Exploring the grammar of othering and antagonism as enacted in terrorist discourse: verbal aggression in service of radicalisation

The study investigates how specific grammatical choices—transactive versus non-transactive construction, active versus passive voice, and mood types (declarative, imperative, interrogative)—enact the interpersonal act of othering in terrorist discourse and contribute to radicalisation. Focusing on eight public statements by Osama bin Laden (OBL), the paper asks what roles these syntactic resources play and how they pattern to frame situations, coerce audiences into supporting or committing violence, and legitimise hostility against outgroups. Situated at the interface of syntax, pragmatics and semantics, the work underscores the importance of grammar in constructing an Us-versus-Them dichotomy, assigning agency and affectedness, and managing audience perceptions for security-focused linguistic analysis and threat assessment.

The paper reviews multidisciplinary work on othering across hate, racism, media and politics, highlighting language’s ideological and social functions. It adopts the view that grammatical selections are ideologically motivated and tied to cognitive processes and (im)politeness dynamics, where terrorists use impoliteness to attack outgroup face. Research on affiliation construction and identity in radicalisation shows positive ingroup/negative outgroup portrayals as core strategies, with agency/affectedness assignments shaping evaluations and alignments. Prior studies suggest sentence structure, voice (active/passive), and syntactic transformations influence perceptions of responsibility and victimhood, facilitating Self-versus-Other polarization and moral disengagement (e.g., diffusion of responsibility). Framing theory (diagnostic, prognostic, motivational) is presented as a key mechanism to organise experiences and mobilise action. The review motivates examining grammatical directness (overt vs. covert othering) and mood types’ roles in violent speech acts and illocutionary points.

Data: Eight written public statements by Osama bin Laden (2001–2006), sourced from al-Buraq al-I'lamyiah’s Collective Archive with English translations from Al Jazeera, CIA FBIS (Compilation 1994–Jan 2004), and the author. The author (a native Arabic speaker and accredited translator) verified English clause constructions against Arabic originals for grammatical fidelity. Texts target multiple audiences: Americans (post-9/11 and Iraq war), Iraqis and broader Muslim audiences (calls to jihad), Saudi context (criticising Prince Abdullah), and Pakistani/Afghan audiences (incitement against US-led operations). Analytical focus and procedure: - Unit of analysis: clause as speech act. - Selection: “Fighting utterances” containing violent lexis (e.g., death, killed, bombardment) where primary participants are explicit or pronominally referenced. The rationale assumes existential presupposition for named/rival actors. - Tools: AntConc to extract prominent actors, pronouns, and associated predicates; manual sorting and qualitative analysis of exact utterances. - Variables coded: (1) Syntactic construction: transactive (Agent–Verb–Affected) vs. non-transactive (single participant). (2) Mood: declarative (Subject–Finite), imperative (Predicator non-finite), interrogative (Finite–Subject). (3) Voice: active (Agent→Subject; Patient→Object) vs. passive (Patient→Subject). - Typology mapping: grammatical selections mapped to overt othering (direct responsibility assignment; foregrounding Others’ agency) versus covert othering (backgrounded agency; prominence on immoral actions), using additional grammatical signals (possessives, prepositions by/from/in, nominal pre-/postmodification). - Pragmatics: Illocutionary points per Searle (assertive, directive, commissive, declarative); link mood choice to pragmatic purpose. - Framing functions (Benford & Snow): diagnostic, prognostic, motivational. - Moral metavalues considered: ingroup/loyalty; authority/(dis)respect; harm/care; liberty/oppression, treating agency assignment and illocution as activators of moral orders. The analysis situates grammatical choices within the 9/11/post-9/11 sociopolitical context and OBL’s narratives of oppression/crusade to interpret coercive and legitimating functions.

