Industry Research Report Ling 487

1

Yasmin Morgan 4-7-14

Industry Research Report Ling 487

My point of view

There are certain truths that I have known about myself for a long time, and that have been supported and bolstered in my graduate career. Namely, the personal need for new experiences and challenges, and with that, the processes and learning that go along with the new. These tendencies are proven every time I take the Meyer-Briggs personality assessment, always with the same result—INTP, who, according to the report, “are resourceful in dealing with new and unusual experiences”, and “like acquiring knowledge for its own sake”. The INTP, according to Dr. David Keirsey’s Temperament Theory, is the ‘Rational Architect’, for whom “the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained—and re-designed” (

Linguistics, then, was and is a natural fit for someone who values learning, analyzing, and discovering how systems work; I arrived at this point from a (young) lifetime of discovering new pursuits, from athletics (competitive gymnastics, swimming and diving, and many more), to art, to travel, and to learning a language far from anything I had ever known (Japanese); and even jumping into the Washington DC world of internships without the typical background in policy.

Industry of Choice

The industry I focus on here is one that would allow me to continue my pursuit of new learning experiences: the government. The government is a large and diverse enough ‘place’ to work for (as I have discovered through various meetings, research, and informational interviews) that enables one to craft their way through a government career. There are so many different potential types of jobs that I could tailor my professional trajectory according to the skills and interests I have mentioned. There are a few factors that driving me towards working for the government: as mentioned, the sense of the ‘next challenge’ and where it could take me; practical reasons, like loan forgiveness programs and job security; and ultimately, a sense of duty and service to my country.

Since the government is so large, I will focus on the FBI in particular. Criminal Minds, the X-Files, Twin Peaks, Bones, and Fringe are only some of the examples of the presence, or near mythology[AT1], of the FBI in popular culture. Science fiction or not, the mere presence of so many television shows suggests a certain glamorized or romantic idea of the FBI, where agents catch the bad guy and save the day in spectacular fashion on a regular basis. On the other hand, some parts of pop culture reference the FBI and other government workers as ‘feds’ or ‘suits’, considered no more than cogs in a giant machine, whose work is mired by red tape and endless paperwork. For some, it’s possible there are elements of both, or neither; but as a sociolinguist, I can recognize that these kinds of things often come down to a question of “framing” like many other things do, along with the concepts of positioning, stance-taking, and alignment. When I say frame, I refer to what is going on in an interaction (Goffman 1974, Tannen and Wallat 1987)—how do people signal what is going on in an interaction, and how is the message intended? In this case, how do people frame working at the FBI? To explore these issues, I examine the FBI’s website. Specifically, I use a page called “testimonials” which includes small narratives about what it is like to work for the FBI. Additionally, I will refer to meetings I have attended, informational interviews, and show how frame directly applies to forensic evidence used by the FBI to identify possible suspects of a crime.

My aim here is to show my engagement with government work, in particular the possibility of working for the FBI, through my observations from various sources and to show my own positioning towards language used in government culture. I also aim to show that my skills and training could be applicable in a number of useful contexts.

How is the work framed?

In the ‘jobs’ section of the FBI’s website, a sidebar menu has clickable links with which to navigate the site. One of the main headings is called ‘Life@FBI’, and underneath that heading, a section called ‘Who We Are’ and then, ‘Meet our People’. The ‘Who We Are’ section describes the FBI thusly:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency charged with protecting and defending the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats; upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of the United States; and providing leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners[AT2].

-‘Who We Are’,

Within this description, the FBI frames their agency and subsequently each individual worker as a type of service to the United States, by taking a particular stance. John DuBois (2007) defines stance (and by proxy, alignment) as “a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means (language, gesture, and other symbolic forms), through which social actors simultaneously evaluate objects, position subjects (themselves and others), and align with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of value in the sociocultural field” (p.169). Alignment, it should be noted, is on a continuum, with a positive pole and a negative pole (Jaffe and Walton, 2011). If the FBI is the social actor, it is evaluating the United States (or the American people) as the object, needing “protecting and defending”. This kind of language says that the FBI positions itself [AT3]as the helper, or provider of a service, and the United States is what (or who) needs this service. Furthermore, verbs like “upholding and enforcing” show [AT4]that the FBI takes a moral stance.

