The language of terror: exploring speech acts in official English-language ISIS videos, 2014-2017

ABSTRACT

This study provides an empirical analysis of 79 official ISIS English-language videos and uses Quentin Skinner’s analytical approach to examine the prevalence of and changes in the speech acts used in the videos. The results show that directive, expressive, and assertive were the most common classes of speech acts and that threatening speech acts were featured most prominently. This study concludes that the fundamental semantic intention of the videos is to mobilise the addressees to align with the group’s demands and the video might serve more than simply recruitment, but as a diplomatic/negotiating tool for real-world events that ISIS faces.

KEYWORDS:

• Extremism
• Islamic state
• ISIS propaganda videos
• speech acts
• terrorism and propaganda
• Skinner’s approach

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr Simon Cottee, Dr Caroline Chatwin, Professor Frank Furedi, Professor Keith Hayward, and additionally Dr Paul Rich and the anonymous reviewers for their guidance, support, and comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Richards, “‘Flexible’ Capital”; Salazar, Words Are Weapons; and Schaukowitch, “Words Are Weapons.”

2. Houck, Repke, and Conway, “Understanding What Makes Terrorist”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; and Macnair and Frank, “The Mediums.”

3. Richards, “‘Flexible’ Capital.”

4. Schaukowitch, “Words Are Weapons.”

5. Garamone, “Do Authorizes War.”

6. Cantey, “Beyond the Pale?”; Zelin, “Picture Or It Didn’t”; Barr and Herfroy-Mischler, “ISIL’s Execution Videos”; Wilbur, “Propaganda’s Place”; Kuznar, “The Stability”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; Gråtrud, “Islamic State Nasheeds As”; Allendorfer and Herring, “ISIS vs. the U.S.”; Winkler et al., “The Medium is Terrorism”; Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?”; Al-Rawi, “Video Games, Terrorism”; Novenario, “Differentiating Al Qaeda”; and Winter, “Apocalypse, Later.”

7. Macnair and Frank, “The Mediums”; and Windsor, “The Language of Radicalization.”

8. Skinner, Visions of Politics; Braddock and Horgan, “Towards a Guide”; Cottee, “What’s the Right Way”; Salazar, Words Are Weapons; and Schaukowitch, “Words Are Weapons.”

9. Winter, “ICSR Insight,” 1.

10. Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?”; Wright and Bachmann, “Al Qaida’s Persuasive Devices”; Ingram, “An Analysis of Islamic”; Ingram, “The Strategic Logic”; Pelletier et al., “Why ISIS’s Message Resonates”; Novenario, “Differentiating Al Qaeda”; and Droogan and Peattie, “Reading Jihad.”

11. Jarvis and Lister, “What Would You Do?,” 277; Wyszomierski, “Boko Haram”; Al-Rawi, “Video Games, Terrorism”; Al-Rawi, “Anti-ISIS Humor”; Silva and Crilley, “Talk about Terror”; and Hatton and Nielsen, “War on Terror.”

12. Schmid and Graaf, Violence as Communication, 14.

13. Jarvis and Lister, “What Would You Do?,” 277; Silva and Crilley, “Talk about Terror”; and Cottee and Cunliffe, “Watching ISIS.”

14. Jackson et al., Terrorism, 71; and Robinson, “Editor’s Introduction,” 1.

15. For example, Liebes and Katz (1993) who view television as ‘text’ and viewers as ‘decoders’ point out the gap between the stories themselves and what the viewers bring to them; see Liebes and Katz, Export of Meaning; and Gauntlett, Creative Explorations.

16. Silva and Crilley, “Talk about Terror”; Cottee, “What’s the Right Way”; O’Halloran et al., “Interpreting Text and Image”; Jones and Norris, Discourse in Action; and Salem, Reid, and Chen, “Multimedia Content Coding.”

17. Winter, The Virtual ‘Caliphate’; and Schmitt, “U.S. Intensifies Effort.”

18. Such as the ‘Bobo doll’ experiment. There is an argument that ‘social learning theory’ emphasizes this process of imitation, for instance. See Prince, Screening Violence, 237-8.

