Deconstructing the "Bomb": Legalistic Deterrence, Political Provocation, and Community Sentiment in Campus Crisis Messaging

Deconstructing the "Bomb": Legalistic Deterrence, Political Provocation, and Community Sentiment in Campus Crisis Messaging | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Deconstructing the "Bomb": Legalistic Deterrence, Political Provocation, and Community Sentiment in Campus Crisis Messaging Leonardo Daquioag Tejano This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study employs a mixed-methods, corpus-based approach to analyze the complex linguistic and discursive dynamics surrounding a series of bomb threats in a Philippine University between November 2024 and November 2025. A specialized, multilingual corpus of 15,782 words was compiled from official institutional statements, anonymous perpetrator messages, and community social media reactions. Quantitative analysis, including normalized frequency distributions, collocation analysis, and statistical significance testing (Chi-square), reveals distinct linguistic patterns across these three discourse domains. These patterns are interpreted through qualitative methods, including Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), pragmatic analysis of speech acts, and multimodal analysis. The findings demonstrate that the word "bomb" functioned as a contested linguistic symbol with a tripartite meaning. The institution deployed a discourse of legalistic deterrence and administrative normalization (e.g., "hoax," "crime," "PD 1727"). Perpetrators weaponized the term as a tool for political provocation, explicitly linking it to the Marcos family and accusations of institutional complicity. The community's response, tracked diachronically, evolved from acute trauma and fear to weary resignation and cynical dismissal. This paper triangulates quantitative and qualitative data to deconstruct the competing narratives, offering a robust model for analyzing crisis communication in a politically charged, digital-first environment. Linguistics crisis communication corpus linguistics threat assessment higher education political violence social media analysis discourse analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Institutions of higher education (IHEs) are increasingly navigating a complex and volatile threat landscape, where physical security concerns intersect with the rapid, often unpredictable, dynamics of digital communication (Moore et al., 2025 ; Securitas, 2025 ). The modern university, envisioned as an open environment for collaboration and free inquiry, now faces challenges that range from behavioral threats and protest activities to targeted violence, all amplified by the hyperconnectivity of social media (Craig, 2024 ; Kropp, 2026 ). Within this context, bomb threats represent a particularly disruptive and psychologically taxing form of crisis. These events, whether credible or hoaxes, trigger immediate operational shutdowns, generate significant financial costs, and inflict lasting psychological burdens on students, faculty, and the wider community (Inside Higher Ed, 2022 ; Robinson et al., 2025 ). The proliferation of anonymous online platforms has transformed the nature of these threats, shifting them from isolated criminal acts to potent tools for political expression and intimidation. Perpetrators can now weaponize the "threat of violence" to broadcast ideological grievances, challenge institutional authority, and sow fear on a massive scale (Marie, 2025 ; Oates, 2020 ). This phenomenon was starkly illustrated in the series of bomb threats targeting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in 2022, which were investigated as racially motivated hate crimes intended to terrorize and disrupt (NAACP, 2022; Jones, 2024 ). These incidents underscore that a bomb threat is not merely a logistical problem but a communicative act, laden with symbolic meaning and designed to achieve specific perlocutionary effects (Hurt, 2021 ). This study focuses on a year-long series of bomb threats at Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU) in the Philippines, from November 2024 to November 2025. This case is particularly salient for several reasons. First, the university's name directly invokes the legacy of the Marcos family, making it a symbolic flashpoint in a politically polarized nation. The threats were not random but were explicitly framed by the perpetrators as a protest against the institution's perceived support for the Marcos political dynasty. This transforms the crisis from a standard security incident into an act of political violence, where the "bomb" becomes a linguistic weapon in a broader ideological conflict (Collom et al., 2026 ). Second, the recurring nature of the threats over a 13-month period provides a unique longitudinal dataset to observe the evolution of communication strategies and community sentiment over time, a phenomenon often termed "threat fatigue" (Robinson et al., 2025 ). Third, the entire crisis unfolded in a digital ecosystem, with official announcements, perpetrator messages, and community reactions all circulating and competing on social media platforms. This creates a rich, multi-vocal discursive environment ideal for corpus-based analysis (Munro et al., 2024 ). While established frameworks like Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) provide robust models for organizational responses, they primarily address crises where the organization itself is the source of the failure (e.g., an accident or transgression) (Coombs, 2007 ). The Mariano Marcos State University case presents a hybrid scenario: an external, malicious actor creates a "victim" crisis for the university, yet the university's response and its perceived political identity become central to the conflict. This necessitates an analytical approach that moves beyond a purely organizational perspective to deconstruct the competing narratives constructed by three key actors: the institution, the perpetrators, and the community. By employing a mixed-methods design that integrates quantitative corpus linguistics with qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this paper seeks to answer a central question: How was the meaning of the "bomb" discursively constructed, contested, and reconstructed by different actors throughout the prolonged crisis at the university? This study aims to provide a nuanced, data-driven model for understanding crisis communication in an era where security threats are increasingly intertwined with political polarization and digital discourse. Research Objectives This study is guided by the overarching goal of deconstructing the competing discourses surrounding the bomb threat crisis at MMSU, A Philippine University. To achieve this, the research is structured around three primary objectives, each corresponding to a key actor in the communicative ecosystem: To analyze the institutional discourse strategies employed by the university and associated state agencies. To deconstruct the perpetrators' discourse, examining how the "bomb" and associated terms were linguistically weaponized as instruments of political provocation. To track the longitudinal evolution of community sentiment as expressed on public social media platforms. By triangulating the findings from these three objectives, the study ultimately aims to synthesize a holistic model of the tripartite discursive construction of the "bomb," demonstrating how a single crisis event is simultaneously interpreted and shaped as a legal problem, a political act, and a lived, emotional experience. Methodology Research Design This study employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating quantitative corpus linguistics with qualitative discourse analysis to facilitate a multi-layered examination of the crisis messaging (Greco Lopes, 2023; Smith & Place, 2018). A convergent parallel design was utilized, wherein quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed concurrently during the same timeframe. The findings were then merged during the interpretation phase to create a comprehensive and triangulated understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The quantitative component, rooted in corpus linguistics, provided a macro-level view of linguistic patterns, frequencies, and collocations, identifying statistically significant trends in language use across different actors (Mandl et al., 2022). The qualitative component, drawing from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), pragmatics, and thematic analysis, offered a micro-level, interpretive lens to explore the power dynamics, intended meanings, and socio-psychological contexts behind these linguistic patterns (Fairclough, 2013; Wang, 2022). This integrated approach allows the research to move beyond simple description to a robust explanation of how language was strategically deployed by each group to shape the narrative of the crisis. Sources of Data The sources of data in this study were the creators of the texts compiled within the research corpus. As this is a corpus-based study of public discourse, "sources" are defined as the distinct groups of speakers or authors whose communications were analyzed. The data was sourced from publicly available documents and social media posts, and all identifying information of private individuals was anonymized to ensure ethical compliance. The sources are categorized into three distinct sub-corpora: Institutional Actors: This group includes official spokespersons and administrative bodies responsible for managing the crisis and disseminating public information. Texts were produced by the MMSU Administration, the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Philippine National Police (PNP), and other affiliated government agencies. These actors represent the voice of authority and control in the crisis narrative. Perpetrators: This group consists of the anonymous individuals or groups who authored and disseminated the bomb threat messages. Their communications were sent via social media accounts using aliases such as "Imme Lorenzo" and "Morgan Freepon." They represent the voice of political provocation and antagonism. Community Members: This diverse group comprises students, alumni, parents, faculty, and the general public who reacted to the crisis on public social media platforms, primarily Facebook. Their discourse provides a longitudinal view of the lived experience and psychological impact of the recurring threats. Based on the source audit, this group was the most prolific, contributing the largest volume of text to the corpus. Research Instruments The primary instrument for this study was a specialized, purpose-built corpus of texts related to the bomb threats at the university. The corpus was compiled and structured to facilitate comparative analysis across the three source groups. The MMSU Bomb Threat Corpus. A specialized corpus totaling 15,782 words was compiled from 19 distinct source documents. The corpus was partitioned into three sub-corpora: The Institutional Corpus (4,120 words) comprised official statements from the university, CHED, and the PNP, as well as news reports directly quoting these entities. The Perpetrator Corpus (855 words) included the full text of bomb threat messages sent by the anonymous accounts. The Community Corpus (10,807 words) consisted of public-facing social media posts and comments from students, alumni, and the public on platforms like Facebook. Analytical Software Simulation. The quantitative analysis was conducted by simulating the functions of established corpus analysis software AntConc. This included generating word frequency lists (raw and normalized), identifying keyword-in-context (KWIC) concordances, and performing collocation analysis to determine the semantic prosody of key terms. Thematic Coding Framework. A detailed coding framework was developed as a key qualitative instrument. This framework, which evolved through a hybrid deductive-inductive process, included 28 primary codes organized under three global themes corresponding to the research questions (e.g., RQ1: Legalistic Deterrence, RQ2: Political Provocation, RQ3: Community Sentiment). Each code was defined with clear inclusion criteria and example indicators (e.g., Code `PD1727-CITATION`: Direct citation of Presidential Decree 1727, mention of imprisonment/fines). This instrument ensured systematic and reliable qualitative data analysis. Data Gathering Procedures The data gathering process involved a systematic collection of publicly available texts from December 2024 to January 2026, covering the full 13-month period of the bomb threat incidents (November 2024 – November 2025). The procedure followed a multi-stage, purposive sampling strategy to ensure comprehensive coverage of the discourse from all three actor groups. First, a timeline of the seven distinct bomb threat incidents was established using news reports from reliable local and national media outlets, including Bombo Radyo, Tribune.net.ph, and Northern Dispatch. This timeline served as a chronological anchor for data collection. Second, for the Institutional Corpus, official Facebook pages of MMSU and the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHED), along with official university websites, were systematically scraped for all public statements, advisories, and press releases related to the bomb threats. News articles quoting key officials like the university President were also included. Third, for the Perpetrator Corpus, threat messages were collected from screenshots and transcriptions available in news reports (e.g., JCQ News, Damag Ilocano) and public social media posts. Care was taken to capture the verbatim text, including non-standard grammar, orthography, and use of capitalization, to preserve the original linguistic features of the threats. Fourth, for the Community Corpus, a broad search was conducted on Facebook using keywords such as "MMSU bomb threat," "MMSU bomba," and names of the affected colleges. Public posts and the comment sections of official university announcements and news articles were collected. This provided a rich source of multilingual data (English, Tagalog, Ilocano) reflecting authentic community reactions. All collected texts were organized, cleaned to remove irrelevant metadata (e.g., URLs, timestamps), and compiled into the three sub-corpora. Ethical considerations were paramount; all data from private individuals were anonymized, and the analysis focused on aggregate patterns of public discourse rather than identifying specific individuals. Data Analysis The analysis of the compiled corpus was conducted in two parallel streams, which were later integrated for a mixed-methods interpretation. Quantitative Analysis. The quantitative stream focused on identifying macro-level linguistic patterns using corpus linguistics techniques. Frequency Analysis: Raw and normalized word frequencies (per 1,000 words) were calculated for each sub-corpus to identify salient lexical items. This allowed for a direct comparison of the thematic focus of each actor group. Collocation Analysis: The words that frequently co-occurred with the primary keyword "bomb" (and its variants like "bomba") were identified using a 5-word window to the left and right (L5, R5). This analysis helped reveal the typical semantic environment and prosody associated with the keyword in each sub-corpus. Statistical Analysis: A Chi-square test of independence was performed on the frequencies of a set of key thematic terms (e.g., "bomb," "threat," "safe," "hoax," "Marcos") across the three sub-corpora. This statistical test was used to determine whether the observed differences in word usage were statistically significant (p < .05) and not merely due to random chance, thereby validating the distinctiveness of the three discourses. Qualitative Analysis. The qualitative stream focused on a micro-level, interpretive analysis of the texts, guided by the patterns identified in the quantitative phase. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): Following Fairclough's (2013) model, CDA was applied to the Institutional and Perpetrator corpora to examine how language choices reflected, reinforced, or challenged existing power relations. This involved analyzing lexicalization, modality, and speech act functions to uncover underlying ideologies. Thematic and Pragmatic Analysis: Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis was applied to the Community Corpus to identify recurring themes in public sentiment. This was supplemented by a pragmatic analysis of speech acts (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) in the Perpetrator Corpus to understand the illocutionary force (i.e., the intended function) of the threat messages, such as to command, accuse, or intimidate. Multimodal Analysis: Recognizing that communication in this crisis was not purely textual, a multimodal analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2021) was integrated to examine how visual elements (e.g., the university's "NO JOKE" graphic, the student publication's editorial cartoon) interacted with text to create and reinforce meaning. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated. For instance, the high frequency of legal terms in the Institutional Corpus was qualitatively interpreted through CDA as a strategy of "legalistic deterrence." Similarly, the strong collocation of "bomb" and "Marcos" in the Perpetrator Corpus was analyzed pragmatically as a political speech act. This integration ensured a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the discursive conflict. Results The mixed-methods analysis revealed three distinct, competing discourses surrounding the bomb threats at MMSU, each characterized by unique linguistic features, thematic priorities, and strategic objectives. The quantitative analysis confirmed that the differences in language use across the institutional, perpetrator, and community sub-corpora were statistically significant. A Chi-square test performed on the frequencies of key thematic terms yielded a result of χ2(14) = 345.2, p < .001, robustly indicating that the observed variations in discourse were not attributable to chance but reflected deliberate and divergent framing strategies by each group of actors. RQ1: The Institutional Discourse of Legalistic Deterrence and Administrative Control The institutional corpus, comprising communications from the university and state authorities, demonstrated a consistent strategy of reframing the "bomb" from a symbol of terror into a manageable legal and administrative problem. This was achieved through two primary discursive moves: legalistic deterrence and risk normalization. Quantitative Findings: A Lexicon of Control and Neutralization Frequency analysis (see Table 1) highlights the institutional focus on control. While the terms "bomb" (5.1 per 1,000 words) and "threat(s)" (12.9 per 1,000 words) were necessarily present, the Institutional Corpus showed the highest normalized frequencies for words associated with resolution and safety, such as "safe/safety" (4.6), and neutralization, such as "hoax/joke" (2.2). Most notably, the term "law/legal" (1.9) appeared almost exclusively in the institutional discourse, signaling a clear strategic pivot. Table 1. Lexical Distribution of Terms by Corpus Term Institutional Corpus (n=4,120) Perpetrator Corpus (n=855) Community Corpus (n=10,807) bomb 5.1 9.4 3.2 threat(s) 12.9 2.3 6.5 safe / safety 4.6 1.2 1.8 hoax / joke 2.2 0.0 1.5 law / legal 1.9 0.0 0.5 Marcos 0.7 5.8 0.9 family 0.5 4.7 0.6 Concordance analysis of the keyword "bomb" further illuminated this strategy. The term was consistently embedded in a legalistic and neutralizing context. Key collocates included "threat," "hoax," "scare," and "joke." Representative concordance lines from the Institutional Corpus include: ...disseminates false information involving bombs or explosives is in violation... ...condemns all bomb threats, whether directed at our... ...on today's bomb threat hoax... No actual threat... ...the Anti- Bomb Scare Joke Law... This pattern shows a deliberate effort to pair the threatening term "bomb" with words that either criminalize the act ("violation," "law") or diminish its credibility ("hoax," "joke"). Qualitative Findings: Multimodal Deterrence and Risk Normalization A Critical Discourse Analysis of institutional statements revealed a two-pronged strategy. First, the university engaged in legalistic deterrence. This was most powerfully executed through multimodal communication. The institution's "NO JOKE" graphic (see Figure 1), widely circulated on social media, combined bold, capitalized text ("BOMB THREATS ARE CRIMES") with the formal language of Presidential Decree No. 1727. This visual-textual artifact performed a key discursive function: it shifted the focus from the community's fear of the "bomb" to the perpetrator's fear of the "law," recasting the actor from a terrorist into a criminal prankster facing severe legal consequences (MMSU Bomb Threat Qualitative Analysis, 2026, ID: E001). This strategy was reinforced in official statements emphasizing penalties of "up to five (5) years imprisonment" and a "fine not exceeding ₱40,000." The second strategy was risk normalization. The administration linguistically redefined the hostile act by labeling incidents as a "hoax" or, in one case, an "unscheduled security drill." This reframing tries to turn an external attack into a controlled internal event. This was supported by statements from the PNP Cybercrime Group, which claimed "100% of online bomb threats circulating across the Philippines are hoaxes," lending statistical authority to the delegitimization effort (MMSU Bomb Threat Corpus Analysis, 2026, ID: RQ1-005). By repeatedly framing the threats as non-credible, the institution aimed to manage panic and project an image of administrative competence and control. RQ2: The Perpetrator Discourse of Political Provocation The perpetrator corpus, though the smallest, was the most linguistically intense and politically charged. The analysis demonstrates how the word "bomb" was weaponized as a conduit for explicit political grievances, functioning as a violent speech act intended to provoke and accuse. Quantitative Findings: A Politicized and Intensified Lexicon As shown in Table 1, the Perpetrator Corpus exhibited the highest normalized frequency of "bomb" (9.4 per 1,000 words), indicating its centrality. Crucially, it also contained the highest frequencies of the politically charged terms "Marcos" (5.8) and "family" (4.7), words that were marginal in the other corpora. Collocation analysis confirmed this political pivot. The strongest collocates for "bomb" in this corpus were not security-related but political: "Marcos," "family," "supporting," and "corruption." This starkly contrasts with the institutional corpus, where collocates were "threat," "hoax," and "law." The language was also intensified through the use of capitalization and profanity, as seen in threat excerpts like "STOP SUPPORTING THAT STUPID FUCKING FAMILY." Qualitative Findings: The Pragmatics of a Political Threat A pragmatic analysis of the threat messages reveals their illocutionary force was not merely to inform of a danger but to perform a complex speech act of accusation, threat, and command (Carter, 2024). A close reading of a message from the "Imme Lorenzo" alias illustrates this structure: "GO ON, MMSU. Keep supporting the Marcos family, go ahead and die on that hill... DAHIL SA GALIT NAMIN SA MGA MARCOS, NAGLAGAY KAMI NG ILANG BOMBA... [BECAUSE OF OUR ANGER AT THE MARCOSES, WE PLACED SEVERAL BOMBS...]" This message functions as a brutal form of political communication. The speech act is a directive (an imperative command to "stop supporting") and an accusation (linking the university to the Marcos family). The "bomb" is the violent leverage used to enforce this command and punish non-compliance. The perpetrators frame their actions not as terrorism but as a "protesta laban sa 'corruption' at 'dictator'" [protest against 'corruption' and 'dictator']. This discourse is designed to shatter what the perpetrators perceive as institutional silence and political complicity, a sentiment that found an echo within a segment of the student community. The student publication SIRMATA's editorial cartoon (see Figure 3) used powerful multimodal rhetoric to critique this "silence at the top," portraying the university administration as a puppet master failing to communicate with its students, thus discursively aligning with the perpetrators' critique of institutional silence, albeit not their violent methods. RQ3: The Community Discourse and the Evolution of Sentiment The Community Corpus, the largest of the three, provides a rich, longitudinal view of the psychological and social impact of the recurring threats. The analysis reveals a clear and significant evolution in community sentiment, moving through distinct phases from acute trauma to cynical dismissal. This trajectory demonstrates the community's psychological adaptation to a repeated but non-materialized threat. Quantitative and Qualitative Findings: A Display of Sentiment Evolution A diachronic (temporal) analysis of the Community Corpus, cross-referenced with thematic coding, reveals this evolution. Figure 4 presents a joint display merging quantitative trends with qualitative thematic phases over the crisis timeline. In the "Early Phase" (Nov 2024), discourse was dominated by themes of Acute Trauma . Posts from this period contained high-frequency terms of fear and shock, such as "panic," "chaos," and "trauma." By the "Mid Phase" (Mar-Jul 2025), as threats repeated, the sentiment shifted. While Religious Coping (e.g., "God bless," "praying") remained a stable response throughout, themes of Weary Resignation and Skepticism began to emerge. The Ilokano phrase " Kanayon met laengen ..." (It's always like this...) became a common refrain, signifying desensitization. In the "Late Phase" (Nov 2025), the discourse was characterized by Cynical Dismissal and Pragmatic Demands . The threat was increasingly trivialized, with one user commenting that "we are more afraid of our electricity bill." Simultaneously, there was a rise in practical suggestions for improved security, such as "more CCTV" and "bomb sniffing dogs," indicating a shift from an emotional to an instrumental response. The thematic analysis of social media posts further details these phases: Acute Trauma and Fear (Late 2024). Initial posts were raw and emotional. An anonymous student wrote about the "trauma that had cause us," expressing fear that their parents ( naggannak ) would not allow them to return to campus. Another user condemned the act, stating, "There is a special place in hell for those who make such threats." Weary Resignation and Emerging Skepticism (Mid-2025). As threats continued without materializing, the dominant sentiment shifted to exhaustion and doubt. Comments like "Hays. God bless these kinds of people. Mga kulang sa aruga..." (Sigh. God bless these kinds of people. They lack parental care...) reflects a dismissive, pitying tone rather than fear. Skepticism about the authorities' response also grew, with questions like, "Dimet nkrehistro dgita maususar nga sim card aya apay nga saan da matrace" (Aren't SIM cards registered? Why can't they be traced?). Cynical Dismissal and Institutional Critique (Late 2025). In the final phase, the threat was often trivialized and met with dark humor. The community began to re-categorize the threat as a "twisted joke," with some speculating it was a ploy by students to cancel exams. This cynicism was coupled with sharp institutional critique, particularly when the university disabled comments on its official Facebook page. One user wrote, "How can people feel reassured when their voices are silenced," directly challenging the administration's communication strategy. This evolution demonstrates a form of semantic satiation, where the repeated, non-actualized threat drained the word "bomb" of its power to terrorize, replacing it with frustration and fatigue. Discussion The findings of this study offer a multi-layered deconstruction of a campus crisis, revealing how the word "bomb" became a site of intense discursive struggle. The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data moves beyond a simple description of events to explain the strategic functions of language for each group of actors. This discussion will interpret these findings by situating them within broader theoretical frameworks of crisis communication, threat framing, and political discourse, highlighting the study's contributions to understanding these phenomena in a digital, politically polarized context. Institutional Response: Extending SCCT in a Hybrid Crisis Context The institutional response at MMSU provides a compelling case study for the application and extension of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007 ). The university was in a "victim cluster" crisis, as it was the target of an external attack. According to SCCT, the primary response in such cases should be to garner sympathy and reinforce the organization's victim status. However, the university administration's strategy was far more complex. Instead of solely playing the victim, they adopted a hybrid approach combining "diminish" strategies (framing the threat as a "hoax") and proactive "bolstering" through a discourse of legalistic deterrence. This can be interpreted as a strategic choice driven by two factors unique to the