Intent is a psychological quality that threat assessors view as a required step on a threatener’s pathway to action. Recognizing the presence of intent in threatening language is therefore crucial to determining whether a threat is credible. Nevertheless, a ‘lack of empirical guidance’ (p. 326) is available concerning how violent intent is expressed linguistically. Using the subsystem of judgment in Appraisal analysis, this study compares realized with non-realized ‘pledges to harm’, revealing occasionally counterintuitive patterns of stancetaking by both author types – for example, that the non-realized texts are both prosodically more violent and more threatening, while the realized pledges are more ethically nuanced – which may begin to shed light on which attitudinal markers reliably correlate with an author’s intention to do future harm.
BellA (2014) The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
2.
BorumRFeinRVossekuilBet al. (1999) Threat assessment: Defining an approach to assessing risk for targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law17(3): 323.
CalhounFSWestonSW (2015) Perspectives on threat management. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management2(3–4): 258–267.
5.
FosterGD (2003) Ethics: Time to revisit the basics. The Humanist63(2): 30–37.
6.
FreemanLKupfermannK (1988) The Power of Fantasy: Where our Daydreams Come from and How they can Help or Harm us. New York: Continuum.
7.
GalesT (2010) Ideologies of violence: A corpus and discourse analytic approach to stance in threatening communications’. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA.
8.
GalesT (2011) Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies13(1): 27–46.
9.
GeurtsRGranhagPAAskKet al. (2016) Taking threats to the lab: Introducing an experimental paradigm for studying verbal threats. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management3(1): 53–64.
10.
HarmonAG (2008) Back from wonderland: A linguistic approach to duties arising from threats of physical violence. Capital University Law Review37: 27.
11.
LockG (1996) Functional English Grammar: An Introduction for Second Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
MannJJApterABertoloteJet al. (2005) Suicide prevention strategies: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association294(16): 2064–2074.
13.
Manslaughter, 18 U.S.C. § 1112 (1948).
14.
MartinJRWhitePR (2005) The Language of Evaluation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
MeloyJRHoffmannJ (eds) (2013) International Handbook of Threat Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
MuellerETDyerMG (1985) Daydreaming in humans and computers. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 278–280. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1625186
SchacterDLAddisDRBucknerRL (2008) Episodic simulation of future events. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1124(1): 39–60.
21.
SchacterDLBenoitRGDe BrigardFet al. (2015) Episodic future thinking and episodic counterfactual thinking: Intersections between memory and decisions. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory117: 14–21.
22.
SearleJR (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts 1. Language in Society5(1): 1–23.
ShuyR (1993) Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25.
SingerJL (2014) Daydreaming and Fantasy (Psychology Revivals series). Abingdon: Routledge.
26.
Van DijkTA (1977) Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In: JustMACarpenterPA (eds) Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Abingdon: Psychology Press, pp. 3–32.