19. Horsley, The Blood Poets, 229–31; and Gronstad, Transfigurations, 155.

20. Whalen, “Film Noir,” 2–5; and Gronstad, Transfigurations, 155.

21. Prince, Screening Violence, 258.

22. Friedrich-Cofer and Huston, “Television Violence”; and Centerwall, “Exposure to Television.”

23. Freedman, “Effect of Television Violence”; and McGuire, “The Myth of Massive.”

24. Hatton and Nielsen, “War on Terror.”

25. Ingram, “An Analysis of Islamic”; and Al-Rawi, “Anti-ISIS Humor.”

26. Ellul, Propaganda.

27. Sageman, “The Stagnation in Terrorism,” 565.

28. Stern, “Response to Marc Sageman’s,” 610.

29. Stern, “Response to Marc Sageman’s,” 609; Cottee, “What’s the Right Way”; O’Halloran et al., “Interpreting Text and Image,” 3; Jones and Norris, Discourse in Action, 110–22; and Salem, Reid, and Chen, “Multimedia Content Coding,” 621.

30. Prokhovnik, “An Interview.”

31. According to Collingwood’s Autobiography (1983), ‘anything is evidence which can be used as evidence’, and no one says that ‘until he has formulated the question’. See Collingwood and Toulmin, R.G. Collingwood; and Fear, “The Question-and-Answer.”

32. Drolet, “Quentin Skinner.”

33. See note 30 above.

34. The ‘Cambridge school’ consists of Laslett, Skinner, Pocock, and John Dunn. See Pocock, “Quentin Skinner.”

35. Valle, “Using Quentin Skinner in History and Philosophy of Education.”

36. Valle criticises Leo Strauss’ and Arthur O’s approach for creating an ‘otologization of the texts as concretions of a teleological discourse and ideas became hypostatized into ‘a sort of immanent entities’. See Skinner, Visions of Politics, 83, 87; Valle, “Using Quentin Skinner.”

37. See note 32 above

38. Skinner, Visions of Politics, 103; and Howlett and McDonald, “Quentin Skinner, Intentionality.”

39. Howlett and McDonald, “Quentin Skinner, Intentionality.”

40. Ibid.

41. Lamb (2004) explains that the commitments of post-modernism have most commonly been to post-Marxist and post-structuralist notions of power. See Lamb, “Feature Book Review”; Drolet, “Quentin Skinner”; and Burns, “Interpreting and Appropriating Texts.”

42. Skinner, The Return of Grand; Lamb, “Feature Book Review Quentin”; and Burns, “Interpreting and Appropriating Texts.”

43. Norris, Derrida; and Abrams, Doing Things with Texts.

44. Derrida, Spurs Nietzsche’s Styles.

45. Skinner, The Return of Grand; and Burns, “Interpreting and Appropriating Texts.”

46. Burns, “Interpreting and Appropriating Texts”; Skinner, The Return of Grand; and Lamb, “Feature Book Review Quentin.”

47. Valle, “Using Quentin Skinner”; and Skinner, Visions of Politics.

48. Skinner, Visions of Politics 3, 85.

49. Ibid., 82.

50. Ibid.

51. A concept attributed to Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault; see for example, Lamb, “Feature Book Review.”

52. Aiken, “The Aesthetic Relevance”; and Harlan, “Intellectual History.”

53. Wimsatt and Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy.”

54. Graham, “How Do Illocutionary Descriptions”; Shapiro, “Realism in the Study”; and Boucher, Texts in Context.

55. Skinner, Visions of Politics 1, 97.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid., 94

59. Ibid., 94

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid., vii.

63. Stanton, “Hobbes and Schmitt.”

64. Goodhart, “Theory in Practice.”

65. Syros, “Review Article.”

66. Valle, “Using Quentin Skinner.”

67. For more details of the data collection process, sampling rationale and criteria, as well as the ethical and legal issues, see Qi, “Illuminating the Terror.”

68. Cottee, “What’s the Right Way”; Salazar, Words Are Weapons; Schaukowitch, “Words Are Weapons”; and Dowling, “The Contributions of Speech.”

69. See for example, Macnair and Frank’s study, “The Mediums.”

70. Skinner, Visions of Politics 3, 114.

71. Ibid., 114-115.

72. Boyatzis, Transforming Qualitative Information.

73. Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric; Wierzbicka, English Speech Act Verbs; and Searle, Expression and Meaning.

74. Cohen, “A Coefficient of Agreement”

75. Ballmer and Brennstuhl, Speech Act Classification; Muller, What Is a Speech Act; Vanderveken and Kubo, Essays in Speech Act; Verschueren, “Review of Speech”; Skinner, Visions of Politics.

76. Searle, Expression and Meaning, 29.

77. Braddock and Horgan, “Towards a Guide.”

78. The threatening category is analysed individually, but the speech act can be directive or commissive based upon whether it seeks action-provoking outcomes from addressees or expresses the speaker’s stance of commitment.