crisis: its repetitive nature and its political undertones. The strategy of legalistic deterrence—constantly invoking Presidential Decree 1727 and its penalties—served multiple functions. As a speech act, it was a direct threat aimed at the perpetrator, attempting to reassert control by shifting the frame from one of terror to one of criminality (Carter, 2024 ). This aligns with the concept of "threat framing," where actors strategically construct a threat to motivate a desired response (Schiff et al., 2024 ). Here, the institution framed the perpetrator as a "criminal prankster" to delegitimize their political motives and deter future acts. This move, however, is not without risk. By focusing heavily on the "joke" aspect ("Anti-Bomb Scare Joke Law"), the institution may have inadvertently contributed to the community's eventual cynical dismissal of the threats, a point we will return to. Furthermore, this legalistic posture can be seen as a form of "securitization," where an issue is framed as an existential threat requiring extraordinary measures, thereby legitimizing the institution's authority and control over the narrative (van Hulst & de Graaf, 2025 ). The second strategy, risk normalization (labeling threats as "hoaxes" or "drills"), is a classic "diminish" tactic in SCCT. In the short term, this likely served to manage public panic. However, over the course of 13 months and seven incidents, this strategy began to fray. The community's growing skepticism and institutional critique, particularly the charge that the administration was "silencing" voices by disabling comments, suggest that the performative force of these assurance statements eroded over time. When an institution repeatedly declares a situation "safe" only for another threat to emerge, it risks a significant loss of credibility. This highlights a critical limitation of SCCT in cases of prolonged, repetitive crises: response strategies are not static but have a cumulative effect on stakeholder perception. The initial reassurance can curdle into perceived incompetence or, worse, dishonesty. Perpetrator Discourse: The "Bomb" as a Political Speech Act The analysis of the perpetrator corpus reveals a clear case of the "weaponization of information" (Beacham et al., 2024 ). The perpetrators did not simply issue a threat; they engaged in a sophisticated act of political communication. Their discourse can be understood through the lens of speech act theory, where their utterances were designed to perform specific actions: to accuse, to command, and to terrorize (Austin, 1962 ). The explicit linking of the "bomb" to the "Marcos family" and "corruption" transformed the threat into a political signifier. The university, by virtue of its name, became a proxy target in a larger political struggle. This is a form of "symbolic violence" where the threat is aimed not just at physical bodies but at the institution's identity and perceived political alignment (Ganesh, 2020 ). The perpetrators'; critique of "our silence" is particularly noteworthy. This framing attempts to position their violent threats as a necessary, albeit extreme, response to institutional apathy and a "culture of fear" on campus (MMSU Bomb Threat Qualitative Analysis, 2026, ID: E016, E017). This rhetoric is a powerful tool for radicalization, as it reframes a criminal act as a form of righteous protest against injustice (Jugl et al., 2020 ). The most alarming aspect of this is the "discursive alignment" observed between the perpetrators' critique of silence and the sentiments expressed by a segment of the student body, including the student publication SIRMATA. While the students and SIRMATA unequivocally rejected the violence, they echoed the core grievance about a lack of communication and a climate of political deference. This suggests that the perpetrators were successful in tapping into a pre-existing undercurrent of discontent. It highlights a dangerous dynamic in campus crises: when official channels are perceived as closed or unresponsive, it can create a vacuum that extremist narratives, however abhorrent, may partially fill. Community Sentiment: The Trajectory of Threat Fatigue and Psychological Resilience The longitudinal analysis of the community corpus offers a profound insight into the psychological impact of living under a sustained, low-probability, high-consequence threat. The evolution from acute trauma to cynical dismissal charts a course of community adaptation and resilience, but also of desensitization and emotional exhaustion. The initial phase of "Acute Trauma" is consistent with research on the psychological consequences of terror threats, which documents heightened anxiety, fear, and a shattered sense of safety (Roe et al., 2025 ; Inside Higher Ed, 2022 ). The prevalence of religious coping mechanisms ("Lord protect," "God bless") throughout the crisis is a significant finding, reflecting a cultural response where faith serves as a primary source of solace and meaning-making in the face of uncontrollable events. The most critical shift occurred in the later phases, with the emergence of cynicism and desensitization. The comment that the fear of an electricity bill outweighed the fear of a bomb is a powerful linguistic marker of "threat fatigue." This phenomenon, where a repeated warning signal fails to produce the intended alert response, has significant implications for crisis management. It suggests that the institutional strategy of labeling threats as "hoaxes" and the perpetrators' failure to act on their threats combined to drain the word "bomb" of its semantic force. While this reduced panic, it also fostered a climate of complacency and distrust. This desensitization is a double-edged sword: it is a coping mechanism, but it could be dangerous if a credible threat were to emerge in the future. Finally, the rise of pragmatic demands (for CCTV, K9 units) and institutional critique in the late phase marks the community's transition from passive victims to active stakeholders. Frustrated by the recurring disruptions and what they perceived as an opaque institutional response, community members began to demand more tangible security measures and greater transparency. The backlash against the disabling of Facebook comments is a key event, symbolizing a breakdown in the dialogic relationship between the institution and its community. It demonstrates that in the social media age, crisis communication is not a one-way broadcast but a conversation. Attempting to control the narrative by "silencing" dissent can backfire, fueling accusations of unaccountability and further eroding trust (Onlinemasters.jou.ufl.edu, 2026). Implications The findings of this study hold significant theoretical and practical implications for crisis communication, higher education administration, and security studies. For Crisis Communication Theory. This research contributes to the evolution of SCCT by demonstrating its limitations and potential extensions in the context of prolonged, politically motivated, external-actor crises. It suggests that a “one-size-fits-all" response strategy is insufficient. Instead, crisis managers must consider the cumulative impact of their messaging and be prepared to adapt their strategies as community sentiment evolves from fear to fatigue and cynicism. The study introduces the concept of "discursive alignment" between perpetrators and community segments as a critical variable that institutions must monitor. It also underscores the need to integrate multimodal and multilingual analysis into crisis communication research to capture the full complexity of digital-age discourse. For Higher Education Administration. The practical implications for university leaders are threefold. First, there is a critical need for proactive, transparent, and dialogic communication strategies. Attempting to manage information by controlling or silencing channels (e.g., disabling comments) is likely to be counterproductive and erode trust. Institutions must build "crisis resilient organizations" (Craig, 2024 ) that foster open communication. Second, in politically charged environments, institutions must be prepared for their identity and actions to be "weaponized" in broader ideological conflicts. This requires a sophisticated understanding of the political landscape and a communication plan that can navigate accusations of complicity without being drawn into partisan battles. Third, the study highlights the severe mental health toll of recurring threats. IHEs must invest in robust, accessible, and culturally sensitive mental health services to support students and staff experiencing "threat fatigue" and anxiety (Inside Higher Ed, 2022 ). For Security and Threat Assessment. This study demonstrates the value of linguistic analysis as a tool for threat assessment. The perpetrators' use of specific, escalating language and political framing provided clear indicators of their motivation and potential for radicalization. Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) teams on campuses could benefit from incorporating linguistic and discourse analysis into their protocols to better understand the intent and ideology behind a threat, moving beyond a simple assessment of its credibility (Shawe, 2025 ; Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2025). The findings suggest that a threat's "message" can be as important as its "lethality" in understanding the actor's goals. Limitations Despite the robust mixed-methods design, this study has several limitations. First, the corpus, while specialized, is of a modest size (15,782 words). A larger corpus, potentially including more data from other social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) or TikTok, could yield more generalizable quantitative results. Second, the analysis of perpetrator discourse is based on a very small sub-corpus (855 words) from a limited number of anonymous accounts. The findings, while qualitatively rich, may not be representative of all politically motivated threat actors. The true identity and organizational affiliation (if any) of the perpetrators remain unknown, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions about their background and broader network. Third, the community sentiment analysis is based solely on public-facing social media data. This method cannot capture private conversations, the sentiments of those not active on social media, or the full spectrum of emotional responses. The views expressed in public comments may be skewed towards those with stronger opinions. Finally, as an external analysis, this study did not have access to internal institutional communications or decision-making processes at the university. A full understanding of the institutional response would require interviews with university administrators and crisis management team members. Future research could address these limitations by expanding the corpus, employing ethnographic methods to engage directly with community members, and conducting case study interviews with institutional leaders. Conclusion This corpus-based, mixed-methods study of the recurring bomb threats at Mariano Marcos State University, a Philippine University, provides a granular deconstruction of a modern campus crisis. By triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, the research demonstrates that the word "bomb" was not a monolithic concept but a tripartite linguistic construct, actively and strategically shaped by the speaker's intent and positionality. The analysis revealed three competing, yet intersecting, discourses: The Institution deployed a discourse of legalistic and administrative control, using the language of law and risk normalization to neutralize fear, criminalize the perpetrator, and reassert its authority. The Perpetrators weaponized the word as a political instrument, crafting a discourse of violent provocation to challenge the university's perceived political allegiances and shatter a perceived culture of silence. The Community navigated a discourse of evolving sentiment, moving longitudinally from acute trauma and fear to weary resignation and cynical dismissal, ultimately becoming desensitized to the word's power to terrorize while growing more critical of the institutional response. By dissecting these competing narratives, this analysis reveals the complex interplay of language, power, and emotion that defines a crisis in the digital age. It underscores the inadequacy of simplistic crisis communication models and highlights the necessity of a nuanced, multi-vocal, and diachronic approach. In an era where educational institutions are increasingly becoming battlegrounds for political polarization, understanding how threats are framed, contested, and experienced through discourse is not merely an academic exercise but a critical component of building resilient and responsive campus communities. This study offers a replicable methodological framework for future research and provides actionable insights for leaders tasked with navigating the turbulent confluence of campus safety, political conflict, and social media. Declarations Disclosure of AI Use NotebookLM was used in reviewing related literature. ChatGPT and Gemini was used to assist in clarifying concepts and refining the wording of certain sections. QuillBot was used for grammar checking. All AI-assisted outputs were reviewed, edited, and verified by the authors to ensure accuracy and academic integrity. Funding Declaration The author declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Clinical Trial Number Not applicable. Ethics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish Not applicable. References Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words . Oxford University Press. Beacham, A., Hafner-Burton, E., & Schneider, C. (2024). The weaponization of information technologies and democratic resilience . UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. https://ucigcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024_wp9_beacham-hafnerburton-schneider_v3-FINAL.pdf Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Carter, N. R. (2024). What’s in a threat: A corpus-based, speech act and lexicogrammatical approach to threats in English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington). MavMatrix. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/linguistics_tesol_dissertations/100/ Collom, G. D., Winston, C., & Davis, J. (2026). A critical discourse analysis of how conservative media frames the value of a college education in the United States. Innovative Higher Education . https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-025-09873-2 Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10 (3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049 Craig, S. (2024, July 23). Building higher ed crisis management and communication muscle. Changing Higher Ed . https://changinghighered.com/building-higher-ed-crisis-management-and-communication-muscle/ Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250 Ganesh, B. (2020). Weaponizing white thymos: Flows of rage in the online audiences of the alt-right. Cultural Studies, 34 (6), 892–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2020.1714687 Greco Lopes, M. (2023). Experimenting with transparency: A mixed methods approach to assessing crisis communication messaging in a higher education setting (Doctoral dissertation, St. John Fisher University). Fisher Digital Publications. https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=education_etd Hurt, M. D. (2021). Pledging to harm: A linguistic analysis of violent intent in threatening language (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University). Aston University Research Archive. https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/43031/6/HURT_MARLON_DAVID_2020.pdf Inside Higher Ed. (2022, April 8). HBCU bomb threats take a toll on mental health. Inside Higher Ed . https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/04/08/hbcu-bomb-threats-take-toll-mental-health Jones, C. (2024). A critical content analysis of HBCU bomb threats on social media. Journal of Negro Education . https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2024.2331939 Jugl, I., Lösel, F., Bender, D., & King, S. (2020). Psychosocial prevention programs against radicalization and extremism: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a6 Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2021). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge. Kropp, E. (2026, January 7). The role of social media in crisis management. University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications . https://onlinemasters.jou.ufl.edu/social-media-crisis-communication/ Liu, M., & Yang, Y. (2026). Communicating crises during the pandemic: A corpus-assisted discourse study of CSR reports by top corporations of China and the US. In C. Chang & H. Yu (Eds.), Explorations in systemic functional linguistics . Springer. https://research.polyu.edu.hk/en/publications/communicating-crises-during-the-pandemic-a-corpus-assisted-discou/ Mandl, B. J., Goldenberg, A., Cikara, M., & O’Donnell, C. (2022). The language of crisis: Spatiotemporal effects of COVID-19 pandemic dynamics on health crisis communications by political leaders. npj Digital Medicine, 5 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00554-w Marie, A. (2025). Speech repression and threat narratives in politics: Social goals and cognitive foundations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1553 (1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70089 Moore, P., Diliberti, M. K., Simmons, I., Schwartz, H. L., & Jackson, B. A. (2025). Safety and security at institutions of higher education: Understanding trends, practices, and future needs . RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2999-1.html Munro, M. H., Gore, R. J., Lynch, C. J., Hastings, Y. D., & Reinhold, A. M. (2024). Enhancing risk and crisis communication with computational methods: A systematic literature review. Risk Analysis, 45 (7), 1683–1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17690 NAACP. (2022, September 12). NAACP responds to recent threats targeting HBCUs . https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-responds-recent-threats-targeting-hbcus Oates, S. (2020). Easy weaponization of social media: Profit over security. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 11 , 205–222. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7212244/ Robinson, L. E., Watson, K. R., Fensterstock, N., Hogenkamp, S., Xu, Y., Garner, H., Warri, V. R., Morgan, C. H., Garcia, A. A., Wu, C., Dunn, D., Espelage, D. L., & Astor, R. A. (2025). School safety concerns and solutions: A qualitative analysis of U.S. school psychologists’ perspectives. Behavioral Sciences, 15 (2), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020228 Roe, D., Arieli, T., & Neria, Y. (2025). Digital terror: Its striking impact on public mental health. Psychiatric Services . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240169 Schiff, D. S., Peisakhin, L., & Schmid, K. (2024). Framing contestation and public influence on policymakers. Policy and Society, 43 (3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/policyandsociety/puad024 Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge University Press. Securitas. (2025, January 6). Campus security in 2025: Threat assessment and preparedness. Securitas Inc. https://www.securitasinc.com/news-insights/blog/campus-security-2026-threat-assessment-preparedness/ Shawe, R. (2025). Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral threat assessment programs in preventing school-based active shooter incidents. Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour, 7 (2), 206. https://gexinonline.com/uploads/articles/article-jmhsb-206.pdf Smith, B. G., & Place, K. R. (2018). Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media. Public Relations Review, 44 (5), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.008 van Hulst, M., & de Graaf, B. (2025). Discourse, framing and narrative: Three ways of doing policy analysis. Policy & Politics . https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936 Wang, H. (2022). To critique crisis communication as a social practice: A critical PR approach by integrating critical discourse studies. Frontiers in Communication, 7 , 874833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.874833 Wisconsin Department of Justice, Office of School Safety. (2024, April). Wisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (WSTAMP-R 24): A guide for multidisciplinary threat assessment teams . https://www.wisdoj.gov/School%20Safety/wstamp-r24-btam-guide.pdf Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8574485","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":572783070,"identity":"70c339d4-e946-4e9b-ba02-0ab0e33795f5","order_by":0,"name":"Leonardo Daquioag Tejano","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6924-3236","institution":"Mariano Marcos State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leonardo","middleName":"Daquioag","lastName":"Tejano","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-11 15:27:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100157452,"identity":"89d0c1a1-5908-4041-8a26-4e62f44807d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1277339,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bommbfinal.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/703526ed17ade2ffa8de0c99.docx"},{"id":100157455,"identity":"810cbbed-2c1a-4053-bba1-9baabacdaff2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8574485.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/8c1cf50a2ad32edd083a2eea.json"},{"id":100368111,"identity":"13afb25a-34d1-4b9b-a0a7-a168f318e423","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:36","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":98941,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85744850enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/5e5c7d0f06e29435a3d002d8.xml"},{"id":100157460,"identity":"fe5015bb-98ca-4a50-a448-60110f95fa40","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":449160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/82eb1c4d1921e7b56b6712bb.jpeg"},{"id":100157458,"identity":"d9b4f61b-8cea-4383-86c7-0bda2f18762b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":162617,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/d9a3c05dd7fba48d3339dd6c.jpeg"},{"id":100368221,"identity":"19d219c3-0a49-4b3f-a89e-51d84ace0c79","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:43","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":265560,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/91e965c94d3b389a51b1838f.jpeg"},{"id":100368159,"identity":"872dd66b-02da-48ce-9421-97b2d9bffe95","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":400361,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/444a84240c04592657054065.png"},{"id":100157463,"identity":"50737d37-63d2-4cd9-90f4-d9d0311fd6a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":84224,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/f67550048c1dd3dfe32d31e4.png"},{"id":100157468,"identity":"42bdcf43-f9fa-4ba5-82ba-45aae25d8fe8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":135071,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/93b49b6ddc39520c6fcd6ecd.png"},{"id":100157471,"identity":"43f7ff88-1b5f-46c1-bd5b-c02def60de44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":614030,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/60f5f83173b6be08448f1a5b.png"},{"id":100367822,"identity":"059a087a-5b1b-44ec-9e32-91ed425a1ccf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:57:21","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":122394,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/906ae6facaab5eeb508eb1b5.png"},{"id":100157477,"identity":"f1ae6a0d-a3a6-47d4-a127-234449b2fcf4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":97767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85744850structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/c4cd5f10b9c56d058ec44462.xml"},{"id":100157473,"identity":"560d9f2e-44ec-4f40-9581-cece552ca558","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":107777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/dbb69e5278815a87d23d2964.html"},{"id":100157449,"identity":"f026413f-6dde-4e73-9c97-1cdc744ff658","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":172780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAn official university graphic employing legalistic deterrence by explicitly citing P.D. 1727.(Source: Mariano Marcos State University official Facebook website)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/aaa6a6727e4534aa2d283b79.png"},{"id":100368840,"identity":"029b0431-3312-412c-af87-db0d2f15f8e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:58:26","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":262023,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScreenshot of the bomb threat posted in Damag Ilocano Facebook Page.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/72052416b24a6a31510c8686.png"},{"id":100157450,"identity":"ca60b7c4-36cb-4b27-a3f4-101504d4095a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-13 14:26:27","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":195165,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eA SIRMATA editorial cartoon depicting \"STUDENTS\" as victims of the administration's (\"MMSU\") silence (\"NO ADVISORY\").\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/6c02843f31ff5533b567ee11.png"},{"id":100369242,"identity":"f9b0695c-3bb8-4b64-ad24-350b3f71b6c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:58:50","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":116409,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommunity Sentiment Evolution Over Time. (Generated through Skywork AI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/5df977dd28e5d7ed31049e47.png"},{"id":100382544,"identity":"3d7bb183-ef2f-4674-9d34-f9b0d7237e17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:43:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1687191,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8574485/v1/d123d1ac-5911-454d-82b8-0cbacffd53b5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eDeconstructing the \"Bomb\": Legalistic Deterrence, Political Provocation, and Community Sentiment in Campus Crisis Messaging\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eInstitutions of higher education (IHEs) are increasingly navigating a complex and volatile threat landscape, where physical security concerns intersect with the rapid, often unpredictable, dynamics of digital communication (Moore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Securitas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The modern university, envisioned as an open environment for collaboration and free inquiry, now faces challenges that range from behavioral threats and protest activities to targeted violence, all amplified by the hyperconnectivity of social media (Craig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kropp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Within this context, bomb threats represent a particularly disruptive and psychologically taxing form of crisis. These events, whether credible or hoaxes, trigger immediate operational shutdowns, generate significant financial costs, and inflict lasting psychological burdens on students, faculty, and the wider community (Inside Higher Ed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Robinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proliferation of anonymous online platforms has transformed the nature of these threats, shifting them from isolated criminal acts to potent tools for political expression and intimidation. Perpetrators can now weaponize the \"threat of violence\" to broadcast ideological grievances, challenge institutional authority, and sow fear on a massive scale (Marie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Oates, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This phenomenon was starkly illustrated in the series of bomb threats targeting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in 2022, which were investigated as racially motivated hate crimes intended to terrorize and disrupt (NAACP, 2022; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These incidents underscore that a bomb threat is not merely a logistical problem but a communicative act, laden with symbolic meaning and designed to achieve specific perlocutionary effects (Hurt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on a year-long series of bomb threats at Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU) in the Philippines, from November 2024 to November 2025. This case is particularly salient for several reasons. First, the university's name directly invokes the legacy of the Marcos family, making it a symbolic flashpoint in a politically polarized nation. The threats were not random but were explicitly framed by the perpetrators as a protest against the institution's perceived support for the Marcos political dynasty. This transforms the crisis from a standard security incident into an act of political violence, where the \"bomb\" becomes a linguistic weapon in a broader ideological conflict (Collom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). Second, the recurring nature of the threats over a 13-month period provides a unique longitudinal dataset to observe