Linguistic analysis of terrorist discourse aids security investigators in understanding terrorist ideology and activities. This paper investigates the discursive practice of "othering"—the categorization of the world into "Us" versus "Them"—and its role in radicalization to terrorism. The study focuses on the grammatical resources employed in Osama bin Laden's (OBL) public statements to frame situations, coerce audiences into violence, and legitimize hostile actions against outgroups. Understanding how grammar strategically constructs othering is crucial for threat assessment and preventing radicalization. The research expands upon previous linguistic studies of terrorism by explicitly examining the interplay between syntax, pragmatics, and semantics in the othering process, showing how OBL uses grammar to manage, reproduce, and sustain negative perceptions of outgroups and inter-group antagonism.

Existing research explores othering in various contexts, including hate speech, racism, and media, recognizing it as an ideological, social, and discursive practice. This study adopts the theoretical perspective that inter-group othering and hostile relationships are ideologically motivated and manifest in the relationship between language form and use. Othering is considered a face-threatening act that violates politeness maxims by attacking the public face of outgroups. The concept of affiliation construction—building group membership based on master identities—is also central, as is the manipulation of identity and worldviews to influence the perception of the world and promote ingroup prejudices. Research on radicalized discourse highlights the strategic use of identity construction and framing to promote affiliations while negatively constructing outgroups, leading to violence. The analysis will examine sentence structure, primary participants, and their roles (particularly agency and affectedness) to understand how extremists forge ingroup alignments and disalignments with outgroups. The study further considers the moral reasoning behind othering, drawing on concepts of moral disengagement, the moral foundations of evaluation, and metavalues like loyalty, care, liberty, and respect.

This qualitative study analyzed eight public statements by OBL from 2001-2006, selected from the al-Buraq al-I'lamyiah's "al-Archive al-Jami." English translations were reviewed and verified for accuracy in grammatical structure by a native Arabic speaker and English-Arabic translator. The statements, ranging from messages to the American people to incitements to jihad against American troops in Iraq, were produced in the post-9/11 sociopolitical context of increased distrust between the US and Arab/Muslim societies. The analysis focused on "fighting utterances"—those containing violent parts of speech and clear references to primary participants. AntConc software was used to identify prominent actors and predicates. A manual qualitative analysis then examined each utterance's syntactic construction (transactive or non-transactive), mood (declarative, imperative, interrogative), and voice (active or passive). Grammatical choices were mapped onto two types of othering: overt (direct assignment of responsibility for negative actions to outgroups) and covert (backgrounding the causal relationship but implying outgroup responsibility). The illocutionary points (assertive, directive, etc.) of the utterances were analyzed to understand their pragmatic functions, considering the epistemic and social status of OBL. Three framing functions (diagnostic, motivational, prognostic) and four moral metavalues (ingroup loyalty, authority, harm/care, liberty/oppression) were also considered to understand the moral underpinnings of the grammatical choices.

The analysis revealed patterns of grammatical choices that constructed a paradigm of agents and patients. In overt othering, 'Them' (outgroups, especially America and its allies) were explicitly constructed as agents responsible for harm against 'Us' (the ingroup), while 'Us' were presented as patients or as morally justified agents of retaliatory violence. This directly assigned responsibility, using transactive constructions, active voice, and declarative mood, served diagnostic framing (identifying the problem and its source) and motivated ingroup action. Retrospective othering, where 'Our' agency was framed as a reaction to prior outgroup aggression, legitimized violence within a liberty/oppression framework. Covert othering, conversely, backgrounded the causal relationship through passive voice and non-transactive constructions, emphasizing the immoral actions of outgroups rather than directly naming them. The use of passive voice amplified the suffering of the ingroup while obscuring the outgroup's agency. The declarative mood, while predominant, had varying illocutionary points—assertion, commitment, or direction—depending on the context. Interrogative and imperative moods were also used for rhetorical effect, confirming calls to violence and issuing commands, further activating motivational framing. The grammatical choices enacted relational and intergroup metavalues (loyalty, authority, harm/care, liberty/oppression). OBL strategically used grammatical options to activate specific framing functions; overt othering emphasized diagnostic framing, while covert othering focused on motivational framing.

The findings demonstrate how OBL strategically deployed grammatical choices to construct othering, coerce audiences, and legitimize violence. The identification of overt and covert othering strategies provides insight into the nuanced ways in which terrorist discourse manipulates language to achieve its goals. The analysis highlights the importance of considering both the syntactic structure and the pragmatic function of utterances in understanding the impact of terrorist communication. The results support previous research on threat construction and moral disengagement, illustrating how terrorists selectively blame outgroups and justify their violence. The study also demonstrates the importance of considering moral frameworks and framing functions in analyzing terrorist discourse. The findings have implications for threat assessment and counter-terrorism strategies, sensitizing assessors to the linguistic clues that signal radicalization and violence.

This study offers a novel approach to analyzing terrorist discourse by focusing on the grammatical choices that enact othering and antagonism. The identification of overt and covert othering strategies, along with their associated pragmatic functions and moral underpinnings, provides a deeper understanding of how terrorists manipulate language to achieve their goals. Future research could expand this analysis to include terrorist groups from different ideological backgrounds and other contexts where othering is used for ideological purposes. The approach presented here offers a valuable tool for understanding the language of aggression and conflict, crucial for maintaining peace, countering hate, and preventing radicalization.

The study's scope is limited to the analysis of eight public statements by OBL. The findings may not be generalizable to all terrorist groups or contexts. The reliance on English translations of the original Arabic texts could introduce some interpretation bias, although efforts were made to mitigate this. The qualitative nature of the analysis limits the generalizability of findings, and a larger, more diverse dataset would strengthen the study.