79. Searle, Expression and Meaning.

80. Ibid.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. Winter, The Virtual ‘Caliphate’.

84. See video examples of V30; V46; V48; V63; and V66, appendix 2

85. The Finn jihadist Abu Shuayb as-Somali said, ‘I’m calling on all the Muslims living in the West (…) to make hijrah [emigration] with your families to the land of khilafah (…) if you get killed, you will enter Jannah and Allah will take care of the ones you have left behind’ (V14, 2014).

86. Novenario, “Differentiating Al Qaeda.”

87. V10; and V14

88. V5; V53; and V62

89. V29; and V49

90. V12; and V49

91. Wierzbicka, English Speech Act.

92. Sedgwick, “Jihadist Ideology”; and Warraq, The Islam in Islamic.

93. The Australian jihadist Abu Yahya ash Shami said, ‘Our sisters in Fallujah, day after day they give birth to deformed babies. Look at the disgrace that ummah has gone through, look and wake up’ (V7, 2014).

94. V7; V26; and V55

95. See note 79 above.

96. Winter, “Apocalypse, Later.”

97. Solomon, “Iraq Declares Battle”; Usborne, “Isis Declares Number Two”; Ryan and DeYoung, “Pentagon Says Raqqa Strike”; and Burke, “Rise and Fall.”

98. V67; V69; V73; V74; and V77

99. Siddiq, “Freedom of Conscience.”

100. Ibid.

101. Winter, “Apocalypse, Later”; Macnair and Frank, “The Mediums,” 11.

102. Macnair and Frank, “The Mediums.”

103. See note 79 above.

104. V8; Garamone, “Do Authorizes War.”

105. V13; V58; V8; and V72

106. Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?”

107. Cook, Commanding Right.

108. Houck, Repke, and Conway, “Understanding What Makes Terrorist.”

109. Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS.”

110. V6; V14; V49; V55; Mahood and Rane “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; El-Badawy, Comerford, and Welby, “Inside the Jihadi Mind.”

111. Perry and Long, “Why Would Anyone Sell”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; Winter, The Virtual ‘Caliphate’; and Whiteside, “Lighting the Path.”

112. V7; V12; V14; Pelletier et al., “Why ISIS’s Message Resonates”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS.”

113. V55; Ingram, “An Analysis of Islamic”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; Ingram, “The Strategic Logic.”

114. Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?”; Pelletier et al., “Why ISIS’s Message Resonates”; Ingram, “The Strategic Logic.”

115. V41-45; Cantey, “Beyond the Pale?”; Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?”; Foy, “Framing Hostage Negotiations.”

116. V41

117. V42-44

118. V45

119. V18;20;21;23;25;27;34; and Cantey, “Beyond the Pale?”

120. V18;20;21;23;25;27;34; and Foy, “Framing Hostage Negotiations.”

121. V5; V10; V12; and V14

122. V11

123. Al-Dayel and Anfinson, “In the Words”; Phillips, “The Islamic State’s Strategy”; Novenario, “Differentiating Al Qaeda”; Cantey, “Beyond the Pale?”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS.”

124. Phillips, “The Islamic State’s Strategy.”

125. Al-Dayel and Anfinson, “‘In the Words.’”

126. See note 109 above.

127. Tinnes, “Although the (Dis-)Believers.”

128. Richards, “‘Good and Evil’ Narratives”; Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS”; Wignell, Tan, and O’Halloran, “Violent Extremism and Iconisation”; Heck, “Images, Visions and Narrative.”

129. V19.

130. V1; V4; V10; V47; and V75.

131. ‘Oh brothers, are you pleased with being humiliated, oppressed, and ruled by the tawaghit [tyrants]? Where is your anger when the taghut [tyrant] mocks Allah and his messenger’? (V12, 2014). V6; V12; V24; V56; and V78.

132. Lacey, Inside the Kingdom.

133. V2; V46, V55; V48; and V70.

134.. V11; V12; V32; V40; and V64.

135. V5; V12; V14; V58; and V74.

136. V13; V33; and V52.

137. V2; V12; V13; and V74.

138. As the jihadist explains ISIS’s notion of its adversary’s enterprise, for instance, the ‘Islamic State is fighting the rafidah and the kuffer and that it is fighting the sahwat (…) supported by both Arab and non-Arab tawaghit. Behind them are the Jews and America (…)’ (V12, 2014).

139. V19; Tinnes, “Although the (Dis-)Believers”; Al-Dayel and Anfinson, “In the Words”; Gråtrud, “Islamic State Nasheeds”; and Mahood and Rane, “Islamist Narratives in ISIS.”

