Analyzing Direct Threats in Kurdish Extortion Texts: A Forensic Pragmatic Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v12n2y2026.pp165-177Keywords:
extortion text, (in) direct threat, speech act theory, pragmatic approach, elicity conditionsAbstract
It is noteworthy that limited attention by linguists has been paid to the construction and analysis of direct threats in extortion texts, particularly those that could result in linguistic crimes from a forensic linguistic standpoint in the digital age. Specifically, the common linguistic strategies employed by extortionists to pragmatically threaten and coerce victims into meeting their demands require further exploration. Utilizing relevant pragmatic theories, particularly speech act theory, can greatly enhance the analysis of extortionate texts and illuminate how they intimidate and influence victims. Ultimately, these victims are often compelled to pursue legal action against their aggressors in court.
This study aims to bridge a gap in the existing literature by constructing a common linguistic pattern of Kurdish direct threats, along with identifying the most prevalent types of extortion texts based on the collected data. To achieve these objectives, a specific analytical framework is developed to analyze research data drawn from Sulaimani Court cases related to Article 430 of the Iraqi Penal Code. Despite variations in context and content across extortionate communications, the research concludes by offering a classification of threats in the context of extortion into direct and indirect types. It further reveals that most direct threats related to extortion exhibit a recurring linguistic pattern, typically structured as explicit conditional statements. Especially, those clauses that begin with the cohesive device “if” serve to subordinate the unpleasant hypothesis to the main clause, which conveys the threat. Additionally, the study identifies sextortion as the most prevalent category of Kurdish extortion texts.
References
Abrams, M. J. (2019). Uncovering the genre of threatening texts: A multilayered corpus study. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Al Asfer, N. S. S. (2021). The pragmatics of cyber blackmail in emails. (Master's thesis), University of Karbala, College of Education for Human Sciences
Albanese, J. (2007). Organized crime in our times (5th ed.). Routledge.Anderson Publishing.
Allott, N. (2010). Key terms in pragmatics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Austin, J. L.(1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Balcells, C. G. (2023). An overview of forensic linguistics and its application in real-life cases (Treball de Fi de Grau, Grau d’Estudis Anglesos). Dra. Núria Gavaldà, Universitat de Barcelona.
Boskany, S. A. (2014). The contrastive analysis of agreement in standard English and standard Kurdish. Haji Hashim Printing House-Erbil.
Christensen, T. K. (2019). Indirect threats as an illegal speech act. In K. R. Christensen, J. Wood, & H. Jørgensen (Eds.), The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner (pp. 113–130). Aarhus University. https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.92
Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse. Routledge. London.
FBI (n.d.). Protected Voices: Social Engineering. https://www.fbi.gov/video-repo sitory/protected-voices-social-engineering-083018.mp4/view. Accessed: July,17, 2025.
Fraser, B. (1998). Threatening revisited. Forensic Linguistics, 5(2), 159–173. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250014950
Forbes. (2023, August, 10). What is extortion? Definition, types, and penalties. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/criminal-defense/extortion/
Gingiss, P. (1986). Indirect threats. Word, 37(3), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1986.11435774
Iraq. (1969, July). Penal Code No. 111 of 1969. Refworld. Accessed on May 22, 2025, from https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1969/en/103522
Kroeger, P. (2024). Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Dallas International University. LibreTexts. https://libretexts.org
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
McMenamin, G. R., Choi, D., Mistry, P. J., Morton, S., & Yasuda, W. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. CRC Press.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Blackmail. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 14, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackmail .
Mouton, Francois, Louise Leenen, Mercia M Malan, and HS Venter (2014). Towards an ontological model defining the social engineering domain. In IFIP International Conference on Human Choice and Computers. Springer, pp. 266–279.
Napier, M., & Mardigian, S. (2003). Threatening messages: The essence of analyzing communicated threats. Public Venue Security, September/October, 16-19.
Nimavat, D., Upadhyay, A., & Mashru, D. (2023). Exploring the power of language in criminal investigation: A study of forensic linguistics techniques. Journal of New Zealand Studies NS35. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7557007.
Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language, crime and the law (2nd ed.). Continuum International Publishing Group: London.
O’Toole, M. E. (2004). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
Sancho, D. (2017). Trend micro forward-looking threat research (FTR) team. [White paper]. Retrieved from https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/wp-digital-extortion-a-forward-looking-view.pdf.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech cts. Cambridge University Press.
Shavell, S. (1993). An economic analysis of threats and their illegality: blackmail, extortion, and robbery. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141(5), 1877-1903. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3664&cOntext=penn_law_review
Shuy, R. W. (2005). Creating language crimes: How law enforcement uses (and misuses) language. Oxford University Press on Demand
Simaet Bhatha. (2024, February 28). What is threatening under the Iraqi law? Simaet Bhatha. https://www.simaetbhatha.com/en-us/articles/5350806551319
Sonowal, G. (2023). Social engineering attack: Rethinking responsibilities and solutions. Nova Science Publishers, New York. https://doi.org/10.52305/KSOA7898
Sousa-Silva, R. (2022). Fighting the fake: A forensic linguistic analysis to fake news detection. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 35, 2409–2433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09901-w
StudySmarter. (n.d.). Extortion: Elements, Laws and Online Context. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/law/uk-criminal-law/extortion/
Sulaimani Court. (2019–2025). Data on extortion cases relevant to Article 43O of the Iraqi Penal Code [Unpublished dataset]. Sulaimani. Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
Surface, J. L. (2011). Not all threats are equal. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications, 12. University of Nebraska at Omaha. Retrieved From https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/edadfacpub/12
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (n.d.). extortion racketeering. In UNODC teaching module series: Organized crime. Retrieved from https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/ru/education/tertiary/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/extortion-racketeering.html
Van Putten. C. (2012). The process of extortion: Problems and qualifications. Paper presented at the Gloders Conference on ‘Extortion Racket Services, Vienna, Austria
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rubar Sadq Saeed, Jamal Anwar Taha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
