POL E S APART ? E XPL ORING T HE E XT E NT OF SIMIL ARIT Y BE T WE E N E XT RE ME AND NON- E XT RE ME ME SSAGE CONT E NT Dr She ryl Pre ntic e Pro f. Pa ul J. T a ylo r, Dr Pa ul Ra yso n
E XT RE ME ON NON- E XT RE ME ? • “Yo u do n’ t wa nt to b e c a ug ht re d-ha nde d… sma sh he r o n a pa rk b e nc h. T ha t use d to b e my tric k” • “Yo u kno w g irls in g e ne ra l a re a ll rig ht. But so me o f the m a re b itc he s…T he b itc he s a re the type tha t…ne e d to ha ve it stuffe d to the m ha rd a nd he a vy”
PE RSPE CT I VE 1: E XT RE ME VS. NON-E XT RE ME • Gro unde d in the a ssumptio n tha t e xtre mists po sse ss unusua l wa ys o f thinking , o r a diffe ring psyc ho -lo g ic (Me ra ri) • L a ng ua g e use re fle c ts this (Pe nne b a ke r) • Autho rs ma y a c tive ly se e k to diffe re ntia te the ir rhe to ric fro m tha t o f the ‘ e ne my’ (Cho wdhury & K re b s, 2010; Awa n, 2007)
PE RSPE CT I VE 1: E XT RE ME VS. NON-E XT RE ME • Smith, Sue dfe ld, Co nwa y, a nd Winte r (2008) • Co mpa re d 2 te rro rist a nd 2 no n-te rro rist g ro ups • Ang ie e t a l. (2011) • Co mpa re d 29 vio le nt a nd no n-vio le nt me ssa g e b o a rds • Pa yne (2009) • Co mpa re d Al-Qa ’ ida a nd We ste rn Go ve rnme nt na rra tive s
PE RSPE CT I VE 2: E XT RE ME & NON-E XT RE ME OVE RL AP • E xtre mists ha ve b e e n fo und to de mo nstra te ra tio na lity, whic h is re fle c te d in the ir rhe to ric (Sprinza k 2000; Sto ut 2009) • Ma instre a m a nd e xtre me so urc e s ha ve b e e n fo und to spe a k to the sa me c o nc e rns (se e Awa n, 2007) • Po litic a l a nd e xtre me – simila r stra te g ie s to win o ve r suppo rte rs (c f. unifying te rms)
PE RSPE CT I VE 2: E XT RE ME & NON-E XT RE ME OVE RL AP Ma y no t b e stra te g ic o r o ve rt… • So c io ling uistic the o ry (Jo se ph, 2004) • So c ia l ide ntity the o ry (T a jfe l) Ho pkins & K a ha ni-Ho pkins (2009) a rg ue a g a inst e xtre me vs. no n e xtre me c la ssific a tio n
PE RSPE CT I VE 2: E XT RE ME & NON-E XT RE ME OVE RL AP • Gutma nn (2007): e xtre me lite ra ture de me a ns the o ut- g ro up a nd na rro ws unde rsta nding • Studie s o f pre ss disc o urse • Disc o urse s o f xe no pho b ia , se xism & ho mo pho b ia ; le g itimize & re me dia te e xtre mism • Studie s o f po litic a l disc o urse • I n/ o ut g ro up fe a ture s; so c ia l a nd mo ra l a rg ume nta tio n; wa rfa re justific a tio n
CURRE NT ST UDY • Aim: to e sta b lish whe the r the re is sig nific a nt o ve rla p in c o nte nt b e twe e n a n e xe mpla r se t o f e xtre me a nd no n- e xtre me o nline me ssa g e s
MAT E RI AL S • E xtre me c o rpus: 250 me ssa g e s, 425,516 wo rds, writte n b y me mb e rs o f kno wn e xtre mist g ro ups • Co unte r-e xtre me c o rpus: 250 me ssa g e s, 208,932 wo rds, fro m Muslim c le ric s a nd British Offic ia ls • Ma instre a m c o rpus: 250 me ssa g e s, 107,018 wo rds, dra wn fro m fo ur ME ne ws o utle ts
PROCE DURE • T e xts a na lyse d via Wma trix – sub je c t to CL AWS a nd USAS ta g g ing • Se ma ntic c a te g o ry lists re trie ve d fo r e a c h o f the thre e c o rpo ra • T ra nsfe rre d to lo g -like liho o d spre a dshe e t • Use d a n a da ptio n to ke yne ss to lo o k a t b o th simila ritie s a nd diffe re nc e s
PROCE DURE observed frequencies Totals expected frequencies Tag Ext Coun Main corpus1 corpus2 corpus3 LL Ext O/U Coun O/U main O/U A1.1.1 4799 2829 1175 8803 5110.57 2407.11 1285.32 99.11 U O U A1.1.1- 4 0 0 4 2.32 1.09 0.58 4.35 O U U A1.1.2 1010 454 204 1668 968.36 456.10 243.54 8.57 O U U A1.1.2- 0 1 1 2 1.16 0.55 0.29 3.67 U O O A1.2 4 0 3 7 4.06 1.91 1.02 6.33 U U O A1.2+ 89 57 18 164 95.21 44.84 23.95 5.06 U O U T hre e c o mpa riso ns: A1: E xtre me , Ma instre a m a nd Co unte r A2a : E xtre me , Ma instre a m a nd Muslim Co unte r A2b : E xtre me , Ma instre a m a nd British Offic ia l Co unte r All use : L L = 3.84; p < 0.05
RE SUL T S: ANAL YSI S 1 Cate gor y distinc tion E xtr e me Mainstr e am Counte r 142 L L < 1 144 187 Signific antly ove r use d (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) L L = 10.85, p < .001 200 198 155 Signific antly unde r use d (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) L L = 11.89, p < .001 No signific ant diffe r e nc e 49 49 49 ac r oss c or por a (L L = < 3.84; f > 10) Number of semantic categories significantly over and underused, and semantic categories showing no significant difference between the extreme, counter and mainstream messages
