Volume 18, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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: and . 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdelzaher, Esra
    2019a “Lexicon-based Detection of Violence on Social Media.” Cognitive Semantics5(1): 32–69. doi:  10.1163/23526416‑00501002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501002 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2019b “The Systematic Adaptation of Violence Contexts in the ISIS Discourse: A Contrastive Corpus Based Study.” 3(2): 173–203. doi:  10.1007/s41701‑019‑00055‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00055-y [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Politics17(6 2018: 769–788. doi:  10.1075/jlp.17048.moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17048.moh [Google Scholar]
  4. Arosoaie, Aida
    2017 “In the name of honour and freedom: the sacred as a justifying tool for ISIS’and secular violence.” Culture and Religion18(3): 278–295. doi:  10.1080/14755610.2017.1358191
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2017.1358191 [Google Scholar]
  5. Atkins, Sue, Michael Rundell, and Hiroaki Sato
    2003 “The contribution of FrameNet to practical lexicography.” International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 333–357. doi:  10.1093/ijl/16.3.333
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.333 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Paul, and Rachelle Vessey
    2018 “A corpus-driven comparison of English and French Islamist extremist texts.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics23(3): 255–278. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.17108.bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17108.bak [Google Scholar]
  7. Clifton, Jonathan
    2017 “Justifying the jihad.” Journal of Language and Politics16(3): 453–470. doi:  10.1075/jlp.15014.cli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15014.cli [Google Scholar]
  8. Essam, Bacem A., Mostafa M. Aref, and Fayrouz Fouad
    2019 “When folkloric geopolitical concerns prompt a conspiratorial ideation: the case of Egyptian tweeters.” Geo Journal84(1): 121–133. doi:  10.1007/s10708‑018‑9854‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9854-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1975 “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning.” InAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, pp.123–131. doi:  10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2006 “Frame semantics.” Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings34: 373–400. doi:  10.1515/9783110199901.373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J., and Collin Baker
    2011 “A frames approach to semantic analysis.” InThe Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. pp.313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam RL Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Abby Wright
    2003 “FrameNet in action: The case of attaching.” International journal of lexicography16(3): 297–332. doi:  10.1093/ijl/16.3.297
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.297 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerges, Fawaz A.
    2009The far enemy: why Jihad went global. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511817793
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817793 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heickerö, Roland
    2014 “Cyber terrorism: Electronic jihad.” Strategic Analysis38(4): 554–565. 10.1080/09700161.2014.918435
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.918435 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 Technology19(2): 203–228. 10.1007/s10772‑015‑9290‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10772-015-9290-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Maggio, James
    2007 “The presidential rhetoric of terror: The recreation of reality immediately after 9/11.” Politics & Policy35(4): 810–835. 10.1111/j.1747‑1346.2007.00085.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00085.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Novenario, Celine Marie I.
    “Differentiating Al Qaeda and the Islamic State through strategies publicized in Jihadist magazines.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism39(11) 2016: 953–967. 10.1080/1057610X.2016.1151679
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1151679 [Google Scholar]
  18. Pennebaker, James W.
    2011 “Using computer analyses to identify language style and aggressive intent: The secret life of function words.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict4(2): 92–102. 10.1080/17467586.2011.627932
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2011.627932 [Google Scholar]
  19. Petruck, Miriam RL.
    1996 “Frame semantics. Handbook of Pragmatics.” Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  20. Pratt, Mary Louise
    . “Harm’s way: Language and the contemporary arts of war.” PMLA124(5) 2009: 1515–1531. 10.1632/pmla.2009.124.5.1515
    https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2009.124.5.1515 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Schröter, Melani
    . “Addressee orientation in political speeches: Tracing the dialogical ‘other’in argumentative monologue.” Journal of Language and Politics13(2) 2014: 289–312. 10.1075/jlp.13.2.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.05sch [Google Scholar]
  23. Schubert, Christoph
    2014 “Cognitive categorization and prototypicality as persuasive strategies: Presidential rhetoric in the USA.” Journal of Language and Politics13(2): 313–335. 10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch [Google Scholar]
  24. Siegel, Alexandra A., and Joshua A. Tucker
    . “The Islamic State’s information warfare.” Journal of Language and Politics17(2) 2018: 258–280. 10.1075/jlp.17005.sie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17005.sie [Google Scholar]
  25. Sikos, Jennifer, and Sebastian Padó
    2018 “FrameNet’s using relation as a source of concept-based paraphrases.” Constructions and Frames10(1): 38–60. doi:  10.1075/cf.00010.sik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00010.sik [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ISIS; language of war; radicalization; rhetorical tactics; weaponizing words
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error