| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
188027
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper linguistically investigates terrorist discursive strategies designed to manipulate recipients’ minds into accepting, even embracing, certain ideologies. Though extensive research has been done on manipulative discourse used by journalists and politicians, examining the same discourse used by terrorists received comparatively scant attention. Under Critical Discourse Analysis, we employ a framework of analysis of ISIS discursive tools of manipulation, drawing on Reisigl and Wodak’s (2009) and Wodak’s (2011) discursive strategies, qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing (17) ISIS statements released between 2014 and 2016. We explore the discursive tools ISIS has characteristically used to manipulate its audience and legitimate and defend its actions. The aim is that once terrorist narrative is dissected from a different approach, such effort will be helpful in creating counter-narratives meant to reduce terrorism and vitiate its arguments. Emphasis will be laid on covert vs. overt manipulation, metaphorical dehumanization and metonymic depersonalization. We find that the data contained manipulative tools such as Captatio benevolentiae and volitive modality that are employed to project a positive image about ISIS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
131649
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
180891
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Past research has found that third party pressure makes the signing of a ceasefire more likely, but also more likely to break down. What explains this variation? I argue that third party pressure is more likely to lead to a durable ceasefire if pressure is applied to persuade the conflict parties to continue to negotiate and produce a detailed ceasefire document, whereas pressure solely aimed at making the conflict parties sign a ceasefire document undermines the durability of the ceasefire. A comparison of four ceasefires concluded in Sudan supports this argument. Third party pressure that led to the Nuba Mountains Ceasefire and the Agreement on Security Arrangements helped move the negotiations on security arrangements forward. By contrast, the N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement were imposed on the parties without regard for political and technical aspects of the ceasefire. This explains why violence soon resumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140362
|
|
|