The article explores the patterning and functioning of attitude semantics in the practice of identity attacks within terrorist communications. Positioned in facework and stance-taking research (e.g. Tracy & Tracy, 1998, 2008, 2017), it introduces the concepts of ‘evaluative textbites’ and ‘attitudinal priming’ to linguistic examinations, advocating a functional approach to unravelling identity attacks, drawing on corpus analysis methods (e.g. word frequency, and concordance-line qualitative analysis) and the Appraisal framework (Martin & White, 2005). Findings reveal that, linked with stance-taking activity, attitudinal priming offers insights into how specific ideational targets are primed for particular attitudinal, evaluative functions. Evaluative textbites provide linguistic evidence of an author’s encoded hostile attitude and the nuanced patterning and functioning of ‘ideation-attitude’ co-occurrences in these attacks. Identity attacks are a rhetorical tool, normative and valuation-based, targeting individuals’ or out-groups’ immoral behaviours and devaluing victims by reference to their personal traits, power-distance relationships, interactional roles, and master identities. This article offers implications for future study of identity attacks in hate crimes, genocidal rhetoric, and defamation texts, and strengthens counter-extremism efforts by illuminating the investigative value of identity work.
