jihadists as a case study. It draws on van Dijk’s concept of ideology [64], the law enforcement-based taxonomy of threat types as reported by Napier and Mardigian [40], van Leeuwen’s model of social actor representation and discursive construction of purpose of social actions [69], and Martin and White’s Engagement system [34]. The analysis reveals victims specified and genericised, excluded and adversary. This linguistic construction is underpinned by a dichotomous conceptualisation of the social actors’ affiliations, positions, values, cultural activities, goals, and material and symbolic resources. The threats are delivered to the victims, agents acting on their behalf (e.g. security forces) or property associated with them (e.g. oil refinery), and are of two primary types—direct, and veiled. The former are predominant and serve inter alia to augment the public-intimidation impact of terrorist discourse. Threatened violence is of goal-, means- and/or effect-oriented social purposes, which suggest a categorisation of threats based on these purposes. The analysis reveals a dialectic, refutative nature of argumentation, and a discourse pregnant with heteroglossic utterances that contract (i) to close off and disalign with state officials’ contradictory voices, and (ii) to produce tension, providing clues to terrorists’ motivations and what constitutes the heart of political violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbas, A., and E. Kadim. 2019. Crimes of terrorism on innocent Iraqis from (2014) to (2016): A semiotic study. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 32(1): 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Apard, É. 2015. The words of Boko Haram: Understanding speeches by Mohammed Yusuf and Abubakar Shekau. Afrique Contemporaine 3(255): 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: The University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bakhtin, M. 1981. Discourse in the novel. In The dialogic imagination: Four essays, ed. M. Holquist, 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bandura, A. 2016. Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bar-Yosef, E. 2001. The last crusade? British propaganda and the Palestine campaign, 1917–18. Journal of Contemporary History 36(1): 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazian, H. 2014. Revisiting the British conquest of Jerusalem. Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/14/revisiting-the-british-conquest-of-jerusalem.

  8. Borger, J. 2016. Rump’s plan to seize Iraq's oil: 'It's not stealing, we're reimbursing ourselves'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis.

  9. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burke, A. 2004. Just war or ethical peace? Moral discourses of strategic violence after 9/11. International Affairs 80(2): 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Byman, D. 2012. Regime change in the Middle East: Problems and prospects. Political Science Quarterly 127(1): 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Conway, M. 2012. From al-Zarqawi to al-Awlaki: The emergence and development of an online radical milieu. CTX: Combating Terrorism Exchange 2(4): 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coulthard, M., A. Johnson, and D. Wright. 2017. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Culpeper, J., P. Iganski, and A. Sweiry. 2017. Linguistic impoliteness and religiously aggravated hate crime in England and Wales. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.5.1.01cul.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dalacoura, K. 2012. Transnational Islamist terrorism: Al Qaeda. In Islamist terrorism and democracy in the Middle East, 40–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Etaywe, A. in press. Moral disaffiliation in cyber incitement to hatred and violence: A discourse semantic approach. Routledge International Handbook of Online Deviance.

  18. Etaywe, A. 2023. Language as evidence: A discourse semantic and corpus linguistic approach to examining written terrorist threatening communication. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law.

  19. Etaywe, A. 2022a. Language as evidence: A discourse semantic and corpus linguistic approach to examining written terrorist threatening communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales). Doi: https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/24434.

  20. Etaywe, A. 2022b. Exploring the grammar of othering and antagonism as enacted in terrorist discourse: Verbal aggression in service of radicalisation. Humanities Social Science Communication 9: 177. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01178-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Etaywe, A., and M. Zappavigna. 2021. Identity, ideology, and threatening communication: An investigation of patterns of attitude in terrorist discourse. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 10(2): 315–350. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00058.eta.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. FBIS Report. 2006. Compilation of Usama bin Laden statements 1994-January 2004.

  23. Fitzgerald, J. 2007. FBI’s communicated threat assessment database: History, design, and implementation. FBI: Law Enforcement Bulletin 76(2): 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fraser, B. 1998. Threatening revisited. Forensic Linguistics: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 5(2): 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gales, T. 2010. Ideologies of violence: A corpus and discourse analytic approach to stance in threatening communications (PhD dissertation). University of California, Davis, USA.

  26. Gales, T. 2011. Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies 13(1): 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610387735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Herman, E., and N. Chomsky. 2010. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hodge, R., and G. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hodges, A. 2013. War, discourse, and peace. In Discourses of war and peace, ed. A. Hodges, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Hodges, A. 2013. The generic US presidential war narrative. In Discourses of war and peace, ed. A. Hodges, 47–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Hurt, M., and T. Grant. 2019. Pledging to harm: A linguistic appraisal analysis of judgment comparing realised and non-realised violent fantasies. Discourse and Society 30(3): 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518816195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ilie, C. 2009. Strategies of refutation by definition: A pragma-rhetorical approach to refutations in a public speech. In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation (pp. 35–51). Springer, Dordrecht.

  33. Kyari, M. 2014. The message and methods of Boko Haram. In M. Pérouse de Montclos, ed., Boko Haram: Islamism, politics, security and the state in Nigeria (pp. 11–32). Nairobi: African Studies Centre & French Institute for Research in Africa.