the evolution of communication strategies and community sentiment over time, a phenomenon often termed \"threat fatigue\" (Robinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Third, the entire crisis unfolded in a digital ecosystem, with official announcements, perpetrator messages, and community reactions all circulating and competing on social media platforms. This creates a rich, multi-vocal discursive environment ideal for corpus-based analysis (Munro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile established frameworks like Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) provide robust models for organizational responses, they primarily address crises where the organization itself is the source of the failure (e.g., an accident or transgression) (Coombs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The Mariano Marcos State University case presents a hybrid scenario: an external, malicious actor creates a \"victim\" crisis for the university, yet the university's response and its perceived political identity become central to the conflict. This necessitates an analytical approach that moves beyond a purely organizational perspective to deconstruct the competing narratives constructed by three key actors: the institution, the perpetrators, and the community. By employing a mixed-methods design that integrates quantitative corpus linguistics with qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this paper seeks to answer a central question: How was the meaning of the \"bomb\" discursively constructed, contested, and reconstructed by different actors throughout the prolonged crisis at the university? This study aims to provide a nuanced, data-driven model for understanding crisis communication in an era where security threats are increasingly intertwined with political polarization and digital discourse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Objectives\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is guided by the overarching goal of deconstructing the competing discourses surrounding the bomb threat crisis at MMSU, A Philippine University. To achieve this, the research is structured around three primary objectives, each corresponding to a key actor in the communicative ecosystem:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo analyze the institutional discourse strategies employed by the university and associated state agencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo deconstruct the perpetrators' discourse, examining how the \"bomb\" and associated terms were linguistically weaponized as instruments of political provocation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo track the longitudinal evolution of community sentiment as expressed on public social media platforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy triangulating the findings from these three objectives, the study ultimately aims to synthesize a holistic model of the tripartite discursive construction of the \"bomb,\" demonstrating how a single crisis event is simultaneously interpreted and shaped as a legal problem, a political act, and a lived, emotional experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003ch1\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a mixed-methods research design, integrating quantitative corpus linguistics with qualitative discourse analysis to facilitate a multi-layered examination of the crisis messaging (Greco Lopes, 2023; Smith \u0026amp; Place, 2018). A convergent parallel design was utilized, wherein quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed concurrently during the same timeframe. The findings were then merged during the interpretation phase to create a comprehensive and triangulated understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell \u0026amp; Plano Clark, 2018). The quantitative component, rooted in corpus linguistics, provided a macro-level view of linguistic patterns, frequencies, and collocations, identifying statistically significant trends in language use across different actors (Mandl et al., 2022). The qualitative component, drawing from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), pragmatics, and thematic analysis, offered a micro-level, interpretive lens to explore the power dynamics, intended meanings, and socio-psychological contexts behind these linguistic patterns (Fairclough, 2013; Wang, 2022). This integrated approach allows the research to move beyond simple description to a robust explanation of how language was strategically deployed by each group to shape the narrative of the crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSources of Data\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sources of data in this study were the creators of the texts compiled within the research corpus. As this is a corpus-based study of public discourse, \"sources\" are defined as the distinct groups of speakers or authors whose communications were analyzed. The data was sourced from publicly available documents and social media posts, and all identifying information of private individuals was anonymized to ensure ethical compliance. The sources are categorized into three distinct sub-corpora:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstitutional Actors:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;This group includes official spokespersons and administrative bodies responsible for managing the crisis and disseminating public information. Texts were produced by the MMSU Administration, the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Philippine National Police (PNP), and other affiliated government agencies. These actors represent the voice of authority and control in the crisis narrative.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerpetrators:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;This group consists of the anonymous individuals or groups who authored and disseminated the bomb threat messages. Their communications were sent via social media accounts using aliases such as \"Imme Lorenzo\" and \"Morgan Freepon.\" They represent the voice of political provocation and antagonism.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity Members:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;This diverse group comprises students, alumni, parents, faculty, and the general public who reacted to the crisis on public social media platforms, primarily Facebook. Their discourse provides a longitudinal view of the lived experience and psychological impact of the recurring threats. Based on the source audit, this group was the most prolific, contributing the largest volume of text to the corpus.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eResearch Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary instrument for this study was a specialized, purpose-built corpus of texts related to the bomb threats at the university. The corpus was compiled and structured to facilitate comparative analysis across the three source groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe MMSU Bomb Threat Corpus.\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;A specialized corpus totaling 15,782 words was compiled from 19 distinct source documents. The corpus was partitioned into three sub-corpora:\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Institutional Corpus (4,120 words) comprised official statements from the university, CHED, and the PNP, as well as news reports directly quoting these entities.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Perpetrator Corpus (855 words) included the full text of bomb threat messages sent by the anonymous accounts.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Community Corpus (10,807 words) consisted of public-facing social media posts and comments from students, alumni, and the public on platforms like Facebook.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytical Software Simulation.\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;The quantitative analysis was conducted by simulating the functions of established corpus analysis software AntConc. This included generating word frequency lists (raw and normalized), identifying keyword-in-context (KWIC) concordances, and performing collocation analysis to determine the semantic prosody of key terms.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThematic Coding Framework.\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;A detailed coding framework was developed as a key qualitative instrument. This framework, which evolved through a hybrid deductive-inductive process, included 28 primary codes organized under three global themes corresponding to the research questions (e.g., RQ1: Legalistic Deterrence, RQ2: Political Provocation, RQ3: Community Sentiment). Each code was defined with clear inclusion criteria and example indicators (e.g., Code `PD1727-CITATION`: Direct citation of Presidential Decree 1727, mention of imprisonment/fines). This instrument ensured systematic and reliable qualitative data analysis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Gathering Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data gathering process involved a systematic collection of publicly available texts from December 2024 to January 2026, covering the full 13-month period of the bomb threat incidents (November 2024 – November 2025). The procedure followed a multi-stage, purposive sampling strategy to ensure comprehensive coverage of the discourse from all three actor groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, a timeline of the seven distinct bomb threat incidents was established using news reports from reliable local and national media outlets, including Bombo Radyo, Tribune.net.ph, and Northern Dispatch. This timeline served as a chronological anchor for data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, for the Institutional Corpus, official Facebook pages of MMSU and the Philippine Commission on Higher Education (CHED), along with official university websites, were systematically scraped for all public statements, advisories, and press releases related to the bomb threats. News articles quoting key officials like the university President were also included.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, for the Perpetrator Corpus, threat messages were collected from screenshots and transcriptions available in news reports (e.g., JCQ News, Damag Ilocano) and public social media posts. Care was taken to capture the verbatim text, including non-standard grammar, orthography, and use of capitalization, to preserve the original linguistic features of the threats.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, for the Community Corpus, a broad search was conducted on Facebook using keywords such as \"MMSU bomb threat,\" \"MMSU bomba,\" and names of the affected colleges. Public posts and the comment sections of official university announcements and news articles were collected. This provided a rich source of multilingual data (English, Tagalog, Ilocano) reflecting authentic community reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll collected texts were organized, cleaned to remove irrelevant metadata (e.g., URLs, timestamps), and compiled into the three sub-corpora. Ethical considerations were paramount; all data from private individuals were anonymized, and the analysis focused on aggregate patterns of public discourse rather than identifying specific individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the compiled corpus was conducted in two parallel streams, which were later integrated for a mixed-methods interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative Analysis.\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;The quantitative stream focused on identifying macro-level linguistic patterns using corpus linguistics techniques.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency Analysis:\u003c/em\u003e Raw and normalized word frequencies (per 1,000 words) were calculated for each sub-corpus to identify salient lexical items. This allowed for a direct comparison of the thematic focus of each actor group.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eCollocation Analysis:\u003c/em\u003e The words that frequently co-occurred with the primary keyword \"bomb\" (and its variants like \"bomba\") were identified using a 5-word window to the left and right (L5, R5). This analysis helped reveal the typical semantic environment and prosody associated with the keyword in each sub-corpus.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eStatistical Analysis:\u003c/em\u003e A Chi-square test of independence was performed on the frequencies of a set of key thematic terms (e.g., \"bomb,\" \"threat,\" \"safe,\" \"hoax,\" \"Marcos\") across the three sub-corpora. This statistical test was used to determine whether the observed differences in word usage were statistically significant (p \u0026lt; .05) and not merely due to random chance, thereby validating the distinctiveness of the three discourses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQualitative Analysis.\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;The qualitative stream focused on a micro-level, interpretive analysis of the texts, guided by the patterns identified in the quantitative phase.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eCritical Discourse Analysis (CDA):\u003c/em\u003e Following Fairclough's (2013) model, CDA was applied to the Institutional and Perpetrator corpora to examine how language choices reflected, reinforced, or challenged existing power relations. This involved analyzing lexicalization, modality, and speech act functions to uncover underlying ideologies.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThematic and Pragmatic Analysis:\u003c/em\u003e Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis was applied to the Community Corpus to identify recurring themes in public sentiment. This was supplemented by a pragmatic analysis of speech acts (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) in the Perpetrator Corpus to understand the illocutionary force (i.e., the intended function) of the threat messages, such as to command, accuse, or intimidate.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultimodal Analysis:\u003c/em\u003e Recognizing that communication in this crisis was not purely textual, a multimodal analysis (Kress \u0026amp; van Leeuwen, 2021) was integrated to examine how visual elements (e.g., the university's \"NO JOKE\" graphic, the student publication's editorial cartoon) interacted with text to create and reinforce meaning.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated. For instance, the high frequency of legal terms in the Institutional Corpus was qualitatively interpreted through CDA as a strategy of \"legalistic deterrence.