Article published in:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:6 (2019) ► pp. 893–914

Weaponizing words

Rhetorical tactics of radicalization in Western and Arabic countries

| University of Debrecen, Doctoral School of Linguistics | University of Debrecen, Institute of English and American Studies (Hungary)
| Ain Shams University, Egypt | Peerwith B.V., The Netherlands
This paper draws on Pratt’s (2009) description of the key linguistic operations in war-making: exhortation, offense, deception and mediation. The study postulates that ISIS enacts the four operations in the radicalization of Muslims in Arabic and Western countries. Using FrameNet, the four concepts are mapped to four frames: Attempt_suasion, Cause_emotion, Intentional_deception and Translating. Frame-based analysis of a comparable corpus representing bilingual publications of ISIS is carried out to explore these operations. Corpus tools complemented the analysis with detecting contrastive rhetorical tactics and chronological changes ISIS imposes to radicalize followers. Findings highlight the destructive effect of transliterated words in the English corpus and refer to the significance of exhortation in the studied Arabic corpus.
Keywords: weaponizing words, radicalization, rhetorical tactics, ISIS, language of war
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experiential knowledge in FrameNet
    • 2.1Identifying frames through lexical units
    • 2.2Selecting frame elements through lexical units
  • 3.Hypotheses of the study
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 06 September 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18048.abd
References
Abdelzaher, Esra
2019a “Lexicon-based Detection of Violence on Social Media.” Cognitive Semantics 5(1): 32–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019b “The Systematic Adaptation of Violence Contexts in the ISIS Discourse: A Contrastive Corpus Based Study.” 3(2): 173–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Al-Rikaby, Ali Badeen Mohammed, and Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi
. “The significance of the discursive strategies in al-Baghdadi’s and al-Zawahiri’s hortatory speeches.” Journal of Language and Politics 171(6 2018: 769–788. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arosoaie, Aida
2017 “In the name of honour and freedom: the sacred as a justifying tool for ISIS’and secular violence.” Culture and Religion 18(3): 278–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, Sue, Michael Rundell, and Hiroaki Sato
2003 “The contribution of FrameNet to practical lexicography.” International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 333–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Paul, and Rachelle Vessey
2018 “A corpus-driven comparison of English and French Islamist extremist texts.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23(3): 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, Jonathan
2017 “Justifying the jihad.” Journal of Language and Politics 16(3): 453–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Essam, Bacem A., Mostafa M. Aref, and Fayrouz Fouad
2019 “When folkloric geopolitical concerns prompt a conspiratorial ideation: the case of Egyptian tweeters.” Geo Journal 84(1): 121–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975 “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11, pp. 123–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Frame semantics.” Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings 341: 373–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Collin Baker
2011 “A frames approach to semantic analysis.” In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. pp. 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam RL Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Abby Wright
2003 “FrameNet in action: The case of attaching.” International journal of lexicography 16(3): 297–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerges, Fawaz A.
2009 The far enemy: why Jihad went global. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heickerö, Roland
2014 “Cyber terrorism: Electronic jihad.” Strategic Analysis 38(4): 554–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakhfif, Abdelaziz, and Mohamed Tayeb Laskri
2016 “A frame-based approach for capturing semantics from Arabic text for text-to-sign language MT.” International Journal of Speech Technology 19(2): 203–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maggio, James
2007 “The presidential rhetoric of terror: The recreation of reality immediately after 9/11.” Politics & Policy 35(4): 810–835. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Novenario, Celine Marie I.
“Differentiating Al Qaeda and the Islamic State through strategies publicized in Jihadist magazines.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 39(11) 2016: 953–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W.
2011 “Using computer analyses to identify language style and aggressive intent: The secret life of function words.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 4(2): 92–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, Miriam RL.
1996 “Frame semantics. Handbook of Pragmatics .” Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise
. “Harm’s way: Language and the contemporary arts of war.” PMLA 124(5) 2009: 1515–1531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Myriam Schwarzer-Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, and Jan Scheffczyk
2006 “ FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice .” Berkeley Online Library.Google Scholar
Schröter, Melani
. “Addressee orientation in political speeches: Tracing the dialogical ‘other’in argumentative monologue.” Journal of Language and Politics 13(2) 2014: 289–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Christoph
2014 “Cognitive categorization and prototypicality as persuasive strategies: Presidential rhetoric in the USA.” Journal of Language and Politics 13(2): 313–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Alexandra A., and Joshua A. Tucker
. “The Islamic State’s information warfare.” Journal of Language and Politics 17(2) 2018: 258–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sikos, Jennifer, and Sebastian Padó
2018 “FrameNet’s using relation as a source of concept-based paraphrases.” Constructions and Frames 10(1): 38–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Essam, Bacem A. & Muhammad S. Abdo
2021. How Do Arab Tweeters Perceive the COVID-19 Pandemic?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50:3 ► pp. 507 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.