140. V55; and V48.

141. V64.

142. V2; V8; V19; V46; V60; V64; and V70.

143. Goffman, The Presentation of Self.

144. Goffman, The Presentation of Self; and Appelrouth and Edles, Classical and Contemporary Sociological.

145. Goffman, The Presentation of Self, 22; and Cottee, “The Pre-Terrorists.”

146. Furedi, “Why Identity Politics.”

147. V2; V31; and V33.

148. Malik, “Isis Video Appears”; Morris and Sly, “Insurgents in Northern Iraq”; and Furedi, “Why Identity Politics.”

149. Albayrak, Parkinson, and Gauthier-Villars, “Thousands of Syrian Kurds”; Zaman, “Kurdish Victory in Kobani”; and Arango, “More Than a Battle.”

150. Pelletier et al., “Why ISIS’s Message Resonates”; Droogan and Peattie, “Reading Jihad”; Kuznar, “The Stability.”

151. See note above 96.

152. Chulov, “Isis Insurgents Seize Control.”

153. Tran and Weaver, “Isis Announces Islamic Caliphate.”

154. V12.

155. V1; and V3.

156. Winter, “Apocalypse, Later,” 117.

157. It usually refers to the speaker’s actions/utterances that indicate future unpleasant consequences as a means of achieving something from the addressee. See Wierzbicka, English Speech Act Verbs.

158. Goffman, The Presentation of Self, 81; Soffer, “British Islamist Justifies Beheading”; and Banco, “Muslim World Reacts.”

159. Goffman, The Presentation of Self, 3.

160. Skinner, Visions of Politics, 99.

161. Friis, “Beyond Anything We Have”; Landis, “Saudis and CIA Agree”; Sly, “Al-Qaeda Backs Away”; Parker, “Iraqi PM Maliki Says”; and McCants, “Why Did ISIS Attack.”

162. Skinner, Visions of Politics.

163. Friis, “Beyond Anything”; Landis, “Saudis and CIA Agree”; Simcox and Peritz, “Chuck Hagel Had”; and McCants, “Why Did ISIS Attack.”

164. Maher, “Why ISIS Seeks.”

165. Ibid.

166. This became more evident when Peter Kassig became the fifth Western hostage to be beheaded. Kassig was labelled the ‘first crusader’ buried in Dabiq. See Maher, “Why ISIS Seeks”; McCants, “Why Did ISIS Attack”; and McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse.

167. Friis, “Beyond Anything”; Nordland and Cooper, “Capitalizing on U.S. Bombing”; Writer, “Qaradawi Says ‘Jihadist Caliphate’”; and Writer, “Arab League Denounces ISIS.”

168. Friis, “Beyond Anything”; Simcox and Peritz, “Chuck Hagel Had”; Boydstun, Hardy, and Walgrave, “Two Faces of Media”; Tinnes, “Although the (Dis-)Believers”; and McCalmont, “Poll.”

169. This is based on information recovered from computers in Kabul’s al-Qaeda office. See Friis, “‘Beyond Anything.’”

170. Skinner, Hobbes on Persons, Authors; and Searle, Expression and Meaning.

171. Colas, “What Does Dabiq Do?,” 178; and Winter, The Virtual ‘Caliphate’.

172. The concept of jihad is confined to only violent jihad.

173. Arguably, a set of core values highlighted by ISIS, such as tawhid [unity], manhaj [truth-seeking], hijrah [migration], jihad [holy war], and jama’ah [community], could be an act of commanding right and forbidding wrong in a broader sense. See Heck, “Images, Visions and Narrative”; Wignell, Tan, and O’Halloran, “Violent Extremism and Iconisation.”

174. See noe above 96.

175. Lamb, “Feature Book Review Quentin”; Norris, Derrida; Abrams, Doing Things with Texts; Burns, “Interpreting and Appropriating Texts.”

176. Cottee and Cunliffe, “Watching ISIS.”

177. Skinner, Visions of Politics 1, 121.

178. Fernandez, “Here to Stay and Growing.”

179. Leeuwen and Jewitt, The Handbook of Visual, 26.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yuanbo Qi

Yuanbo Qi is a PhD candidate at the University of Kent. His PhD explores an account of official English-language Islamic State propaganda videos, drawing on the work of the intellectual historian Quentin Skinner to develop an innovative methodology for understanding the visual propaganda of terrorist groups. His other research interests include terrorism and propaganda, media violence and crime, and horror spectacular.