Speech Acts of the Jordanian Military vs. ISIS Narrative in the Wake of Mu’ath Alkasasbh’s Murder

Abstract

The aim of this research is three folds: first, investigating the differences in the ideological stands of both conflicting sides: Jordanian political discourse and ISIS terrorism discourse. Second, shedding light on the salient features of the Jordanian Discourse on terrorism and the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) Terrorism’s Discourse in the wake of the Jordanian pilot Moath Al-kasasbah heinous crime. Third, identifying the persuasion strategies utilized by both sides for the aim of affecting the opinion of the public. The data whose concern included official statements of the Jordanian officials from one side, and the narrative of ISIS exemplified in the script of the video which revealed the destiny of the Jordanian pilot. The methodology adopted in achieving the aims of the study is mainly based on speech act analysis on Searle’s typology of five performative speech acts (directives, declaratives, commissives, expressives, and assertaives). The analysis of the data revealed the following findings: first, both parties showed its own conflicting ideologies in which they defended their cause. Second, the conflicting sides utilized performative speech acts in varying proportions and styles for the sake of persuading the audience. This poignant variation reflects the inclination of both parties to use different persuasion strategies in order to influence the opinion of the public for the aim of garnering support for their cause. The research concludes with a recommendation that various studies need to conduct in order to investigate the various linguistic features founded in this type of discourse and which can be utilized in other models of discourse analysis.