1

Yasmin Morgan 5-7-14Industry Research Report Ling 487

My point of viewThere 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”

(http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/architect.asp).

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

2

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, 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.

3

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.

-‘Who We Are’, https://www.fbijobs.gov/31.asp

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). In other words, stance is something that people do, an act that everyone always

does whenever someone communicates. Every time a stance is enacted, the stance-taking

person is judging something (anything), and in turn, saying something about themselves.

4

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 as the helper, or provider of a service, because United States is what

(or who) needs this service. The FBI’s judgment, or evaluation, of the U.S., is reflexive in a

sense- it says something about the FBI themselves—that they can be of service. Furthermore,

verbs like “upholding and enforcing” exemplify the FBI’s moral stance, since what is uphold and

enforced are laws—what is deemed right or wrong.

All of these factors are reflected in and thus align (agree) with the sections right below

the general ‘Who We Are’ statement, where the priorities and core values of the FBI are listed,

as seen in the graphic below.

5

Sure enough, the stance that can be deduced from the initial statement is bolstered by these

lists, where “protect” is listed four times, and interestingly enough, so is the word “combat”

(used as a verb, as in ‘combat significant violent crime’). ‘Protect’ is used in the same manner,

at the beginning of each statement, as a verb. The webpage successfully frames 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.

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. 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

6

interesting and diverse career paths. He uses the term “job security” then echoes that in the

next sentence, with “a stable career”; he creates a parallel by mentioning “interesting and

diverse career paths” and then in the next sentence, saying “new and exciting challenges”—the

repetition without using the exact same words add detail and thus help create a frame. Here, I

have direct correlation to my own work goals, as Peter uses phrasing that puts his testimony

into a frame of personal experience and motivations. Furthermore, ‘Karl’ mentions how

“fascinating” the world of espionage is, and then mentions what kind of position he thinks the

FBI holds by saying that the FBI is “the premier law enforcement agency”. In this is a message of

prestige. Using the word “premier” puts other law enforcement agencies in a hierarchy, and

puts the FBI at the top of the hierarchy, thus the FBI takes a stance as an authority.

For 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; “Service” is her one-word, simple answer to the question about what she

enjoys most about working at the FBI, followed by a more detailed account of service and what

it means to her—“It is great to assist people you may never meet and help them do their job”.

7

“Assist” and “help” are synonymous with providing a service. 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 the position of these

workers and by extension the FBI (since these accounts were deliberately chosen for the

website) is to serve the country.

In one more set of personal testimonies, 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; she

mentions that she “worked side by side to solve a heinous crime” that had taken the lives of

people close to federal workers. If she and fellow FBI workers solved a crime that was deemed

“heinous” (indeed), then Janis and the FBI are in a position to solve said crime and are therefore

important. Additionally there is positive alignment, or agreement, from both workers saying

they worked “side by side” and that colleagues “in the FBI will support and comfort me”; this

shows that there are positive associations between the workers as individuals with other

8

workers and with the FBI as a wider organization. These workers state beliefs, wants, and

feelings in their narratives; according to Deborah Schiffrin (p. 196, 1996), when we tell stories,

we display beliefs, wants, and feelings which reflects aspects of our identity. Thus, these

accounts from FBI workers give the FBI a certain identity; 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 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 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

9

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

10

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

11

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.

Conclusion

My intent, or my own personal framing, was to investigate whether or not government

work like working for the FBI was a good fit for my knowledge, skills, linguistic training

background, and interests in finding new experiences for me to analyze and glean new

knowledge from. Using the frame as a concept to interpret my fit within this industry, I can

easily see how I could find my niche within government that appeals to my yearning for

analytical pursuits while also, in a sense, working for the greater good.

12

References

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139-182.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

“Life at FBI: Meet our People- Written Testimonials”. https://www.fbijobs.gov/322.asp

Rational Portrait of the Architect (n.d.). Adapted from Keirsey, David, Please Understand Me II. Retrieved from http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/architect.asp

Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in society, 25(02), 167-203.

Tannen, D. (2006). Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(4-5), 597-617.

Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1987). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Social Psychology Quarterly, 205-216.

Van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory.

Walton, S., & Jaffe, A. (2011). “Stuff White People Like”: Stance, Class, Race, and Internet Commentary. Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media, 199.