Conway and Conway (2011) ‘The Terrorist Rhetorical Style and its Consequences for Understanding Terrorist Violence.’
Citation: Conway, L.G. III, and Conway, K.R. (2011) ‘The Terrorist Rhetorical Style and its Consequences for Understanding Terrorist Violence,’ Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 4:2, pp. 175-192.
Summarising article from: The Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate funded a project to examine the relationship between rhetoric and behaviour, culminating in a special edition of Dynamics of Assymetric Conflict (4:2), curated by Allison G. Smith, that conducted a range of linguistic analyses comparing the output of Al Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir and AQAP and the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia.
Conway and Conway (2011:175): Conclude “terrorist rhetoric (compared to non-terrorist control groups) was more social in nature, contained more rhetoric reflecting control and power, and was consistently lower on multiple measurements of rhetoric complexity. Further, analyses on automated systems suggested that the typical terrorist style of rhetoric became even more exaggerated among terrorist groups as an impending violent attack by their group neared.”
Conway and Conway (2011:180): Argue that, across the models used, terrorist groups used simpler language, more social/interpersonal rhetoric, and belief in ability to control than their non-terrorist counterparts. They do not demonstrate more aggressive rhetoric.
Conway and Conway (2011:181-182): “it is clear that these data robustly and consistently define a particular style of rhetoric that is uniquely indicative of violent groups. That style is, among other things, more social, more emotion-focused, less complex, and more focused on control/power.”
Conway and Conway (2011:185): Automatic systems identified terrorist rhetoric as becaming less complex as attack approached, but this was weak or inconsistent in manual systems (no comparison with non-terrorist rhetoric possible [although it would be!]).
Conway and Conway (2011:189): Acknowledge that rhetorical styles differ by group and therefore the differences between “terrorist” and “non-terrorist” are unlikely to be universal. Views the potential predictors as varying by group.