All of these factors are reflected in and thus align [AT5]with the sections right below the general ‘Who We Are’ statement, where the priorities and core values of the FBI are listed. Sure enough, the stance that can be deduced from the initial statement is bolstered by these lists, where “protect” is listed four times[AT6], and interestingly enough, so is the word “combat” (used as a verb, as in ‘combat significant violent crime’). The webpage successfully frames [AT7]the FBI as an organization devoted to service, duty, and integrity by taking a stance as protector and upholder of moral judgment.

As previously mentioned, I will examine some “testimonials” from the ‘Meet Our People’ link on the site. These testimonials are evidence that FBI workers position themselves according to the established frame, where the intention of the message is to communicate positive alignment with the “Who We Are” statements on the previous page. These narratives can be considered “small stories” [AT8](Bamberg and Georgakopoulou, 2008). Let’s take a look at a few examples.

The testimonials are sectioned by questions, and each question is answered by a couple of different FBI workers, accompanied by a first name, a job title, and a headshot (if these are even real people [AT9]really working for the FBI; per my ‘Rational Architect’ INTP personality type, it is natural for me to be a skeptic). For the question, Why did you choose to join the FBI? the answers are as follows:

"The two overriding reasons that I chose to work at the FBI were job security, and interesting and diverse career paths. Both factors proved to be true as I have had a stable career at the Bureau where I have been challenged to meet new and exciting challenges."
- Peter, IT Specialist /
"I have always found the world of espionage fascinating. The FBI is widely recognized as the premier law enforcement agency in the world and as the lead counter-intelligence organization of the U.S. government, the FBI is tasked with securing the nation's secrets by enforcing espionage regulations."
- Karl, Special Agent /

What is interesting here is the re-framing (Tannen 2006) of FBI work, from primarily being described as duty and service, to a more personal narrative that fits into my own personal framing. ‘Peter’ says that two of his reasons for working for the FBI are job security, and interesting and diverse career paths. Here, I have direct correlation to my own work goals, from a narrative being put into a frame of personal experience and motivations[AT10]. Furthermore, ‘Karl’ mentions how “fascinating” the world of espionage is, and mentions what kind of positioning [AT11]he thinks the FBI holds. In this is a message of prestige, as the FBI is considered “the premier law enforcement agency”; this puts the FBI in a stance-taking role as an authority[AT12].

For[AT13] another question:

What would you say is the one thing you enjoy most about working at the FBI? Why?
"Service. I have made a contribution to the FBI. In some small way I have accomplished many goals within the FBI; interacting with Agents and the FBI's own Professional Staff all over the United States. It is great to assist people you may never meet and help them do their job."
- Mary, Program Analyst /
"Fulfillment. As an FBI Agent, I witness and experience the direct results of my efforts. This was never the case in my previous career."
- Ken, Special Agent /

With these quotes, we return to the frame of service to the country—directly stated by ‘Mary’ in this case[AT14]. If ‘position’ is “a metaphorical concept through reference to which a person’s ‘moral’ and personal attributes as a speaker are compendiously collected” (van Langenhove and Harre, 1999), then it is clear [AT15]that the position of these workers and by extension the FBI (since these small stories were deliberately chosen for the website) is to serve the country.

In one more set of stories[AT16], two people answer the question, what does the FBI culture mean to you?:

"I had the privilege of working in Oklahoma City for several weeks after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building. Camaraderie takes on a whole new meaning when one has worked side by side to solve a heinous crime where members of the federal workforce lost wives, husbands, siblings, coworkers, and friends. That was a most memorable time in my service with the FBI."
- Janis, Biologist /
"It's reassuring to know that in times of crisis, my colleagues in the FBI will support and comfort me; at the high points in my life thus far, they have been there to celebrate with me. Whatever the case may be, I know that I can rely on them."
- Erica, Special Agent /

‘Janis’ brings up a very serious, real-world example of her experience working for the FBI, positioning herself, and the Bureau, as being instrumental in very important work[AT17]; additionally there is positive alignment from both workers saying they worked “side by side” and that colleagues “in the FBI will support and comfort me”, aligning themselves [AT18]with other workers and giving the FBI a sense of identity [AT19]through stating beliefs, wants, and feelings in the narrative (Schiffrin 1996). Togetherness and reliability, then, are more attributes that make up the moral identity of the FBI and its workers. Through all of these narratives, workers show positive alignment (of course[AT20]) with the FBI, positioning themselves and the agency as a whole through the collection of moral attributes like opportunity, duty, service, togetherness, integrity, honor, and many more through additional quotes mentioned on the page; all framing the FBI as an ideal place to work for individuals who value these attributes.

