jfq-76

from discourse analysis and rhetorical
studies that DOD can leverage. To adapt
this mature field to a novel application,
the Services and DOD will need to
operationalize a scholarly body of study.
This is something the U.S. defense establishment
has experience doing, and it is
well positioned to develop relevant partnerships
with academia. This could follow
three lines of effort.
Adapt concepts and methods. Strategic
communication can benefit from empirically
derived concepts for thinking
through roles in communication, issues
of identity and relatedness in communication,
problems in argument, and so
on. The argument stases analysis in the
Taliban messaging case study is a good
example of a conceptual starting place
for thinking through ends and means
in persuasion. There is also a significant
body of technical methods available
to apply. These cover the macro and
micro ends of communication and an
incredibly wide range of analytical entry
points to communication: dimensions of
explicitness and implication in discourse,
ideological aspects of discourse, clauselevel
resources for values and appraisals,
and so on.
Adapt existing off-the-shelf technology.
The corpus analysis of Marine speech is a
good example of a powerful and precise
method for leveraging human analytical
attention in communication and has
great potential for atmospheric monitoring—analyzing
thousands of responses
across traditional and social media to U.S.
communications or gaining insight into
communication norms and practices in
other language communities could be
invaluable. The existence of reliable, robust
technology for doing this in English
means that adapting to target languages
is plausible and could be done cost
effectively.
Employ professionals in languagefocused
disciplines. In the last 10 years
of warfare, the U.S. military learned to
draw on the expertise of professionals
in culture-focused disciplines such as
anthropology. While there is criticism of
specifics of the Human Terrain System,
the program springs from recognition
that population-centric operations
require expertise in cultural knowledge.
Language is just as fundamental to
human behavior as culture is, and tapping
the human capital of professionals in this
area can be a powerful tool for informing
strategic communication.
Make Combatant Commands the
Point of Insertion. As the entities best
situated regionally to communicate in
audience-appropriate ways and because
of their functional needs, combatant
commands are the logical point of
insertion for revisioned strategic communication.
We can envision empirical
data collection and both quantitative and
qualitative analyses to establish baselines
and variances for regional responses and
interpretations of combatant command
messaging. This in turn could provide invaluable
data-driven and timely feedback
and insight for improved communication
that is effective for regional and local
audiences.
A More Effective, Empirically
Grounded Strategic
Communication
We have not abandoned strategic communication
because we have an intuitive
understanding that it matters. But we
have not been satisfied with it either,
casting about for ways to fix strategic
communication (or its application). This
article is a starting point for thinking
through an improved understanding
of strategic communication and better
practice. I have tried to make a case for
language disciplines such as discourse
analysis and rhetoric as mature bodies of
knowledge with powerful explanatory
theory behind them, a wealth of expert
knowledge built up over approximately
a century of rigorous empirical fieldwork
in natural settings, and highly
precise and reliable methods for analysis
and production of communication. By
moving to an evidence-based understanding
of how discourse and communications
actually work, we can engage
with and communicate more effectively
with the rest of the world. JFQ
Notes
1
Dennis M. Murphy, “The Trouble with
Strategic Communication(s),” Army War College
Center for Strategic Leadership Issue Paper
2-08, Carlisle Barracks, PA, 2008; Christopher
Paul, “‘Strategic Communication’ Is Vague:
Say What You Mean,” Joint Force Quarterly 56
(1 st Quarter 2010), 10; Patrik Steiger, “Virtuous
Influence: An Imperative to Solve U.S.
Strategic Communication Quandary,” Army
War College Center for Strategic Leadership,
Carlisle Barracks, PA, March 24, 2011.
2
James G. Stavridis, “Strategic Communication
and National Security,” Joint Force
Quarterly 46 (3 rd Quarter 2007), 4.
3
Steve Tatham, U.S. Governmental Information
Operations and Strategic Communications:
A Discredited Tool or User Failure? Implications
for Future Conflict (Carlisle Barracks,
PA: U.S. Army War College Press, 2013).
4
“Afghanistan in the Month of March
2013,” Ansar Al-Mujahideen, April 19, 2013,
accessed at .
5
“U.S. Forces–Afghanistan Casualty
Report,” March 11, 2013, available at .
6
Stavridis, 4.
7
The software used in this analysis has a
highly granular taxonomy of language that
includes 15 categories at the highest level
down to 119 at the finest level of granularity.
Some examples of top-level categories include
emotion, personal relationships, reasoning, and
future/past talk.
8
Data included 34 public on-the-record
speeches from 13 senior Marine officers in
2010, primarily congressional testimony,
but also press question and answer sessions,
town hall meetings, and ceremonial speeches,
reflecting representative considerations such as
population, size, and generalizability. This also
meant a judgment that 2010 was a representative
year in that civil-military talk that year
covered everything from ordinary, course of
business concerns (for example, enlisted professional
education) to contentious, unusual concerns
(such as ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).
9
Boot-strap Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,
a nonparametric test used to see if and how
the distribution of a feature in the Marinetalk
corpus varies from the comparison FROWN
corpus (a standard national corpus of general
American English, spoken and written).
10
For a detailed analysis, see William M.
Marcellino, “Talk Like a Marine: USMC
Linguistic Acculturation and Civil-Military
Argument,” Discourse Studies 16, no. 3 (June
2014), 385–405.
JFQ 76, 1 st Quarter 2015 Marcellino 57