RE SUL T S: ANAL YSI S 2A = 1.02, p < .5 L L Cate gor y distinc tion E xtr e me Mainstr e am Muslim Counte r 166 153 120 Signific antly ove r use d (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) = 6.77, p < .01 L L 167 180 213 Signific antly unde r use d = 13.01, p < .001 (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) L L Number of semantic categories significantly over and underused, and semantic categories showing no significant difference between the extreme, mainstream, and Muslim authored counter-extreme messages
RE SUL T S: ANAL YSI S 2B = 1.35, p < .5 L L Cate gor y distinc tion E xtr e me Mainstr e am Br itish Offic ial Counte r 162 147 152 Signific antly ove r use d (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) < 1 L L Signific antly unde r use d 174 189 184 (L L => 3.84; p < 0.05) < 1 L L Number of semantic categories significantly over and underused, and semantic categories showing no significant difference between the extreme, mainstream and British Official authored counter-extreme messages
SUMMARY • Ana lysis 1: e xtre me a nd ma instre a m - c lo se a lig nme nt, c o unte r – o ppo sing pro file • Ana lysis 2a : Muslim c o unte r - o ppo sing • Ana lysis 2b : British Offic ia l a lig ns with ma instre a m & e xtre me • L inks to wo rk o n te rro rist pa tho lo g y • Silke , 1998 • Me ra ri, 1999
Wha t c o uld e xpla in the re la tio nships o b se rve d? • Ve rb a l a g g re ssio n mo de ls fro m ling uistic s a nd psyc ho lo g y
L E VI NE E T AL . (2004): MUL T I DI ME NSI ONAL VAS • De ve lo pme nta l I nte ra c tio nist T he o ry a nd NS • two e mo tio na l c irc uits: se lf pro te c tio n a nd so c ia l b e ha vio urs • se lf pro te c tio n - ne g a tive / c o mpe titive / a g g re ssive ; so c ia l b e ha vio urs - po sitive / c o o pe ra tive • Hig h c o o pe ra tive ne ss + lo w c o mpe tive ne ss o r a g g re ssive ne ss = lo w re la tio na l ne g a tivity • L o w c o o pe ra tive ne ss + hig h c o mpe titive ne ss o r a g g re ssive ne ss = hig h re la tio na l ne g a tivity
ARCHE R (2014): VE RBAL AGGRE SSI ON • Assig ns a pa rtic ula r se t o f USAS c a te g o rie s to ve rb a l a g g re ssio n • Vio le nt/Ang ry , I m/po lite ne ss , (L ac k o f) Re spe c t , Damag ing and De stro ying , E valuatio n: Go o d/Bad , E valuatio n: T rue /F alse , Co mparing : Diffe re nt , Spe e c h: Co mmunic ative /Unc o mmunic ative , a nd Spe e c h Ac ts: Spe aking /No t Spe aking • Additio n o f Warfare c a te g o ry
ARCHE R (2014): APPL I CAT I ON • E valuatio n: Go o d/Bad , Damag ing and De stro ying , (L ac k o f) Re spe c t , I mpo lite ne ss o ve ruse d b y the e xt. me ssa g e s • sha re d o ve ruse o f E valuatio n: T rue /F alse b e twe e n e xt. a nd B/ O c o unte r me ssa g e s • sha re d o ve ruse o f Vio le nt/Ang ry b e twe e n m/ s a nd B/ O c o unte r me ssa g e s • o ve ruse o f Warfare in the m/ s me ssa g e s
ARCHE R (2014): APPL I CAT I ON • o ve ruse o f Spe e c h: Co mmunic ative a nd Spe e c h Ac ts in the ma instre a m me ssa g e s • o ve ruse o f Calm (a n o ppo sitio n c a te g o ry to Vio le nt/Ang ry ), Anti-War a nd Spe e c h Ac ts in the Muslim c o unte r me ssa g e s
COMBI NI NG ARCHE R (2014) & L E VI NE E T AL . (2004) • Spe e c h: Co mmunic ative /Unc o mmunic ative , a nd Spe e c h Ac ts: Spe aking /No t Spe aking ta ke n a s ‘ ve rb a l (un)c o o pe ra tive ne ss’ • Warfare , Vio le nt/Ang ry , Damag ing and De stro ying , I m/po lite ne ss , E valuatio n: T rue /F alse , E valuatio n: Go o d/Bad , a nd (L ac k o f) Re spe c t a re ta ke n a s ‘ ve rb a l (no n)a g g re ssive ne ss’
L E VI NE E T AL . (2004): APPL I CAT I ON Figure 2: Multidimensional scale of verbal aggression and cooperativeness, adapted from Levine et al. (2004). The asterisk (*) indicates author’s addition.
L E VI NE E T AL . (2004): CAUSAL CHAI N • Be lie f Syste ms T he o ry • o ne ’ s se lf c o nc e pt a c ts a s a n “a nte c e de nt to g e ne ra lize d b e lie fs a b o ut o the rs suc h a s ho stility a nd a nxie ty o r a tta c hme nt a nd c a ring ” (L e vine e t a l. 2004, 264; c iting re se a rc h b y Ha milto n a nd Mine o 1999)
Recommend
More recommend
