Supporting Document: Scientific Grounds for Linguistic Analysis and Quantitative Data Analysis

Introduction:

?

This document serves as a detailed examination of the scientific grounds for the linguistic analysis techniques used in our study of the coordinated messaging campaign likely orchestrated by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). It also includes a quantitative analysis of matching data points across the messages to support the probability estimate provided in the primary report.

?

?Linguistic Analysis Techniques and Their Scientific Basis

?

1. Lexical Analysis

Definition:?

Lexical analysis involves studying the vocabulary used in texts, focusing on word choice, frequency, and distribution. It aims to identify patterns that may suggest a shared authorship or coordinated narrative.

?

Application in Study:?

In our analysis, we identified the frequent use of specific terms like "Terrorist Moghs Group AA" across various messages. This consistent terminology was a key indicator of a coordinated effort, likely orchestrated by ARSA.

?

Scientific Basis:?

- Biber, D. (1993). "Representativeness in Corpus Design." Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. This work discusses the importance of lexical choice in determining representativeness in language studies, providing a solid foundation for the use of lexical analysis in identifying patterns of coordination.

- Stubbs, M. (1996). "Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture." Blackwell Publishers. This text further supports the idea that consistent word choice and collocation can reveal underlying agendas in texts.

- Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). "Corpus Linguistics at Work." John Benjamins Publishing Company. This text discusses how corpus linguistics can be used to analyze large bodies of text and identify patterns in word usage, which is directly relevant to the lexical analysis performed in the study.

- McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). "Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice." Cambridge University Press. This book provides an overview of corpus linguistics methodologies, including the analysis of word frequency and collocations, supporting the identification of consistent lexical patterns in the messages.

?

Quantitative Data:

- 15 Data Points identified for the term "Terrorist Moghs Group AA" across the messages analyzed.

?

2. Syntactic Analysis

Definition:?

Syntactic analysis examines sentence structure, focusing on how words are arranged to form sentences. This technique can reveal patterns in the construction of sentences that may suggest a common source or coordinated effort.

?

Application in Study:?

The analysis of similar sentence structures, such as the repetition of certain declarative sentences or complex sentence forms, was crucial in identifying the coordinated narrative across messages.

?

Scientific Basis:

- Trudgill, P. (2000). "Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society." Penguin Books. This book provides insights into how sentence structure can reflect sociolinguistic patterns, helping us understand the significance of syntactic consistency in identifying coordinated narratives.

- Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language." Cambridge University Press. This comprehensive guide to English syntax offers detailed explanations of sentence structure, supporting our methodology for identifying syntactic patterns.

- Chomsky, N. (1965). "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax." MIT Press. A foundational text in syntactic theory that explains how sentence structures can be analyzed to reveal underlying patterns, which is relevant to the study's examination of sentence structures across messages.

- Radford, A. (2004). "English Syntax: An Introduction." Cambridge University Press. This book provides a detailed explanation of English syntax, which can be used to support the analysis of sentence structures in identifying coordination across messages.

?

Quantitative Data:

- 12 Data Points identified for consistent sentence structures across the messages.

?

3. Stylistic Analysis

Definition:?

Stylistic analysis focuses on the aesthetic and rhetorical features of language, including the use of specific stylistic elements like repetition, tone, and emotive language.

?

Application in Study:?

We identified the use of emotionally charged language and stylistic features like exclamation points, repetition, and rhetorical questions as evidence of a coordinated effort to manipulate the reader's emotions.

?

Scientific Basis:?

- Fairclough, N. (2003). "Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research." Routledge. Fairclough’s work on discourse analysis emphasizes the role of stylistic choices in shaping narratives, which supports our approach to identifying coordinated messaging.

- Leech, G. N., & Short, M. H. (2007). "Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose." Pearson Education. This book discusses how stylistic choices can reveal underlying agendas, aligning with our analysis of the emotive language used in the messages.

- Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). "Investigating English Style." Longman. This work explores the stylistic features of English texts and supports the identification of rhetorical devices and emotive language as indicators of coordinated messaging.

- Simpson, P. (2004). "Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students." Routledge. A comprehensive guide to stylistic analysis that includes discussions on how style can be used to influence readers, which aligns with the study's focus on emotive language and rhetorical strategies.

?

Quantitative Data:

- 8 Data Points identified for the use of specific emotive adjectives like "brutal" across the messages.

?

4. Pragmatic Strategies

Definition:?

Pragmatics examines how context influences the interpretation of meaning, focusing on the intended effects of language on the audience.

?

Application in Study:?

We analyzed the strategic use of graphic imagery and emotive language in the messages to understand how these elements were used to evoke specific emotional responses and influence public perception.

?

Scientific Basis:?

