{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028675254489971814, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0076638170001630595, 'mean_word_length': 5.13987414187643, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 6, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Haunted Across the Political Spectrum: The Specter of Communism in Two Midcentury American Organizations

—Organizations operating in midcentury America experienced a period of relative economic prosperity and global power. While political tensions existed between the United States and the Soviet Union since the culmination of the World War II, when the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test in 1949 and then successfully launched Sputnik 1 in 1957, these political tensions became more pressing concerns to American organizations. In fact, the perceived existential threat posed by communism became an observable rhetorical justification for organization and action within the United States. Through the use of corpus linguistics techniques, a comparative analysis was conducted on the foundational documents of the rightwing, John Birch Society and the leftwing, Students for a Democratic Society. Relative word frequencies, collocations, concordancing and statistical analyses were conducted around the use and context of the keyword communism . The results suggest that while these radical and reactionary groups perceived a common threat, multifinality exists in terms of organizational response. This insight is useful to those engaged in strategy development and rhetoric for political and business organizations.


I. INTRODUCTION
Fear lurks frequently behind human responses. Whether manifested as action or inaction, the things one most fears can shape and constrain one existentially as well as form a basis around which individuals choose to organize. For those in midcentury America, particularly the years of the 1950s and 1960s, the perceived threat of global communism, along with the epiphenomenon of nuclear annihilation, was an ever-present fear [1]- [3]. That communism was fear-inducing is well established. As early as 1848, Marx and Engels articulated the threat of communism in the now famous opening line of The Communist Manifesto; "a specter is haunting Europe -the specter of communism" [4]. A corpus linguistics examination of the foundational documents of two midcentury American organizations provides a basis for understanding the degree to which communism provided a common basis for organizing but resulted in different organizational realities and responses. Such an outcome suggests a social construction of reality.
From a social constructivist perspective, organizations are sites in which institutional realities are defined, internalized and perpetuated [5]- [7]. Berger and Luckmann, defined institutions as places in which "reciprocal typification of habitualized actions" occur, which exist "only and insofar as human activity continues to produce it" [8]. Such conceptualizations are instrumental in and reflective of organizational sensemaking [9], [10]. Using what Manuscript received May 20, 2021; revised June 9, 2021. R. A. Jackson is with Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH 45501 USA (e-mail: jacksonr@wittenberg.edu).
Czarniawska called "the sediments of the institutional order," this corpus linguistics study is conducted within a constructivist frame to examine how communism functioned within The John Birch Society (JBS) and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to establish the organizations' raison d'être [11]. These two midcentury American organizations offer a useful comparison as they inhabited countervailing positions along the ideological spectrum, with JBS being conservative (i.e., rightwing, reactionary) and SDS being liberal (i.e., leftwing, radical). Comparative insights and distinctions between JBS and SDS can be achieved through an application of corpus linguistics.
Two works formed the basis of this study, The Blue Book of the John Birch Society (hereinafter, The Blue Book) and The Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society (hereinafter, The Port Huron Statement). The central keyword for this comparative analysis was communism. Corpus linguistic techniques of collocations and concordancing were combined with relative word frequencies and statistical analyses to determine the degree of similarity between JBS and SDS in regard to the use, function and context of communism as revealed in their respective foundational texts.
Through this study, one will be able to observe the degree to which the specter of communism haunted across the political spectrum. Generally speaking, as Charles Dudley Warner famously explained, "politics makes strange bedfellows" [12]. More specifically in response to communism, Marx and Engels made the predicative philosophical claim that disparate groups would be unified in allegiance against the perceived threats associated with communistic ideas [4]. Collectively, these results add empirical support to understanding the degree to which such a strange bedfellowship is observable between JBS and SDS in regard to linguistic references to communism within their respective foundational documents. Equipped with this understanding one will appreciate better that while groups can agree on issues, they may come to radically different views as to which solutions and responses are viable, appropriate or desirable. This paper is comprised of a survey of literature focused on the political and rhetorical contexts of the JBS and SDS (Section II). The corpus linguistic techniques and analytic approaches used are detailed in the methodology (Section III). The results are presented in Section IV. Lastly, limitations, extensions and a summary of findings and implications are presented in the conclusion (Section V). Taken together, this research is potentially beneficial to those interested in understanding better the multifinality associated organizational responses and positions taken in reaction to a common threat. Essential contextual background information for this research is presented next (Section II).