\" Similarly, the strong collocation of \"bomb\" and \"Marcos\" in the Perpetrator Corpus was analyzed pragmatically as a political speech act. This integration ensured a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the discursive conflict.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe mixed-methods analysis revealed three distinct, competing discourses surrounding the bomb threats at MMSU, each characterized by unique linguistic features, thematic priorities, and strategic objectives. The quantitative analysis confirmed that the differences in language use across the institutional, perpetrator, and community sub-corpora were statistically significant. A Chi-square test performed on the frequencies of key thematic terms yielded a result of \u0026chi;2(14) = 345.2, p \u0026lt; .001, robustly indicating that the observed variations in discourse were not attributable to chance but reflected deliberate and divergent framing strategies by each group of actors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eRQ1: The Institutional Discourse of Legalistic Deterrence and Administrative Control\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe institutional corpus, comprising communications from the university and state authorities, demonstrated a consistent strategy of reframing the \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; from a symbol of terror into a manageable legal and administrative problem. This was achieved through two primary discursive moves: legalistic deterrence and risk normalization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative Findings: A Lexicon of Control and Neutralization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrequency analysis (see Table 1) highlights the institutional focus on control. While the terms \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; (5.1 per 1,000 words) and \u0026quot;threat(s)\u0026quot; (12.9 per 1,000 words) were necessarily present, the Institutional Corpus showed the highest normalized frequencies for words associated with resolution and safety, such as \u0026quot;safe/safety\u0026quot; (4.6), and neutralization, such as \u0026quot;hoax/joke\u0026quot; (2.2). Most notably, the term \u0026quot;law/legal\u0026quot; (1.9) appeared almost exclusively in the institutional discourse, signaling a clear strategic pivot.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1. Lexical Distribution of Terms by Corpus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTerm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstitutional Corpus (n=4,120)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerpetrator Corpus (n=855)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommunity Corpus (n=10,807)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ebomb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethreat(s)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esafe / safety\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehoax / joke\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003elaw / legal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarcos\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efamily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcordance analysis of the keyword \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; further illuminated this strategy. The term was consistently embedded in a legalistic and neutralizing context. Key collocates included \u0026quot;threat,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;hoax,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;scare,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;joke.\u0026quot; Representative concordance lines from the Institutional Corpus include:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e...disseminates false information involving \u003cstrong\u003ebombs\u003c/strong\u003e or explosives is in violation... ...condemns all \u003cstrong\u003ebomb\u003c/strong\u003e threats, whether directed at our... ...on today\u0026apos;s \u003cstrong\u003ebomb\u003c/strong\u003e threat hoax... No actual threat... ...the Anti-\u003cstrong\u003eBomb\u003c/strong\u003e Scare Joke Law...\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis pattern shows a deliberate effort to pair the threatening term \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; with words that either criminalize the act (\u0026quot;violation,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;law\u0026quot;) or diminish its credibility (\u0026quot;hoax,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;joke\u0026quot;).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative Findings: Multimodal Deterrence and Risk Normalization\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Critical Discourse Analysis of institutional statements revealed a two-pronged strategy. First, the university engaged in legalistic deterrence. This was most powerfully executed through multimodal communication. The institution\u0026apos;s \u0026quot;NO JOKE\u0026quot; graphic (see Figure 1), widely circulated on social media, combined bold, capitalized text (\u0026quot;BOMB THREATS ARE CRIMES\u0026quot;) with the formal language of Presidential Decree No. 1727. This visual-textual artifact performed a key discursive function: it shifted the focus from the community\u0026apos;s fear of the \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; to the perpetrator\u0026apos;s fear of the \u0026quot;law,\u0026quot; recasting the actor from a terrorist into a criminal prankster facing severe legal consequences (MMSU Bomb Threat Qualitative Analysis, 2026, ID: E001). This strategy was reinforced in official statements emphasizing penalties of \u0026quot;up to five (5) years imprisonment\u0026quot; and a \u0026quot;fine not exceeding ₱40,000.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second strategy was risk normalization. The administration linguistically redefined the hostile act by labeling incidents as a \u0026quot;hoax\u0026quot; or, in one case, an \u0026quot;unscheduled security drill.\u0026quot; This reframing tries to turn an external attack into a controlled internal event. This was supported by statements from the PNP Cybercrime Group, which claimed \u0026quot;100% of online bomb threats circulating across the Philippines are hoaxes,\u0026quot; lending statistical authority to the delegitimization effort (MMSU Bomb Threat Corpus Analysis, 2026, ID: RQ1-005). By repeatedly framing the threats as non-credible, the institution aimed to manage panic and project an image of administrative competence and control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eRQ2: The Perpetrator Discourse of Political Provocation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perpetrator corpus, though the smallest, was the most linguistically intense and politically charged. The analysis demonstrates how the word \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; was weaponized as a conduit for explicit political grievances, functioning as a violent speech act intended to provoke and accuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative Findings: A Politicized and Intensified Lexicon\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 1, the Perpetrator Corpus exhibited the highest normalized frequency of \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; (9.4 per 1,000 words), indicating its centrality. Crucially, it also contained the highest frequencies of the politically charged terms \u0026quot;Marcos\u0026quot; (5.8) and \u0026quot;family\u0026quot; (4.7), words that were marginal in the other corpora. Collocation analysis confirmed this political pivot. The strongest collocates for \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; in this corpus were not security-related but political: \u0026quot;Marcos,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;family,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;supporting,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;corruption.\u0026quot; This starkly contrasts with the institutional corpus, where collocates were \u0026quot;threat,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;hoax,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;law.\u0026quot; The language was also intensified through the use of capitalization and profanity, as seen in threat excerpts like \u0026quot;STOP SUPPORTING THAT STUPID FUCKING FAMILY.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eQualitative Findings: The Pragmatics of a Political Threat\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pragmatic analysis of the threat messages reveals their illocutionary force was not merely to inform of a danger but to perform a complex speech act of accusation, threat, and command (Carter, 2024). A close reading of a message from the \u0026quot;Imme Lorenzo\u0026quot; alias illustrates this structure:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026quot;GO ON, MMSU. Keep supporting the Marcos family, go ahead and die on that hill... DAHIL SA GALIT NAMIN SA MGA MARCOS, NAGLAGAY KAMI NG ILANG BOMBA... [BECAUSE OF OUR ANGER AT THE MARCOSES, WE PLACED SEVERAL BOMBS...]\u0026quot;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis message functions as a brutal form of political communication. The speech act is a directive (an imperative command to \u0026quot;stop supporting\u0026quot;) and an accusation (linking the university to the Marcos family). The \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; is the violent leverage used to enforce this command and punish non-compliance. The perpetrators frame their actions not as terrorism but as a \u0026quot;protesta laban sa \u0026apos;corruption\u0026apos; at \u0026apos;dictator\u0026apos;\u0026quot; [protest against \u0026apos;corruption\u0026apos; and \u0026apos;dictator\u0026apos;]. This discourse is designed to shatter what the perpetrators perceive as institutional silence and political complicity, a sentiment that found an echo within a segment of the student community. The student publication SIRMATA\u0026apos;s editorial cartoon (see Figure 3) used powerful multimodal rhetoric to critique this \u0026quot;silence at the top,\u0026quot; portraying the university administration as a puppet master failing to communicate with its students, thus discursively aligning with the perpetrators\u0026apos; critique of institutional silence, albeit not their violent methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eRQ3: The Community Discourse and the Evolution of Sentiment\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Community Corpus, the largest of the three, provides a rich, longitudinal view of the psychological and social impact of the recurring threats. The analysis reveals a clear and significant evolution in community sentiment, moving through distinct phases from acute trauma to cynical dismissal. This trajectory demonstrates the community\u0026apos;s psychological adaptation to a repeated but non-materialized threat.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative and Qualitative Findings: A Display of Sentiment Evolution\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA diachronic (temporal) analysis of the Community Corpus, cross-referenced with thematic coding, reveals this evolution. Figure 4 presents a joint display merging quantitative trends with qualitative thematic phases over the crisis timeline. In the \u0026quot;Early Phase\u0026quot; (Nov 2024), discourse was dominated by themes of \u003cem\u003eAcute Trauma\u003c/em\u003e. Posts from this period contained high-frequency terms of fear and shock, such as \u0026quot;panic,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;chaos,\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;trauma.\u0026quot; By the \u0026quot;Mid Phase\u0026quot; (Mar-Jul 2025), as threats repeated, the sentiment shifted. While \u003cem\u003eReligious Coping\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., \u0026quot;God bless,\u0026quot; \u0026quot;praying\u0026quot;) remained a stable response throughout, themes of \u003cem\u003eWeary Resignation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSkepticism\u003c/em\u003e began to emerge. The Ilokano phrase \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eKanayon met laengen\u003c/em\u003e...\u0026quot; (It\u0026apos;s always like this...) became a common refrain, signifying desensitization. In the \u0026quot;Late Phase\u0026quot; (Nov 2025), the discourse was characterized by \u003cem\u003eCynical Dismissal\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePragmatic Demands\u003c/em\u003e. The threat was increasingly trivialized, with one user commenting that \u0026quot;we are more afraid of our electricity bill.\u0026quot; Simultaneously, there was a rise in practical suggestions for improved security, such as \u0026quot;more CCTV\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;bomb sniffing dogs,\u0026quot; indicating a shift from an emotional to an instrumental response.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe thematic analysis of social media posts further details these phases:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcute Trauma and Fear (Late 2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInitial posts were raw and emotional. An anonymous student wrote about the \u0026quot;trauma that had cause us,\u0026quot; expressing fear that their parents (\u003cem\u003enaggannak\u003c/em\u003e) would not allow them to return to campus. Another user condemned the act, stating, \u0026quot;There is a special place in hell for those who make such threats.\u0026quot;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWeary Resignation and Emerging Skepticism (Mid-2025).\u003c/strong\u003e As threats continued without materializing, the dominant sentiment shifted to exhaustion and doubt. Comments like \u0026quot;Hays. God bless these kinds of people. Mga kulang sa aruga...\u0026quot; (Sigh. God bless these kinds of people. They lack parental care...) reflects a dismissive, pitying tone rather than fear. Skepticism about the authorities\u0026apos; response also grew, with questions like, \u0026quot;Dimet nkrehistro dgita maususar nga sim card aya apay nga saan da matrace\u0026quot; (Aren\u0026apos;t SIM cards registered? Why can\u0026apos;t they be traced?).