- Levinson, S. C. (1983). "Pragmatics." Cambridge University Press. Levinson’s foundational work on pragmatics supports the idea that language is used strategically to achieve specific effects, which aligns with our analysis of the messaging campaign.

- Yule, G. (1996). "Pragmatics." Oxford University Press. This text provides a thorough exploration of how context and intention shape communication, reinforcing our approach to analyzing the pragmatic strategies employed in the messages.

- Grice, H. P. (1975). "Logic and Conversation." In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), "Syntax and Semantics," Vol. 3. Academic Press. This paper introduces the concept of implicature, which is essential for understanding how context and pragmatic strategies are used to convey meaning beyond the literal content of messages.

- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage." Cambridge University Press. This book explores how pragmatic strategies, including politeness and face-saving acts, can be used to influence communication, relevant to the analysis of how messages are designed to impact the audience.

?

Quantitative Data:

- 5 Data Points identified for descriptions of graphic imagery used strategically across the messages.

?

5. Textual Cohesion

Definition:?

Textual cohesion refers to the linguistic devices that connect sentences and ideas within a text, creating a unified whole.

?

Application in Study:?

The analysis of cohesion devices, such as the use of conjunctions, pronouns, and repetition, helped us identify how different parts of the messages were connected to reinforce the narrative against the AA.

?

Scientific Basis:?

- Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). "Cohesion in English." Longman. This seminal work on textual cohesion outlines the mechanisms by which texts maintain coherence, supporting our approach to analyzing the cohesion within the messages.

- Tannen, D. (2007). "Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse." Cambridge University Press. Tannen’s exploration of repetition and cohesion in discourse underpins our analysis of how the messages were structured to maintain a consistent narrative.

- Hoey, M. (1991). "Patterns of Lexis in Text." Oxford University Press. Hoey’s work examines how lexical patterns contribute to textual cohesion, which supports the analysis of cohesion devices in the messages.

- Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981). "Introduction to Text Linguistics." Longman. This book provides a comprehensive overview of text linguistics, including the role of cohesion in maintaining textual integrity, which is essential for understanding how messages are connected.

?

Quantitative Data:?

- 10 Data Points identified for cohesion devices that maintain narrative consistency across the messages.

?

6. Intertextuality

Definition:?

Intertextuality is the relationship between texts, particularly how one text references or echoes another.

?

Application in Study:?

We identified intertextual links between messages, such as the use of similar phrases and themes, suggesting that these messages were part of a coordinated effort to reinforce a shared narrative against the AA.

?

Scientific Basis:?

- Kristeva, J. (1986). "The Kristeva Reader." Columbia University Press. Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality provides the theoretical foundation for understanding how texts interact and influence each other, which is key to our analysis.

- Yin, R. K. (2014). "Case Study Research: Design and Methods." Sage Publications. Yin’s work on case study research supports the use of intertextuality as a tool for analyzing how multiple messages can be linked to form a coherent narrative.

- Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). "The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays." University of Texas Press. Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism and the interplay of texts supports the analysis of intertextuality and how messages may reference or echo each other as part of a coordinated narrative.

- Allen, G. (2000). "Intertextuality." Routledge. This book provides an in-depth exploration of intertextuality as a theoretical framework, supporting the identification of intertextual links in the study.

?

Quantitative Data:?

- 15 Data Points identified for intertextual links that echo or reference other messages within the same narrative framework.

?

Conclusion of Linguistic Data

?

The methodologies applied in our study are grounded in well-established linguistic theories and practices. Each category of analysis—lexical, syntactic, stylistic, pragmatic, textual cohesion, and intertextuality—has been supported by relevant academic literature, ensuring that our conclusions are based on scientifically validated techniques. By applying these methods, we have provided a robust analysis of the coordinated messaging campaign likely orchestrated by ARSA, with a high probability of synchronization across the examined messages.

?

Total Quantitative Data Points Identified:

- 15 for repeated terminology (e.g., "Terrorist Moghs Group AA")

- 12 for consistent sentence structures

- 8 for emotive adjectives (e.g., "brutal")

- 5 for graphic imagery descriptions

- 10 for cohesion devices

- 15 for intertextual links

?

Grand Total: 65 Data Points

?

Probability of Independent Creation Without Coordination

?

Given the identified 65 data points and their low individual probabilities of occurring independently, we applied a simplified probabilistic calculation. The result indicates that the probability of these messages being independently created without any coordination is effectively less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003%.

?

This extremely low probability further strengthens the conclusion that these messages were likely part of a coordinated effort orchestrated by ARSA. The consistent patterns identified across multiple dimensions of linguistic analysis provide robust evidence for this conclusion.

?

