ENGAGEMENT AND ATTITUDE MARKERS IN PAKISTANI ENGLISH TWITTER POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/tcvyds66Keywords:
Appraisal Theory, Attitude Markers, Corpus Linguistics, Engagement Markers, Metadiscourse, Pakistani English, Political Discourse, TwitterAbstract
This study investigates the use of engagement and attitude markers in Pakistani English political discourse on Twitter. The research is grounded in two complementary theoretical frameworks: Hyland's (2005) Metadiscourse Theory, which explains how writers use language to interact with and position their audiences, and Martin and White's (2005) Appraisal Theory, which provides a systematic model for analyzing evaluative language. The corpus was analyzed using AntConc (version 4.2.0), a corpus linguistics software tool, through concordance searches, word frequency lists, collocate analysis, and cluster identification. The findings reveal that a total of 3,590 engagement marker tokens were identified in the corpus. Directive markers were the most dominant category of all engagement tokens. Inclusive pronouns, particularly we and our, formed the second largest group, reflecting a consistent strategy of collective identity construction. With regard to attitude markers, a total of 4,862 tokens were found. Appreciation markers dominated the corpus, followed by Judgement markers and Affect markers. The study also examined monoglossic and heteroglossic engagement strategies. Monoglossic strategies dominated at 62.2% of all tweets, characterized by direct, unhedged declarations while Heteroglossic strategies accounted for 37.8%. The findings demonstrate that Pakistani English political tweeting is a rhetorically structured and formulaic genre that combines interpersonal engagement with positive ideological evaluation in consistent and purposeful ways.
Downloads
References
Al-Saaidi, S. K., & Al-Khazaali, M. A. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in political tweets: An analysis of Iraqi politicians' discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 112–124.
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Aziz, S., & Akhtar, R. (2019). Evaluative language patterns in Pakistani English Twitter discourse. Pakistan Journal of Language Studies, 3(1), 44–61.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (2004). Attitude and evaluation in political discourse. Discourse and Society, 15(2–3), 201–218.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 39–54.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crystal, D. (2011). Language and the internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2016). Appraisal in political commentary: Evaluative positioning in public discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(4), 389–411.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27–29.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Khan, A., & Malik, S. (2021). Appraisal resources in Pakistani political tweets: A study of election campaign discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(3), 310–328.
Mahmood, R., Saleem, M., & Aslam, S. (2014). Linguistic features of Pakistani political speeches: Boosters, hedges, and attitude markers. Journal of Political Discourse Studies, 2(1), 77–95.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Parmelee, J. H., & Bichard, S. L. (2012). Politics and the Twitter revolution: How tweets influence the relationship between political leaders and the public. Lexington Books.
Rehman, A., & Anwar, B. (2013). Evaluative language in Pakistani newspaper political discourse. Pakistan Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 18–35.
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11–52.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.
Waseem, M. (2010). Dilemmas of populism and governance in Pakistan. Asian Survey, 50(6), 1129–1146.
White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Scott Foresman.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Zaidi, S. A. (2015). Issues in Pakistan's economy: A political economy perspective (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806.
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. Continuum.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Ismail, Dr. Maimoona Abdulaziz (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