II. POLITICAL & RHETORICAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS
Placing this corpus linguistics analysis of The Blue Book of the John Birch Society and The Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society in context requires at least three threads of literature. The first section covers an overview of relevant research related to organizational rhetoric. This information is useful for understanding, at least in a general sense, how official documents function within institutions. Next is research related to JBS followed by a section focused upon SDS. These two sections provide insight into the political nature of the respective organizations along with the organizational views on communism. Collectively, the nexus of these three sections provides the point from which this study extends. In order to understand better the information related to JBS and SDS, it is useful to start with a summary of research related to organizational rhetoric.

A. Organizational Rhetoric
Placing organizational rhetoric into a context beneficial for the purpose of this study requires an exposition of at least three aspects of research. First, it is essential to delimit the meaning of organizational rhetoric. Such a delimitation provides a common frame of reference for sensemaking and interpreting the results of this study. Second, it is beneficial to present a process of how organizational rhetoric is enacted. This overview provides one with an illustration of how this construct is operationalized, moving it from the realm of theory into praxis. Lastly, given the focus of this research, current applications of organizational rhetoric in academic research are presented with attention given to its application in regard to communism. Of these three areas, given the foundational quality of the information, the delimitation of organizational rhetoric is presented first.
What is organizational rhetoric? Answering this question benefits from understanding the focus of organizational rhetoric. Broadly defined, organizational rhetoric is attentive towards the various forms of communication within institutions. While these communications ultimately rest on individual action, the focus of organizational rhetoric is on how institutions shape, constrain and sanction communication. As Cheney and McMillan explained, organizational rhetoric contains many forms of communications to include, "directives, charters, memos, announcements, advertising, policy statements, informal exchanges, public relations, resolutions, issue advocacy, image management, treaties, lobbying efforts, declarations, performance appraisals, doctrines, surveys, annual reports, and so forth" [13]. While this list suggests that the types of official and unofficial documents which fall under organizational rhetoric is extensive, the linkage between organizations and rhetoric, from a social-constructivist perspective, is more immediate and existential.
Within organizations individuals communicate and come to define and understand themselves. Making this connection explicit, Crable explained, "organizations are inherently rhetorical," with "organizational 'self-concept,' including judgments, values, fears, needs, desires, images of/by the organization" being a relevant element associated with organizational rhetoric [14]. Crable's perspective on linking fear with organizational rhetoric is particularly useful here as this research is focused on how the fear of communism influenced JBS and SDS. In order to have an organization give coherence to these ideas and feelings such organizational rhetoric must be enacted. Adopting a process perspective is useful in understanding how organizational rhetoric is comes into being through enactment.
Legitimacy is an important consideration in organizational rhetoric. Determinations as to who within an organization has authority, while somewhat contestable, betray something of position, privilege and power. In order for such enactments to make sense, they must be consistent with general expectations, or stated somewhat differently, they must be logical. Hossfeld explained "institutional logics play a vital role in rhetorical legitimation, since established institutional logics are used to implement general rhetorical strategies" [15]. This process of legitimization is reciprocal between an organization and the individuals within it. In describing this dynamic, Cheney asserted, "an individual who is inclined to identify with an organization…will be open to persuasive efforts from various sources within that unit. The organization 'initiates' this inducement process by communicating its values…in the form of guidelines for individual and collective action; the member may then 'complete' the process by adopting or adapting the organization's interests" [16]. This reciprocity between individuals and institutions which are enacted through organizational rhetoric have been studied in various contexts.
Recent applications of organizational rhetoric have addressed topics including environmentalism [17], [18], power dynamics [19]- [21] and news and social media [22]- [24]. Collectively, these applications provide insights useful for constructing a meta-structure for understanding organizational rhetoric. While useful, it is more directly relevant to assess the application of organizational rhetoric in regard to communism. Relatively few articles have addressed the application of organizational rhetoric in understanding communism [25]- [27]. The aim of this research is to fill part of that observed gap. While sparce, each article provides a point of insight and inquiry for understanding, with each article warranting a modicum of coverage.
From a capitalist perspective, Maclean, Harvey, Suddaby and O'Gorman described how Hilton International (HI) held an anti-communist position for the launch of its hotels, indicating that, "it became clear that a corollary of each launch was ideological sensemaking, locating the geopolitical significance of each hotel in a world Hilton deemed imperiled by communism" [25]. Such a perspective suggests that economic power can be an adjunct to military power. While there were fears and goals for anti-communist organizations, it is important to appreciate that pressure existed for communist organizations as well. As Zhang, Jin and Tang explained, "given China's changing social condition against the backdrop of globalization and the worldwide collapse of the socialist ideology, the ruling Communist Party faces the challenge of maintaining its legitimacy and relevance" [26]. The tensions between anti-communist and communist organizations might be particularly present when the communist organization is within a society which is largely anti-communist. For this reason, unique insight can be derived from analyzing communism in America. Ilkka described the situation faced by American communists in 1919 in the following terms, "the rhetorical movement of American Communism was mainly a drama of the self questioning for a new identity as the Bolsheviks of an American social revolution" [27]. Each of these articles reveal something of the existential quality and constructivist nature of organizational rhetoric.
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2021 Following the taxonomy articulated by Cheney and McMillan, the two works analyzed in this study are considered to be formal, impersonal, public, and universal in nature [13]. Prior to analyzing these two documents, it is important to understand the organizations from which they came. To that aim, research related to JBS and SDS are presented next. Since JBS was established prior to SDS, and since JBS is still a currently active organization, the review of research related to JBS will be presented prior to that of SDS.

B. The John Birch Society (JBS)
According to The Blue Book, JBS was founded on December 9, 1958 in Indianapolis, Indiana. According to its founder, Robert Welch, the JBS is "a monolithic body" which operates "under completely authoritative control at all levels," with the purpose "to promote less government, more responsibility, and a better world" [28]. Since its inception, JBS has been anticommunist. Welch explained, "our enemy is the Communists, and we do not intend to lose sight of that fact for a minute. We are fighting the Communistsnobody else" [29]. While JBS has been around for over half a century, the extent of academic research on JBS is limited. Examining this research provides additional insight into JBS.
While JBS is anticommunist, it is important to understand that this stance is not directed only towards external enemies. JBS was concerned with the communist threat posed within the government and society of the United States. In a critique of a speech delivered by Welch in 1961, Hillbruner explained, "Welch suggested that the strength of the Communist conspiracy in the United States lies in the very top strata of the social and intellectual classes" [30]. This view was shared by the members of JBS as they were "motivated by the conviction that most of the leaders of our major economic, religious, educational, and political institutions are willing or unwitting Communist agents" [31].
The anticommunist stance was not only political. Some anticommunists staked their position on religious rather than political grounds (i.e., a battle against forced atheism). Research by Grupp and Newman suggests this was the case for JBS, with 4% of its members being religiously nonaffiliated, 68% affiliated as Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, or Presbyterian and less than 0.5% affiliated as Jewish. In fact, as Grupp and Newman explained, "the conservative ideology of the Birch Society is consistently associated with western and southern residence, lower social-class position, and preference for Roman Catholicism and theologically orthodox forms of Protestantism" [32]. This insight is useful in highlighting that membership in JBS exhibited a degree of intersectionality, while suggesting that there could be disparate individual motivations behind the common anticommunist position.
While it would seem that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the JBS might have ceased to exist since, as previously indicated, its sole enemy at its inception was communism. However, as Stewart explained, the JBS was fighting the communist conspiracy, "the apparent end of communism and the Soviet Union was merely a tactical move by the master conspiracy…that Insiders of the master conspiracy had created the United Nations in 1945, with assistance of Soviet and American communists, to administer a Global Big Brother Superstate" [33]. So, the focus of JBS shifted from communism to the New World Order.
Research into the JBS provides context for understanding its initial stance against internal and external communism, the economic and religious background of its members and some insight into how JBS pivoted focus at the end of the Soviet Union. With some of the contours of JBS described, it is now beneficial to turn attention towards SDS.

C. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
SDS was formed in 1960, when the organization changed its name from the Student League for Industrial Democracy [34]. As stated in The Port Huron Statement, SDS was created to, "seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims: that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence" [35]. Under this overarching goal, SDS addressed a variety of disparate issues. According to Flacks, "the founders of SDS were active, dedicated participants in the civil rights and peace movements" who "saw as one of the functions of the new organization to present a coherent radical social criticismby which they meant an effort to demonstrate the interconnectedness of issues and movements" [36]. One of the issues SDS addressed was communism.
The position of SDS, while acknowledging an internal threat, was focused primarily on the external threat of communism. This nuance can be observed in The Port Huron Statement, where it was stated that "an unreasoning anti-communism has become a major social problem for those who want to construct a more democratic America…much of the American anti-communism takes on the characteristic of paranoia…there should be a way for a person or an organization to oppose communism without contributing to the common fear" [37].
Placing the religious background of SDS members into context, is potentially informative. Research from Braungart found that nearly 20% of SDS members were nonreligious, 42% were Jewish and 38% were Protestant or Catholic [38]. In terms of social class, Braungart's research found that roughly 55% of SDS members were upper-middle class. Again, these findings potentially suggest a degree of intersectionality in terms of economics, religion and political views. Understanding the heterogeneity in the composition and purpose of SDS might provide some insight into its end.
Internal dynamics played a role in the dissolution of SDS. Part of this could be a natural dynamic associated with protest movements. Coomes explained that such organizations often transition "from protest, to resistance, to revolution" [39]. In regard to SDS specifically, part of the fragmentation could reflect that the organization pursued multiple goals. As Lorenzini explained "SDS membership meant different things to different people" [40]. Lastly, SDS could have been a victim of deeper societal shifts from the early 1960s to the late 1960s. Klatch indicated that "at the same time that positive affective bonds were deteriorating among SDS members, negative group dynamics developed during the late 1960s. Eventually, these negative bonds become a predominant part of group life" [41]. In 1969 SDS disbanded, with radical splinter groups like the Progressive Labor Party, the Worker Student Alliance, Revolutionary Youth Movement and the Weather Underground taking its place.
Existing research on SDS suggests its anti-communist stance was nuanced and one issue among others, including civil rights and peace. Internal dynamics and social pressures influenced its fragmentation. With context for JBS and SDS developed, it is possible to turn now to the methodology.
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2021 III. METHODOLOGY Analytic insights, in order to make sense and be effectively communicated, benefit from an appreciation of context [42]. Developing an informative research methodology can be a fundamental part of that framework. The methodology for this research consists of five major areas: two formalized hypothesis tests, a descriptive analysis of a cross tabulation matrix, the generation of collocates for the search term communist, and concordancing and thematic analysis for the keyword communism. Each of these elements will be developed briefly, starting with Hypothesis 1 (H 1 ).
The first hypothesis was focused on determining if the number of variations for the key term communism are significantly different between JBS and SDS. Given the centrality of communism to JBS, as described in the survey of literature (Section II), it is expected that JBS would potentially have more variants of the term than SDS. Since The Blue Book and The Port Huron Statement are texts of different lengths, it is important to make a ratio of the variant count for the term communism divided by the unique number of words found in each text. As such, a one-tailed hypothesis test was used. H 1 is presented as: Given the nature of the data (i.e., ratios of numerical counts), H 1 was tested using a one-tailed, two-sample Poisson rate test, focusing on the Poisson distribution's lambda () value. In this application, lambda is the ratio of the number of versions of the terms communism (k) divided by the number of unique word types (n) in the text ( = k/n). A z-test approximation approach was used to test H 1 [43]. The test was conducted at a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05).
Hypothesis 2 (H 2 ) examined the degree of difference between JBS and SDS in terms of the average relative word frequencies (i.e., word occurrence per 10K words) for the shared terms directly related to communism. This test made use of the data from H 1 and refined those two lists to only the terms held in common between JBS and SDS, and then compared the average frequencies of those shared terms. The formal structure of H 2 is as follows: A difference of means t-test with unequal variances was used to test H 2 . Given the nature of these linguistic data, it is permissible to use a lower-than-typical significance level [44]. H 2 was tested at the 80% significance level ( = 0.20). This information was then analyzed using cross tabulation to see if there were any aggregate insights in regard to term usage between JBS and SDS.
Through the research presented in the survey of literature (Section II), both JBS and SDS exhibited stances in which notions of communism were addressed as well as anti-communism responses. As such, it is potentially informative to assess the degree to which the information from H 2 exhibits differences along those lines. Cross tabulation is a "process for producing a two-dimensional table that displays the frequency counts for two variables simultaneously" [45]. A cross tabulation matrix was constructed for the proportion of common communism responses between JBS and SDS and between those focus on communist and anti-communist. This information was useful in providing descriptive insight into the degree to which JBS and SDS are similar in respect to response density and focus. Informed by this perspective one can then focus on meaningful collocates.
As defined by Brezina, "collocates are words that co-occur with the node in a specially defined span around the node, which we call the collocation window" [46]. Using the keyword (i.e., node) communist, collocates were identified, for both JBS and SDS, using the Mutual Information (MI) statistic with an initial threshold value of 1.0 and included terms with a collocation window of +/-five words from the keyword. Wang explained, the MI "is used for assessing collocational significance" and that MI can help inform "what to look for in a concordance" [47]. The list of collocates was further refined using a list of common English words (e.g., about, because, only, you, etc.). Once these common words were omitted, only the noncommon collocates were analyzed. A scaled data visualization was developed in which collocate term proximity to the central node conveys degree of relationship (i.e., terms closer to the central node are more strongly related to the keyword). These collocates are useful for informing potential themes related to the observed usage revealed through concordancing.
Concordancing is the process by which one abstracts a given term along with the linguistic context in which it was used. According to Lee and Phillips, concordancing allows one to "examine a large number of examples of a given term or phrase in naturally occurring language" which permits one to "assemble much more information than could be derived from a mere dictionary" [48]. The keyword of communism was used to construct the initial concordance lines with 40 words being included to the left and 40 words being included to the right of the key term. This was to ensure that the full sentence around the word communism would be obtained. These concordance lines where then trimmed to include only the full sentence around the word communism. The sentences were analyzed and assigned a theme based on the observed term usage. Once the themes were determined, the results were compared to identify common and unique usages. Examples of the unique thematic usages of the term communism will be referenced to illustrate the theme and bring attention to the distinctions between JBS and SDS.
Five areas were developed for this study. A one-tailed, two-sample Poisson rate test was used to determine if the number of variations of communism were significantly different between JBS and SDS (H 1 ). A difference of means t-test, with unequal variances, was used to examine the degree of difference between JBS and SDS in terms of the average relative word frequencies for the shared terms related to communism (H 2 ). That information was further analyzed through the use of a cross tabulation matrix to assess JBS and SDS proportional usage of communist and anti-communist terms. Collocates for the search term communist was conducted as well as concordancing and thematic analysis for the keyword communism. With the methodology developed, attention can be given to the results (Section IV).
International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2021 IV. RESULTS As indicated in the methodology (Section III), corpus linguistics techniques were used to analyze The Blue Book and The Port Huron Statement. H 1 used a two-sample Poisson rate test to determine if the ratio of the number of variants of the word communism compared to the unique word types in each of the respective words is significantly different (Table I). H 2 used a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances to test if a statistically significant difference exists between the average relative frequency of communism-related terms between JBS and SDS (Table II). That information was then placed into cross tabulation format (Table III) to more clearly present the proportionality associated with the observed references to communist and anti-communist between JBS and SDS. Statistically significant and conceptually meaningful collocations to the word communism for both JBS and SDS were developed and presented graphically (Fig. 1). Lastly, concordancing of the use of the word communism from the respective JBS and SDS texts were analyzed thematically and compared (Table IV). Due to its foundational quality, results of the Poisson analysis (Table I)   As previously discussed, Poisson distributions are defined by lambda (). Here the lambda values represent the ratio of the number of different versions of the word communism used divided by the number of unique word types in each of the respective texts ( JBS = 0.0028;  SDS = 0.0020). Cursory comparison suggests these two values are similar. As indicated in the methodology, the z-test approximation was used to test H 1 . Given that the calculated z-statistic (0.913) was less than the critical z-value for a one-tailed test (1.65;  = 0.05), the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Stated more directly, when adjusted for the number of unique words (n), there is not a statistically significant difference between the versions of the word communism (k) found in The Blue Book and The Port Huron Statement. This suggests that JBS and SDS made use of similar lexical variety in how the two organizations wrote about and referred to communism in their respective texts. This similarity does not hold in regard to the average relative frequency of common communist-term variants.
Adjusted for differences in the lexical variety resident in each of the respective texts (as measured by the number of word types within the text), JBS and SDS were found to use similar lexical variety in discussing communism. The next step was to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between JBS and SDS in regard to the average relative frequency of communism-related terms. To ensure a meaningful comparison across texts of different lengths, the relative frequency approach, based on number of occurrences per 10K words, was used. To test this hypothesis (H 2 ) used a two-sample t-test (with unequal variances), the results are presented in Table II. Given the six common terms related to communism (Table  II), the following average relative frequency values were observed, 10.32 (JBS) and 2.86 (SDS). The calculated t-value of 1.589 ( = 0.143) was statistically significant ( = 0.20), resulting in a rejection of the null hypothesis for H 2 . This result suggests that the relative frequency of common communism terms between JBS and SDS is statistically different. A few notes warrant elaboration. First, SDS had 10 communism-related terms ( Table I). Two of these terms, anti-communism and anti-communist, had less frequent versions which omitted the hyphen. The counts for the terms lacking the hyphens were incorporated with the more common hyphenated version of the term. This would change the count of unique terms (Table I) from 10 to 8. The results of H 1 are insensitive to this change. Additionally, there are a few interesting words unique to JBS and SDS. Unique to SDS is the pejorative term commies and the geo-political communist-bloc. The JBS made use of the phrase, communist-sympathizers, along with the gerund, communizing and communized. Placing the information in Table II into a cross tabulation matrix (Table III) provides additional insight worth exploring. Combining the three communist terms (i.e., communists, communist, and communism) and the three anti-communist terms (i.e., anti-communist, anti-communists, and anti-communism) in a cross-tabulation format provides useful insight as to proportionality. As indicated in Table III, JBS references to communism accounts for 72% of the total references identified in Table II. Looking at this information slightly differently places these data in a useful context. Within the JBS document communist references are 12 times more likely to occur than are anti-communist references, where in the SDS document communist references are approximately twice as likely to occur than are anti-communist references. While both JBS and SDS made communist references more frequently than anti-communist references, the data suggest that SDS was more balanced between the two types of references. This finding holds International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2021 potential implications for the respective collocations associated with the term communist.
The collocates to the term communist were identified using the MI statistic threshold of 1.0 and included terms with five words to the left and five words to the right of key term. From this initial screening, 49 collocates were identified for JBS and 4 collocates for SDS. These two lists of collocates were compared against a list of common English words and the lists refined to contain only noncommon collocates. Upon this filtering process there were 9 noncommon collocates for JBS and none for SDS. The results for JBS are presented graphics in Fig. 1. The closer the collocate term is to the central term, communist, the more pronounced the interconnection between the two terms. The four most related terms are actual, influence, influences, and conspiracy. The next closest term is party. Next are the terms right and war. Lastly, the least related terms are against and world. From these findings, one can see that the JBS was focused on finding actual communists and that they were concerned with a communist conspiracy and communist influence. These findings are amplified further by examining the thematic analysis associated with the concordances for JBS and SDS.
Concordance analysis was conducted around the term communism. Each result was trimmed down to a length of one complete sentence and each sentence was coded thematically. Initially, there were 48 occurrences for JBS and 13 for SDS. Two sentences for JBS were duplicates and were omitted. One sentence in both JBS (2%) and SDS (8%) were found to contain an incidental reference to communism. The results of the thematic analysis are presented in Table IV. The themes and theme densities for anti-communism, cold war, and religion are consistent with the background contained in the survey of literature (Section II) and the results previously presented. The theme of economics, while important, is relatively infrequent, straightforward and doesn't require additional development. However, a few of the themes are interesting in how they provide points of counterbalance between JBS and SDS. Specially, where JBS addressed the communist conspiracy and internal threats, SDS addressed failings of the US approach and rational opposition. A couple of sentences from each of these themes are presented to illustrate the theme and pinpoint essential differences between how these two organizations conceptualized communism as well as their responses to it.
JBS was concerned with a communist conspiracy. Sentences reflecting this perspective include, "communism, in its unmistakable reality, is wholly a conspiracy, a gigantic conspiracy to enslave mankind; an increasingly successful conspiracy controlled by determined, cunning, and utterly ruthless gangsters willing to use any means to achieve its end," and "the communist conspiracy has its vulnerable points." Similarly, JBS articulated the internal threat of communism in statements like, "for years we have been taken steadily down the road to Communism by steps supposedly designed, and presented to the American people, as ways of fighting Communism," and those in America will say that they are against Communism, "but we mustn't allow our fear of Communism….to cause us to listen to people, who in fighting Communism, will do more damage to our ideals…than would the Communists themselves." This last point is particularly useful as it provides a basis for comparison to SDS While SDS was anti-communist, it took a more measured response to the threat as compared to JBS. In fact, a few of the statements made by SDS align with what JBS indicated was the internal threat of Communism. As SDS explained, "there should be a way for the person or an organization to oppose communism without contributing to the common fear," and "this trend of events on the domestic scene, towards greater irrationality on major questions, moves us to greater concern than does the 'internal threat' of domestic communism. In regard to this point of comparison, it is worth noting the theme of internal threat for JBS (28%) is similar in comment density to the theme of rational opposition for SDS (23%). Additionally, SDS was critical of what it viewed as failings of US foreign policy, making statements like, "it is evident that the American military response has been more effective in deterring the growth of democracy than communism," and "to fight communism by capitalism in the newly-developing areas is to fundamentally misunderstand the international hatred of imperialism and colonialism and to confuse the needs of 19 th century industrial America with those of contemporary nations." While few in number, the selected sentences provide a reflection of the content of several of the major themes and a useful point of contrast between JBS and SDS.
The Blue Book (JBS) and The Port Huron Statement (SDS) were analyzed by using a variety of corpus linguistics techniques. The null hypothesis for H 1 failed to be rejected, indicating that JBS and SDS made similar use of lexical variety when referring to communism (Table I). The null hypothesis for H 2 was rejected ( = 0.20), suggesting a significant difference between JBS and SDS in regard to the relative frequency of common communism terms (Table II). Placing this information into a cross-tabulation matrix reveals that JBS is approximately 12 times more likely to International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 7, No. 4, December 2021 refer to communism than to anti-communism, while SDS is about 2 times as likely (Table III). An analysis of noncommon collocates resulted in no significant findings for SDS. Among others, the terms conspiracy, party, and war were found to be significant collocates to communist for JBS. Results of the thematic analysis suggest that the themes of anti-communism, communist conspiracy and internal threats are central to JBS, while the themes of cold war, failings of US approach and rational opposition are prevalent for SDS. With the results now summarized it is possible to turn attention to limitations and possible extensions of this study. These are presented in the conclusion (Section V).

V. CONCLUSION
Trotsky explained, "the highest human happiness is not the exploitation of the present but the preparation of the future" [49]. Ironically, looking to the past can be helpful as one prepares for, and works towards creating, the envisioned future. This study used corpus linguistic approaches to examine the foundational documents of two midcentury American organizations. Results from this study provide a basis for understanding the degree to which communism provided a common point of focus for understanding the existential threat faced by both JBS and SDS. While the assessment that communism posed a serious threat was shared between JBS and SDS the organizational realities and responses which resulted were appreciably different. This finding is suggestive of the role of a social construction of reality within these organizations. A brief summary of the findings of this study is provided to establish a common point of reference for the limitations and extensions which follow.
Corpus linguistic techniques of relative word frequencies, collocates and concordancing were applied to JBS' The Blue Book and SDS' The Port Huron Statement. JBS and SDS were found to make similar use of lexical variety when referring to communism (H 1 , Table I). A significant difference ( = 0.20) was found to exist between JBS and SDS in terms of their respective relative frequencies of common communism terms (Table II). Transforming this information into a cross-tabulation matrix revealed that JBS is approximately 12 times, more likely, while SDS is about 2 times more likely, to refer to communism than to anti-communism (Table III). There were no noncommon collocates to the nodal term communist identified for SDS, but the noncommon collocates of conspiracy, party, and war, among others, were found for JBS. Thematic analysis results suggest that JBS was focused upon anti-communism, communist conspiracy and internal threats while SDS focused on the themes of cold war, failings of US approach and rational opposition. While informative, this study contains limitations and could be beneficially extended. The limitations and extensions of this study are presented next.
The first limitation of this study is that is that it focused on a single semantic concept (i.e., communism). It is likely that focusing on different semantic concepts would reveal different degrees of commonality and divergence between JBS and SDS. Secondly, this comparison was limited by the fact that a single text from JBS and SDS was used as the basis of this study. Building corpora for JBS and SDS would provide more data from which to draw more generalizable conclusions in terms of these two respective organizations. Another limitation of this study is that it was based on a comparison of two organizations. Similar to the previous limitation, building corpora for rightwing, reactionary groups (e.g., JBS) and leftwing, radical groups (e.g., SDS) would allow for more generalizable conclusions in terms of these two political polarities. Lastly, only a few corpus linguistics techniques were applied in this study. Extending the applications of corpus linguistic techniques would provide for a more complete picture of these data.
The proposed extensions follow from its limitations. This study focused on the term communism, which is an outward facing assessment. It would be informative to conduct a similar study on an inward facing term (e.g., United States) to see how these organizations understood their own context. The extension of incorporating additional organizational texts for JBS and SDS or additional organizations for the reactionary/radical groupings should not require additional elaboration. While the insights derived from the corpus linguistic techniques used here are useful, there are other techniques which could be applied beneficially. More specifically additional insight could be obtained through incorporating part-of-speech tagging and sentiment analysis. With the summary of results, limitations and extensions of this study established, it is possible to offer a brief concluding thought as to its meaning and potential implication.
The response of JBS and SDS, as revealed through this corpus linguistics analysis of The Blue Book and The Port Huron Statement, suggests that the specter of communism haunted across the political spectrum in midcentury America. The results suggest further that while these radical and reactionary groups perceived a common threat, multifinality existed in terms of the organizational response. This insight should be useful to those engaged in strategy development and rhetoric for political and business organizations.