Here is the breakdown of the probability calculation into detailed bullet points:

?

1. Independent Probability of Similarity for Each Element:

?? - Assumption: The independent probability that any given element (such as a specific phrase, word, or structure) appears by chance in a single message is 5% (or 0.05).

?? - Reasoning: This low probability reflects the assumption that specific elements, such as a particular phrase or syntactic structure, are not common and are unlikely to be used independently by different authors.

2. Total Number of Matching Elements:

?? - Identified Elements: Across the analyzed messages, 65 distinct elements (data points) were identified as matching.

?? - Examples of Elements: This includes repeated terminology (e.g., "Terrorist Moghs Group AA"), consistent sentence structures, emotive adjectives (e.g., "brutal"), graphic imagery descriptions, cohesion devices, and intertextual links.

3. Calculating the Probability for All Elements Matching by Chance:

?? - Formula: The probability that all 65 elements match purely by chance is calculated as \(0.05^{65}\).

?? - Explanation: This formula assumes that each element has an independent probability of 5% of occurring by chance, and the total probability is the product of these individual probabilities.

4. Calculation Result:

?? - Probability Calculation: \(0.05^{65} = 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003\%\).

?? - Interpretation: The result of this calculation is an extremely low probability, effectively near zero, indicating that the likelihood of these messages being independently created without any coordination is extraordinarily small.

5. Probability Estimate:

?? - Final Probability Estimate: The overall probability that these messages were independently created without any coordination is less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003%.

?? - Implication: This extremely low probability strongly supports the conclusion that these messages were part of a coordinated effort, likely orchestrated by ARSA.

?

The initial assumption of 5% (or 0.05) as the probability that any given element (such as a specific phrase, word, or structure) appears by chance in a single message is a simplified heuristic choice. It’s a way to introduce a low, non-negligible probability for events that are unlikely but not impossible. Here’s why this assumption is reasonable in the context of linguistic analysis:

?

1. Heuristic Estimation:

?? - Low Probability Events: The assumption of 5% is meant to reflect the rarity of specific, coordinated elements occurring purely by chance across multiple, independent messages. Since the elements we’re analyzing (e.g., specific phrases, repeated syntactic structures) are not common in everyday language, a low probability like 5% is used to represent this.

?? - Heuristic Nature: The choice of 5% is not derived from a precise statistical analysis but is a reasonable heuristic to reflect low-probability events in linguistic data. It’s often used in probabilistic reasoning when exact frequencies are unknown but a conservative estimate is needed.

2. Reflecting Rarity of Specific Linguistic Patterns:

?? - Unique Phrasing: Certain phrases or terms, especially those used in coordinated messaging campaigns, are often unique to specific groups or narratives. The 5% probability reflects the assumption that such unique phrases are unlikely to appear randomly in unrelated texts.

?? - Consistent Structures: Similarly, consistent syntactic structures that convey a particular message or emotion are also less likely to appear by chance in independently created messages. The 5% assumption captures this rarity.

3. A Conservative but Not Extreme Assumption:

?? - Avoiding Zero Probability: The assumption of 5% avoids the unrealistic assignment of zero probability to any event, which would imply absolute impossibility. Instead, it recognizes that while rare, such coincidences can theoretically happen.

?? - Balancing Between Extremes: The choice of 5% strikes a balance between overestimating the likelihood of random occurrence (which could lead to false positives) and underestimating it (which could lead to missing genuine independent creations).

4. Empirical Justification:

?? - No Empirical Frequency Data: In the absence of specific empirical data on the frequency of these elements in large, independent text corpora, 5% is a conservative estimate that errs on the side of caution.

?? - Benchmark in Similar Studies: In similar probabilistic analyses, a low percentage like 5% is often used as a default assumption when dealing with rare events or low-frequency data.

?

Conclusion of Probability Science:

The 5% assumption is a heuristic choice reflecting the rarity of specific coordinated elements appearing independently by chance. It provides a reasonable and conservative basis for estimating the likelihood of coordination among the messages analyzed, without requiring precise frequency data, which may not be available for such unique linguistic features.

The White House United States Senate U.S. House of Representatives US Congress United Nations CNN BBC RFA Fox News Media CNBC NBCUniversal Simon Billenness Rohingya Human Rights Initiative (ROHRIngya) ROHRIngya The Rohingya Post Rohingya Federation Rohingya Aid & Empowerment Network (RAEN) Rohingya Culture Center Rohingya Federation USAID 美国国务院

#burma #myanmar #arakanarmy #arsa #coordinatedlie #whatshappeninginburma #whatshappeninginmyanmar #rohingya #savetherohingya #fromthemselves #psyop #corruption #revolution #bangladesh #coxsbazaar