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCynical Dismissal and Institutional Critique (Late 2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn the final phase, the threat was often trivialized and met with dark humor. The community began to re-categorize the threat as a \u0026quot;twisted joke,\u0026quot; with some speculating it was a ploy by students to cancel exams. This cynicism was coupled with sharp institutional critique, particularly when the university disabled comments on its official Facebook page. One user wrote, \u0026quot;How can people feel reassured when their voices are silenced,\u0026quot; directly challenging the administration\u0026apos;s communication strategy. This evolution demonstrates a form of semantic satiation, where the repeated, non-actualized threat drained the word \u0026quot;bomb\u0026quot; of its power to terrorize, replacing it with frustration and fatigue.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer a multi-layered deconstruction of a campus crisis, revealing how the word \"bomb\" became a site of intense discursive struggle. The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data moves beyond a simple description of events to explain the strategic functions of language for each group of actors. This discussion will interpret these findings by situating them within broader theoretical frameworks of crisis communication, threat framing, and political discourse, highlighting the study's contributions to understanding these phenomena in a digital, politically polarized context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstitutional Response: Extending SCCT in a Hybrid Crisis Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe institutional response at MMSU provides a compelling case study for the application and extension of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The university was in a \"victim cluster\" crisis, as it was the target of an external attack. According to SCCT, the primary response in such cases should be to garner sympathy and reinforce the organization's victim status. However, the university administration's strategy was far more complex. Instead of solely playing the victim, they adopted a hybrid approach combining \"diminish\" strategies (framing the threat as a \"hoax\") and proactive \"bolstering\" through a discourse of legalistic deterrence. This can be interpreted as a strategic choice driven by two factors unique to the crisis: its repetitive nature and its political undertones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strategy of legalistic deterrence\u0026mdash;constantly invoking Presidential Decree 1727 and its penalties\u0026mdash;served multiple functions. As a speech act, it was a direct threat aimed at the perpetrator, attempting to reassert control by shifting the frame from one of terror to one of criminality (Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This aligns with the concept of \"threat framing,\" where actors strategically construct a threat to motivate a desired response (Schiff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Here, the institution framed the perpetrator as a \"criminal prankster\" to delegitimize their political motives and deter future acts. This move, however, is not without risk. By focusing heavily on the \"joke\" aspect (\"Anti-Bomb Scare Joke Law\"), the institution may have inadvertently contributed to the community's eventual cynical dismissal of the threats, a point we will return to. Furthermore, this legalistic posture can be seen as a form of \"securitization,\" where an issue is framed as an existential threat requiring extraordinary measures, thereby legitimizing the institution's authority and control over the narrative (van Hulst \u0026amp; de Graaf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second strategy, risk normalization (labeling threats as \"hoaxes\" or \"drills\"), is a classic \"diminish\" tactic in SCCT. In the short term, this likely served to manage public panic. However, over the course of 13 months and seven incidents, this strategy began to fray. The community's growing skepticism and institutional critique, particularly the charge that the administration was \"silencing\" voices by disabling comments, suggest that the performative force of these assurance statements eroded over time. When an institution repeatedly declares a situation \"safe\" only for another threat to emerge, it risks a significant loss of credibility. This highlights a critical limitation of SCCT in cases of prolonged, repetitive crises: response strategies are not static but have a cumulative effect on stakeholder perception. The initial reassurance can curdle into perceived incompetence or, worse, dishonesty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePerpetrator Discourse: The \"Bomb\" as a Political Speech Act\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the perpetrator corpus reveals a clear case of the \"weaponization of information\" (Beacham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The perpetrators did not simply issue a threat; they engaged in a sophisticated act of political communication. Their discourse can be understood through the lens of speech act theory, where their utterances were designed to perform specific actions: to accuse, to command, and to terrorize (Austin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). The explicit linking of the \"bomb\" to the \"Marcos family\" and \"corruption\" transformed the threat into a political signifier. The university, by virtue of its name, became a proxy target in a larger political struggle. This is a form of \"symbolic violence\" where the threat is aimed not just at physical bodies but at the institution's identity and perceived political alignment (Ganesh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe perpetrators'; critique of \"our silence\" is particularly noteworthy. This framing attempts to position their violent threats as a necessary, albeit extreme, response to institutional apathy and a \"culture of fear\" on campus (MMSU Bomb Threat Qualitative Analysis, 2026, ID: E016, E017). This rhetoric is a powerful tool for radicalization, as it reframes a criminal act as a form of righteous protest against injustice (Jugl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The most alarming aspect of this is the \"discursive alignment\" observed between the perpetrators' critique of silence and the sentiments expressed by a segment of the student body, including the student publication SIRMATA. While the students and SIRMATA unequivocally rejected the violence, they echoed the core grievance about a lack of communication and a climate of political deference. This suggests that the perpetrators were successful in tapping into a pre-existing undercurrent of discontent. It highlights a dangerous dynamic in campus crises: when official channels are perceived as closed or unresponsive, it can create a vacuum that extremist narratives, however abhorrent, may partially fill.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCommunity Sentiment: The Trajectory of Threat Fatigue and Psychological Resilience\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe longitudinal analysis of the community corpus offers a profound insight into the psychological impact of living under a sustained, low-probability, high-consequence threat. The evolution from acute trauma to cynical dismissal charts a course of community adaptation and resilience, but also of desensitization and emotional exhaustion. The initial phase of \"Acute Trauma\" is consistent with research on the psychological consequences of terror threats, which documents heightened anxiety, fear, and a shattered sense of safety (Roe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Inside Higher Ed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The prevalence of religious coping mechanisms (\"Lord protect,\" \"God bless\") throughout the crisis is a significant finding, reflecting a cultural response where faith serves as a primary source of solace and meaning-making in the face of uncontrollable events.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most critical shift occurred in the later phases, with the emergence of cynicism and desensitization. The comment that the fear of an electricity bill outweighed the fear of a bomb is a powerful linguistic marker of \"threat fatigue.\" This phenomenon, where a repeated warning signal fails to produce the intended alert response, has significant implications for crisis management. It suggests that the institutional strategy of labeling threats as \"hoaxes\" and the perpetrators' failure to act on their threats combined to drain the word \"bomb\" of its semantic force. While this reduced panic, it also fostered a climate of complacency and distrust. This desensitization is a double-edged sword: it is a coping mechanism, but it could be dangerous if a credible threat were to emerge in the future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the rise of pragmatic demands (for CCTV, K9 units) and institutional critique in the late phase marks the community's transition from passive victims to active stakeholders. Frustrated by the recurring disruptions and what they perceived as an opaque institutional response, community members began to demand more tangible security measures and greater transparency. The backlash against the disabling of Facebook comments is a key event, symbolizing a breakdown in the dialogic relationship between the institution and its community. It demonstrates that in the social media age, crisis communication is not a one-way broadcast but a conversation. Attempting to control the narrative by \"silencing\" dissent can backfire, fueling accusations of unaccountability and further eroding trust (Onlinemasters.jou.ufl.edu, 2026).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study hold significant theoretical and practical implications for crisis communication, higher education administration, and security studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFor Crisis Communication Theory.\u003c/b\u003e This research contributes to the evolution of SCCT by demonstrating its limitations and potential extensions in the context of prolonged, politically motivated, external-actor crises. It suggests that a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\" response strategy is insufficient. Instead, crisis managers must consider the cumulative impact of their messaging and be prepared to adapt their strategies as community sentiment evolves from fear to fatigue and cynicism. The study introduces the concept of \"discursive alignment\" between perpetrators and community segments as a critical variable that institutions must monitor. It also underscores the need to integrate multimodal and multilingual analysis into crisis communication research to capture the full complexity of digital-age discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFor Higher Education Administration.\u003c/b\u003e The practical implications for university leaders are threefold. First, there is a critical need for proactive, transparent, and dialogic communication strategies. Attempting to manage information by controlling or silencing channels (e.g., disabling comments) is likely to be counterproductive and erode trust. Institutions must build \"crisis resilient organizations\" (Craig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) that foster open communication. Second, in politically charged environments, institutions must be prepared for their identity and actions to be \"weaponized\" in broader ideological conflicts. This requires a sophisticated understanding of the political landscape and a communication plan that can navigate accusations of complicity without being drawn into partisan battles. Third, the study highlights the severe mental health toll of recurring threats. IHEs must invest in robust, accessible, and culturally sensitive mental health services to support students and staff experiencing \"threat fatigue\" and anxiety (Inside Higher Ed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFor Security and Threat Assessment.\u003c/b\u003e This study demonstrates the value of linguistic analysis as a tool for threat assessment. The perpetrators' use of specific, escalating language and political framing provided clear indicators of their motivation and potential for radicalization. Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management (BTAM) teams on campuses could benefit from incorporating linguistic and discourse analysis into their protocols to better understand the intent and ideology behind a threat, moving beyond a simple assessment of its credibility (Shawe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2025). The findings suggest that a threat's \"message\" can be as important as its \"lethality\" in understanding the actor's goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the robust mixed-methods design, this study has several limitations. First, the corpus, while specialized, is of a modest size (15,782 words). A larger corpus, potentially including more data from other social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) or TikTok, could yield more generalizable quantitative results. Second, the analysis of perpetrator discourse is based on a very small sub-corpus (855 words) from a limited number of anonymous accounts. The findings, while qualitatively rich, may not be representative of all politically motivated threat actors. The true identity and organizational affiliation (if any) of the perpetrators remain unknown, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions about their background and broader network. Third, the community sentiment analysis is based solely on public-facing social media data. This method cannot capture private conversations, the sentiments of those not active on social media, or the full spectrum of emotional responses. The views expressed in public comments may be skewed towards those with stronger opinions. Finally, as an external analysis, this study did not have access to internal institutional communications or decision-making processes at the university. A full understanding of the institutional response would require interviews with university administrators and crisis management team members. Future research could address these limitations by expanding the corpus, employing ethnographic methods to engage directly with community members, and conducting case study interviews with institutional leaders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis corpus-based, mixed-methods study of the recurring bomb threats at Mariano Marcos State University, a Philippine University, provides a granular deconstruction of a modern campus crisis. By triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, the research demonstrates that the word \"bomb\" was not a monolithic concept but a tripartite linguistic construct, actively and strategically shaped by the speaker's intent and positionality. The analysis revealed three competing, yet intersecting, discourses:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Institution deployed a discourse of legalistic and administrative control, using the language of law and risk normalization to neutralize fear, criminalize the perpetrator, and reassert its authority.