• Primary deictic centers and references: America/American* named 60 times; Muslim(s) 80 times; first-person pronouns (I/we/our/us) 227; third-person pronouns (they/their/them/he/his) 248. - Two systematic othering strategies tied to grammar: 1) Overt othering: transactive constructions in active voice with only declarative mood. These foreground Others’ agentive role and explicit cause-effect links (Agent harms Patient), enabling diagnostic framing (identifying problem and culprit) and coercing fear/hostility. Example patterns show “They [Americans/Israel] attacked/terrorise/kill… us/our people.” Overt othering also licenses “retrospective othering,” where ingroup agency (We punish/destroy) is framed as moral, reactive self-defence within liberty/oppression metavalues. 2) Covert othering: non-transactive constructions and passive voice, with any mood type. Agency is backgrounded, spotlighting immoral actions and ingroup vulnerability; 86 passive sentences observed. Grammatical markers (possessives, prepositions by/from/in, and nominal pre-/postmodification like “American campaign/law,” “coalition against our people”) recover implicated Agents. This strategy amplifies motivational framing (urge response) and can also serve prognostic framing depending on mood/voice. - Mood and illocution: Declaratives predominate but serve varied illocutionary points beyond assertion: assertion-commissive (e.g., declaring intent or moral permissibility), declarative-declarative (informing/epistemic authority), and assertion-directive links (assertions steering toward action). Interrogatives used rhetorically to secure “no” answers and commit to self-defence (assertion-commissive). Imperatives explicitly incite or prohibit actions (“Do not let…”, “We incite our brothers…”), performing directive points and activating prognostic framing. - Moral metavalues: Grammatical assignments of Agency/Patient and mood choices enact and activate ingroup/loyalty, authority/(dis)respect, harm/care, and liberty/oppression metavalues, licensing “reasonable hostility,” moral disengagement from outgroups, and moral engagement toward ingroup defence. - Framing functions by grammar: Overt othering tends to emphasise diagnostic framing; covert othering tends to emphasise motivational framing; mood choices (including declaratives with performatives like “incite”) also activate prognostic framing. - Overall, grammatical patterning evidences the strategic character of OBL’s verbal aggression: constructing threats (physical and ideological), coercing audiences, legitimising hostility, and positioning utterances as actions that mobilise violence.

The findings empirically demonstrate that specific grammatical configurations systematically enact othering and facilitate radicalisation. Transactive-active-declarative structures make Others’ agency and culpability explicit, satisfying diagnostic framing and legitimising retaliatory violence as self-defence, while non-transactive and passive constructions foreground immoral acts and ingroup suffering to motivate action. Mood choices shape illocutionary force: declaratives extend epistemic authority and can function as directives or commissives; interrogatives operate as rhetorical commitments; imperatives perform direct incitement. These grammatical strategies embed and activate moral metavalues (loyalty, authority/respect, harm/care, liberty/oppression), aligning proposed violence with ingroup moral orders. The results address the research question by mapping how grammar frames situations, coerces audiences, and legitimises hostility, offering concrete, linguistically grounded cues for threat assessment and analysis of extremist discourse.

The study shows that grammar is a powerful instrument for othering and antagonism in terrorist discourse. Two complementary strategies—overt (transactive, active, declarative) and covert (non-transactive, passive, any mood)—systematically construct Others as agents of harm and the ingroup as victims or as morally justified agents of reactive violence. Mood choices modulate illocutionary points, enabling assertions to function as directives or commissives and supporting diagnostic, motivational, and prognostic framing. These insights contribute methodological tools for identifying semiotic clues of radicalisation, understanding how terrorist texts legitimise violence via moral metavalues, and improving threat assessment. Future research should extend the approach to other terrorist ideologies and to non-terrorist domains (news media, political discourse) to compare othering grammars and pragmatic functions across contexts.

The dataset is limited to eight OBL statements (2001–2006) and is not intended to represent all OBL texts or terrorist discourse broadly. Findings are qualitative and context-dependent, relying on translations (though grammar was verified against Arabic originals). The study focuses on utterances containing violent lexis, which may bias toward more overtly aggressive constructions and exclude other relevant linguistic patterns.