Putting it in Context

What reinforced the framing of work with the FBI but also “re-keyed” (Tannen 2006) the frame, giving me real context, were informational interviews and attending talks from industry insiders who were able to directly apply their knowledge of linguistics to integral work for the FBI.

I had the privilege to speak with James Fitzgerald, a retired FBI agent who now works as a Forensic Linguist and Violent Crime Consultant at the Academy Group (a forensic behavioral science company), and is also a technical adviser to the television show Criminal Minds. He was instrumental in high-profile cases like the infamous [AT21]Unabomber case. One of the first pieces of advice Mr. Fitzgerald imparted was that the FBI prefers to hire those with experience (at least for agent roles) under their belt; ‘experience’ being a wide variety of possible backgrounds. Already, I was able to contextualize the framing that the FBI forms on their website. If they prefer those with experience, it makes their stance as taking on an authority role much more tangible. Mr. Fitzgerald had years of experience as police officer, which undoubtedly is applicable to law enforcement, but he emphasized to me that all types of backgrounds are accepted and encouraged by the FBI in order to have a full spectrum of types of knowledge with which to use in investigations. For instance, I attended a forensic linguistics talk given by Dr. Susan Adams, also retired from the FBI, who worked for many years as a teacher before joining the FBI. The point, he noted, is to get one’s “foot in the door”, a sentiment I have heard in other places, attending meetings about writing federal resumes and how to get a government career started. In other words, a government career, including working for the FBI, facilitates and speaks to my need for challenge and new experiences by enabling me to tailor my career as I see fit—mental connections I am able to make by viewing these factors in terms of frame. During the interview, we also spoke about the type of work on an everyday basis; Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned that there were often long, busy, and difficult days, but that there are absolutely no regrets in this regard due to the importance of the work done; it is worth the outcome to investigate and find answers to criminal cases. This comes back around to similar sentiments expressed in the small narratives on the FBI’s website, matching frames of FBI work as important and integral to serving the American people. What was not expressed in the website were specific instances of a worker or agent applying background knowledge to an investigation, and especially not anything to do with sociolinguistics (as I did not expect it to). For all purposes, Mr. Fitzgerald was the only “forensic linguist” to ever exist in the FBI, even though there is a clear need as he was able to use these skills with positive results in many cases. In the next section, I will explain more about forensic linguistics and the applications that were shown to me from attending talks and speaking with experts. Clearly there is a need, which in “tailoring” my government career I can use frame to explain how I can fill that need.

Forensic Applications

Forensic linguistics, or the study of language as applied to matters of law, is a growing but relatively unknown field full of untapped potential. James Fitzgerald and Dr. Susan Adams, both formerly with the FBI, have given talks explaining how linguistic study applies to different cases. Mr. Fitzgerald is an expert in analyzing texts, in cases dealing with authorial attribution (who wrote something, based on linguistic style—kind of like a unique fingerprint) and also threat assessment. Matters of threat assessment analysis are directly related to issues of framing. In order to assess a written threat, one must decipher the intention behind such documents. For instance, Mr. Fitzgerald showed an example of a threatening email, with a subject line including the words, “Regarding Your Life”; someone had received this email which mentions that the receiver was in danger, and that the anonymous sender had been hired to kill the receiver. However, the threat assessment was deemed “low”, because there was no mention of any specific names or other specific places or dates; also, in terms of framing—what is the intent behind accepting a contract to kill someone and then warning them by email? The non-specific language and identification of a nonsensical frame helped Mr. Fitzgerald determine this email as a low threat, and sure enough, it was discovered that these email were a scam sent to many people in order to glean personal information from anyone who responded.

Dr. Susan Adams, retired FBI and now at Adams and Associates Training and Consulting, spoke about her ongoing study into 911 homicide calls. As a result of the study, Dr. Adams has determined a list of eleven (at least) indicators that a caller is actually the guilty party in whatever crime they are calling to report. Indicators include lack of concern for the victim, no request for help, and extraneous information (and many more). If frame can roughly be translated as a sense of what is occurring in an interaction, then this directly has to do with assessing the frame: a caller who says, “Please help me! I just walked in the house. My husband is dead” and repeats request for help for themselves, then their intention is not to help the actual victim. Also, the immediate acceptance of death for a loved one, and wasting of time by including what you were doing beforehand are indicators of guilt, as Dr. Adams found. It is interesting to note here, and in many more examples, the application of “frame” to real-world cases can help determine guilt and/or take steps in the direction of justice.