  34. Martin, J., and P. White. 2005. The Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Martínez, N. 2013. Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meloy, R., S. Hart, and J. Hoffmann. 2014. Threat assessment and threat management. In International handbook of threat assessment, ed. J. Meloy and J. Hoffmann, 3–17. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Meloy, R., L. Sheridan, and J. Hoffmann. 2008. Stalking, threatening, and attacking public figures: A psychological and behavioral analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, F. 2015. The audacious ascetic: What the bin Laden tapes reveal about al-Qa’ida. London: Hurst & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Muschalik, J. 2018. Threatening in english: A mixed method approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Napier, M., and S. Mardigian. 2003. Threatening messages: The essence of analyzing communicated threats. Public Venue Security, 16–19.

  41. O’Hair, D., D. Bernard, and R. Roper. 2011. Communication-based research related to threats and ensuing behavior. In Threatening communications and behavior: Perspectives on the pursuit of public figures, ed. C. Chauvin, 33–73. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. O’Halloran, K., S. Tan, P. Wignell, and R. Lange. 2017. Multimodal recontextualisations of images in violent extremist discourse. In Advancing multimodal and critical discourse studies, 181–202. Milton Park: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Omeni, A. 2022. Lies or half-truths? Boko Haram’s ideology from a social movement theory perspective. African Security Review, 1–21

  44. Önnerfors, A. 2019. 'The Great Replacementʼ—decoding the Christchurch terrorist manifesto. Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. Retrieved January 22, 2020 from https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/2019/03/18/the-great-replacement-decoding-the-christchurch-terrorist-manifesto/.

  45. Pennebaker, J., and C. Chung. 2011. Using computerized text analysis to assess threatening communications and behavior. In Threatening communications and behavior: Perspectives on the pursuit of public figures, ed. C. Chauvin, 3–32. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Podvornaia, A. 2013. The discursive battlefield of the “War on Terror.” In Discourses of war and peace, ed. A. Hodges, 69–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Ray, S. 2017. A crusade gone wrong: George W. Bush and the war on terror in Asia. International Studies 52(1–4): 12–26.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Reidel, B. 2016. Trump’s “take the wall” madness. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/09/16/trumps-take-the-oil-madness/.

  49. Rugala, E., and J. Fitzgerald. 2003. Workplace violence: From threat to intervention. In Clinics in occupational and environmental medicine, ed. C. Wilkinson and C. Peek-Assa. Philadelphia, PA: W.B Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Salgueiro, A. 2010. Promises, threats and the foundations of speech act theory. Pragmatics 20(2): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.2.05bla.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schnitker, S., and R. Emmons. 2013. Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis model. In Encyclopedia of sciences and religions, ed. A.L.C. Runehov and L. Oviedo. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Searle, J. 1999. Mind, language and society. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shuy, R. 1993. Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shuy, R. 2021. Terrorism and forensic linguistics: Linguistics in terrorism cases. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, ed. M. Coulthard, M. Alison, and R. Sousa-Silva, 445–462. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Skoll, G. 2007. Meanings of terrorism. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 20(2): 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, A. 2008. The implicit motives of terrorist groups: How the needs for affiliation and power translate into death and destruction. Political Psychology 29(1): 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith, S., and R. Shuy, 2002. Forensic psycholinguistics: Using language analysis for identifying and assessing offenders. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (April): 16–21. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/forensic-psycholinguistics-using-language-analysis-identifying-and.

  58. Spitaletta, J. 2016. Psychological bases of aggression: The role of the moral emotions in radicalization. In U.S. Department of Defense, eds., White Paper on Assessing and Anticipating Threats to US Security Interests: A Bio-Psycho-Social Science Approach for Understanding the Emergence of and Mitigating Violence and Terrorism (2016, March), 43–55.

  59. Stanley, T. 2005. Understanding the origins of Wahhabism and Salafism. Terrorism Monitor, 3(14), Retrieved June 29, 2022 from https://jamestown.org/program/understanding-the-origins-of-wahhabism-and-salafism/.

  60. Storey, K. 1995. The language of threats. Forensic Linguistics 2(1): 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Thurston, A. 2016. ‘The disease is unbelief’: Boko Haram’s religious and political worldview. Retrieved June 29, 2022 from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Brookings-Analysis-Paper_Alex-Thurston_Final_Web.pdf.

  62. Tiefenbrun, S. 2002. A semiotic approach to a legal definition of terrorism. ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 9: 357.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Tsesis, A. 2013. Inflammatory speech: Offense versus incitement. Minnesota Law Review 2013: 1145–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Van Dijk, T. 1995. Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society 6(2): 243–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Van Dijk, T. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Van Dijk, T. 1998. Opinions and ideologies in the press. In Approaches to media discourse, ed. P. Garrett and A. Bell, 21–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Van Dijk, T. 2015. Critical discourse analysis. In The handbook of discourse analysis, ed. D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, and D. Schiffrin, 466–485. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, ed. C. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard, 32–70. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Van Leeuwen, T. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical analysis. London: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Vološinov, V. N. 1995. Marxism and the philosophy of language, Bakhtinian thought–An introductory reader. Trans. by S. Dentith, L. Matejka and IR Titunik. London: Routledge.

  71. Williams, K. 2012. Textbook on criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Media, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Awni Etaywe

Authors
  1. Awni Etaywe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Awni Etaywe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etaywe, A. Heteroglossia and Identifying Victims of Violence and Its Purpose as Constructed in Terrorist Threatening Discourse Online. Int J Semiot Law 36, 907–937 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09974-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09974-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation