Between Strategic Neutrality and Regional Solidarity: A Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis of the US-Iran Conflict Narratives in Pakistani Print Media

Abstract

This research analyzes discursive manoeuvres and media framing of the United States – Iran conflict in Pakistan's high-brow English language newspapers (Daily Dawn and The News International) in an era of intense regional conflicts and sensitive negotiations. A special corpus was created and analysed using a mixed methods approach (quantitative and qualitative) with Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS) as its underlying theory, which comprised 283 editorials and op-ed articles (245,618 words). The statistical Keynes, collocation networks and KWIC (Keyword-in-Context) concordances that focused on the principal actors were subjected to a computational analysis. The study is theoretically a combination of Norman Fairclough's three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Teun van Dijk's sociocognitive approach. The empirical results show a very polarized editorial environment: Daily Dawn was cautious and legalistic, spoke of international legal standards, institutional de-escalation and regional solidarity to safeguard the internal equilibrium of Pakistan and protection of its porous borders. In contrast, The News International followed a realist approach and used the metaphor of the "bridge" of diplomacy as opposed to the "pillar" of economy to condemn the mediation by the state as an uncompensated strategic service with no entry for the fragile Pakistani economy on the balance sheet. The outcomes show how domestic media representation of global conflicts is negotiated within the context of the national security agendas of the elites, and how these media representations continue to struggle with the enormous macroeconomic and structural dependence.

Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies, US-Iran Conflict, Media Framing, Pakistani Press, Strategic Neutrality.