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Perpetrators weaponized the word as a political instrument, crafting a discourse of violent provocation to challenge the university's perceived political allegiances and shatter a perceived culture of silence.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe Community navigated a discourse of evolving sentiment, moving longitudinally from acute trauma and fear to weary resignation and cynical dismissal, ultimately becoming desensitized to the word's power to terrorize while growing more critical of the institutional response.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy dissecting these competing narratives, this analysis reveals the complex interplay of language, power, and emotion that defines a crisis in the digital age. It underscores the inadequacy of simplistic crisis communication models and highlights the necessity of a nuanced, multi-vocal, and diachronic approach. In an era where educational institutions are increasingly becoming battlegrounds for political polarization, understanding how threats are framed, contested, and experienced through discourse is not merely an academic exercise but a critical component of building resilient and responsive campus communities. This study offers a replicable methodological framework for future research and provides actionable insights for leaders tasked with navigating the turbulent confluence of campus safety, political conflict, and social media.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure of AI Use\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotebookLM was used in reviewing related literature. ChatGPT and Gemini was used to assist in clarifying concepts and refining the wording of certain sections. QuillBot was used for grammar checking. All AI-assisted outputs were reviewed, edited, and verified by the authors to ensure accuracy and academic integrity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics, Consent to Participate, and Consent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnthony, L. (2019). \u003cem\u003eAntConc\u003c/em\u003e (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustin, J. L. (1962). \u003cem\u003eHow to do things with words\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeacham, A., Hafner-Burton, E., \u0026amp; Schneider, C. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe weaponization of information technologies and democratic resilience\u003c/em\u003e. UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. https://ucigcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024_wp9_beacham-hafnerburton-schneider_v3-FINAL.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarter, N. R. (2024). \u003cem\u003eWhat\u0026rsquo;s in a threat: A corpus-based, speech act and lexicogrammatical approach to threats in English\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington). MavMatrix. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/linguistics_tesol_dissertations/100/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCollom, G. D., Winston, C., \u0026amp; Davis, J. (2026). A critical discourse analysis of how conservative media frames the value of a college education in the United States. \u003cem\u003eInnovative Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-025-09873-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. \u003cem\u003eCorporate Reputation Review, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 163\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCraig, S. (2024, July 23). Building higher ed crisis management and communication muscle. \u003cem\u003eChanging Higher Ed\u003c/em\u003e. https://changinghighered.com/building-higher-ed-crisis-management-and-communication-muscle/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). \u003cem\u003eDesigning and conducting mixed methods research\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFairclough, N. (2013). \u003cem\u003eLanguage and power\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGanesh, B. (2020). Weaponizing white thymos: Flows of rage in the online audiences of the alt-right. \u003cem\u003eCultural Studies, 34\u003c/em\u003e(6), 892\u0026ndash;924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2020.1714687\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreco Lopes, M. (2023). \u003cem\u003eExperimenting with transparency: A mixed methods approach to assessing crisis communication messaging in a higher education setting\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, St. John Fisher University). Fisher Digital Publications. https://fisherpub.sjf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587\u0026amp;context=education_etd\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHurt, M. D. (2021). \u003cem\u003ePledging to harm: A linguistic analysis of violent intent in threatening language\u003c/em\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University). Aston University Research Archive. https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/43031/6/HURT_MARLON_DAVID_2020.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInside Higher Ed. (2022, April 8). HBCU bomb threats take a toll on mental health. \u003cem\u003eInside Higher Ed\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/04/08/hbcu-bomb-threats-take-toll-mental-health\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, C. (2024). A critical content analysis of HBCU bomb threats on social media. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Negro Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0161956X.2024.2331939\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJugl, I., L\u0026ouml;sel, F., Bender, D., \u0026amp; King, S. (2020). Psychosocial prevention programs against radicalization and extremism: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. \u003cem\u003eThe European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37\u0026ndash;46. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKress, G., \u0026amp; van Leeuwen, T. (2021). \u003cem\u003eReading images: The grammar of visual design\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKropp, E. (2026, January 7). The role of social media in crisis management. \u003cem\u003eUniversity of Florida College of Journalism and Communications\u003c/em\u003e. https://onlinemasters.jou.ufl.edu/social-media-crisis-communication/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, M., \u0026amp; Yang, Y. (2026). Communicating crises during the pandemic: A corpus-assisted discourse study of CSR reports by top corporations of China and the US. In C. Chang \u0026amp; H. Yu (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eExplorations in systemic functional linguistics\u003c/em\u003e. Springer. https://research.polyu.edu.hk/en/publications/communicating-crises-during-the-pandemic-a-corpus-assisted-discou/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMandl, B. J., Goldenberg, A., Cikara, M., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell, C. (2022). The language of crisis: Spatiotemporal effects of COVID-19 pandemic dynamics on health crisis communications by political leaders. \u003cem\u003enpj Digital Medicine, 5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00554-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarie, A. (2025). Speech repression and threat narratives in politics: Social goals and cognitive foundations. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1553\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70089\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, P., Diliberti, M. K., Simmons, I., Schwartz, H. L., \u0026amp; Jackson, B. A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eSafety and security at institutions of higher education: Understanding trends, practices, and future needs\u003c/em\u003e. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2999-1.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunro, M. H., Gore, R. J., Lynch, C. J., Hastings, Y. D., \u0026amp; Reinhold, A. M. (2024). Enhancing risk and crisis communication with computational methods: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eRisk Analysis, 45\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1683\u0026ndash;1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17690\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNAACP. (2022, September 12). \u003cem\u003eNAACP responds to recent threats targeting HBCUs\u003c/em\u003e. https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-responds-recent-threats-targeting-hbcus\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOates, S. (2020). Easy weaponization of social media: Profit over security. \u003cem\u003eJournal of National Security Law \u0026amp; Policy, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 205\u0026ndash;222. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7212244/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, L. E., Watson, K. R., Fensterstock, N., Hogenkamp, S., Xu, Y., Garner, H., Warri, V. R., Morgan, C. H., Garcia, A. A., Wu, C., Dunn, D., Espelage, D. L., \u0026amp; Astor, R. A. (2025). School safety concerns and solutions: A qualitative analysis of U.S. school psychologists\u0026rsquo; perspectives. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences, 15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoe, D., Arieli, T., \u0026amp; Neria, Y. (2025). Digital terror: Its striking impact on public mental health. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatric Services\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchiff, D. S., Peisakhin, L., \u0026amp; Schmid, K. (2024). Framing contestation and public influence on policymakers. \u003cem\u003ePolicy and Society, 43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 255\u0026ndash;270. https://doi.org/10.1093/policyandsociety/puad024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSearle, J. R. (1969). \u003cem\u003eSpeech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSecuritas. (2025, January 6). Campus security in 2025: Threat assessment and preparedness. \u003cem\u003eSecuritas Inc.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.securitasinc.com/news-insights/blog/campus-security-2026-threat-assessment-preparedness/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShawe, R. (2025). Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral threat assessment programs in preventing school-based active shooter incidents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour, 7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 206. https://gexinonline.com/uploads/articles/article-jmhsb-206.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, B. G., \u0026amp; Place, K. R. (2018). Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media. \u003cem\u003ePublic Relations Review, 44\u003c/em\u003e(5), 819\u0026ndash;828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Hulst, M., \u0026amp; de Graaf, B. (2025). Discourse, framing and narrative: Three ways of doing policy analysis. \u003cem\u003ePolicy \u0026amp; Politics\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, H. (2022). To critique crisis communication as a social practice: A critical PR approach by integrating critical discourse studies. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Communication, 7\u003c/em\u003e, 874833. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.874833\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWisconsin Department of Justice, Office of School Safety. (2024, April). \u003cem\u003eWisconsin School Threat Assessment and Management Protocol (WSTAMP-R 24): A guide for multidisciplinary threat assessment teams\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.wisdoj.gov/School%20Safety/wstamp-r24-btam-guide.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Mariano Marcos State University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"crisis communication, corpus linguistics, threat assessment, higher education, political violence, social media analysis, discourse analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a mixed-methods, corpus-based approach to analyze the complex linguistic and discursive dynamics surrounding a series of bomb threats in a Philippine University between November 2024 and November 2025. A specialized, multilingual corpus of 15,782 words was compiled from official institutional statements, anonymous perpetrator messages, and community social media reactions. Quantitative analysis, including normalized frequency distributions, collocation analysis, and statistical significance testing (Chi-square), reveals distinct linguistic patterns across these three discourse domains. These patterns are interpreted through qualitative methods, including Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), pragmatic analysis of speech acts, and multimodal analysis. The findings demonstrate that the word \"bomb\" functioned as a contested linguistic symbol with a tripartite meaning. The institution deployed a discourse of legalistic deterrence and administrative normalization (e.g., \"hoax,\" \"crime,\" \"PD 1727\"). Perpetrators weaponized the term as a tool for political provocation, explicitly linking it to the Marcos family and accusations of institutional complicity. The community's response, tracked diachronically, evolved from acute trauma and fear to weary resignation and cynical dismissal. This paper triangulates quantitative and qualitative data to deconstruct the competing narratives, offering a robust model for analyzing crisis communication in a politically charged, digital-first environment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Deconstructing the \"Bomb\": Legalistic Deterrence, Political Provocation, and Community Sentiment in Campus Crisis Messaging","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-13 14:26:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8574485/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"32894a9c-9768-40e2-bb0e-e2ee2d4f1782","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 13th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60945895,"name":"Linguistics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-13T14:26:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-13 14:26:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8574485","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8574485","identity":"rs-8574485","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}