Abstract

This article explores ideographs in the inaugural speeches of Heads of State/Government of Pakistan from the country’s founding in 1947 to 2018 – the time of the latest inaugural speeches in Pakistan’s political history. The data was collected from multiple sources, mostly official. A total of fifty-eight speeches were analyzed, which contained 124,363 words—averaging 2,144 words apiece. The study was qualitative in nature and employed McGee’s framework of Ideographic Criticism for data analysis. Setting ‘ideograph’ as a unit of analysis, the study carried out repeated close readings of the speeches. The analysis involved five steps: identification, translation (in case of Urdu speeches), categorization, contextualization and interpretation. Thus, in all 493 ideographs (both positive and negative) were identified in the speeches. While analysis of such a large number of ideographs was practically impossible, only 58 ideographs (47 positive and 11 negative), which had a frequency of 10 or above in both English and Urdu speeches taken together or in either of the languages, were analyzed diachronically. This study is the first attempt of its kind in the context of Pakistan and contributes at four levels: Theory, Method, Genre and Context.

Key Words

Genre, Ideograph, Ideographic Criticism, Inaugural Speech, McGee

Introduction

Language is at the heart of politics. Political leaders and Heads of State/Government choose language to shape reality with an eye to gain or hold control. One of the major challenges that leaders usually encounter is to deal with heterogeneous masses with diverse backgrounds and social classes. As such, they frequently rely on ideographs and make their conscious effort to bring the audience on their side and unite them under common goals/values. Ideographs are representative of a nation’s or society’s shared ideals, values and beliefs; hence are rhetorically influential, ideologically significant and generally accepted to control mass consciousness, secure public support, justify action/policy and shape reality. Understanding ideographs of a society or a nation is essential, particularly when a nation or society is faced with multiple challenges and uniting them is essential. Pakistan makes a typical case in point. Since its birth on August 14, 1947, Pakistan has faced many challenges, inter alia, regional security environment, territorial integrity, ethnic diversity, linguistic heterogeneity, the power struggle between federating units, provincialism, sectarianism and corruption. Throughout the country’s history, political changes transpired in an abrupt and dramatic manner. Such political turmoil has posed a great challenge to the country’s leadership and called for the unification of people through inaugural speeches by the country ruling leadership, which shared ideals and values drawn from the past to motivate masses or justify their rule/actions. Thus, Pakistan’s political dynamics and history make inaugurals an important text for ideographic analysis. 

Statement of Problem

Since the coining of the term ideograph by McGee in 1980, the study of ideographs has attracted the interest of rulers, politicians and scholars alike across the globe. As such, ideographic analysis has become a significant dimension of examining political discourse in foreign contexts. However, such analysis is wanting in Pakistani political discourse—an area that has received little academic attention so far (Lodhi et al., 2018). Previous research on Pakistani political discourse is mainly cross-sectional, particularly on inaugural speeches. The available scant research studies on inaugurals (Munir, 2014; Naqvi, 2017; Ahmad, Arshad & Rubab, 2019) analyzed a single speech each and predominantly employed Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). As such, there is a need for a study from an ideographic perspective, which should aim to see Pakistani political discourse through a new lens and include the entire range of inaugurals spanning the country’s over a seven-decade long history. The current study, therefore, aims to address the shortcomings of the previous research and explores ideographs in inaugural speeches by rulers in Pakistan over a period of more than seventy years, that is, from the country’s creation in 1947 to 2018, the time of the latest inaugural in the country’s history.




Defining Inaugurals 

For the purpose of this study, the term inaugural speech applies to (a) the first speech delivered by an elected Prime Minister to the National Assembly or to the Nation or by an elected President to the Joint Session of Parliament or to the Nation; (b) the first speech delivered by a Caretaker Prime Minister/Acting President to the Nation. However, in case of its non-availability, their first interaction with media; or (c) the first speech delivered by Chief Martial Law Administrator/Chief Executive of Pakistan to the Nation after imposition of Martial Law/military rule. Similarly, the term Heads of State/Government of Pakistan refers to Governor Generals, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Caretaker Prime Ministers, Acting Presidents, Chief Martial Law Administrators and Chief Executives of Pakistan, who ruled the country from 1947 to 2018.




Research Questions

1. Which ideographs have the Heads of State/Government of Pakistan used in their Inaugural Speeches? 

2. To what extent are the ideographs of the Heads of State/Government of Pakistan specific to civil and military leaders? 

3. What historical and political circumstances (motivated/compelled) Heads of State/Government of Pakistan to use particular ideographs?

4. How have the ideographs been used in the speeches diachronically?

Literature Review

Ideograph gave a new orientation to rhetorical scholarship (McKerrow, 2010). The concept differs from prior conceptions of god and devil terms by Weaver (1953), calling attention to social rather than rational or ethical functions of words and becoming more persuasive because of its socializing force (Connelly, 2010). As such, it creates a sense of collectivity and produces a unity of commitment (Woodward, 2003). It gathers in concepts of symbols and ideology (Miller & Fox, 2007) and is rooted both in Burke’s symbolic perspective as well as Marxist materialist critique of ideology (Terrell-Curtis, 2012). Thus, it establishes a new way of understanding

the symbolic and the materialist. McGee (1980) defines ideograph as an:

…ordinary language term found in political discourse. It is a high-order abstraction representing a collective commitment to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal. It warrants the use of power, excuses behaviour and belief, which might otherwise be perceived as eccentric or antisocial, and guides behaviour and belief into channels easily recognized by a community as acceptable and laudable. It is culture-bound. (p. 15)

A critical analysis of McGee’s definition reveals four major characteristics of ideographs. First, as ordinary language terms (e.g., <democracy>, <freedom>, <terrorism>, <dictatorship>), ideographs regularly appear in the discourse of the political elite as well as the ordinary people. Second, as high-order abstractions, ideographs are fuzzy and ambiguous, defying concrete definitions. They derive force and utility from their fuzziness (DeChaine, 2005), which provides them flexibility in usage in a range of possible meanings (Vrooman, Sia, Czuchry, & Bollinger, 2018). Third, ideographs justify the exercise of power even for behaviour and belief, otherwise perceived as antisocial or eccentric and taking action or not taking it, for that matter, is justified in the name of ideographs. Fourth, the meanings of ideographs are culture-bound. Ideographs exist in all societies, and as such, their use is universal (Lee, 2009). 

Ideographs can broadly be divided into two categories: positive and negative. Positive ideographs guide behaviour and belief into channels easily recognized as acceptable and laudable. For example, <freedom> and <equality> are positive ideographs justified on their call for socially acceptable behaviour. On the other hand, negative ideographs (e.g., <terrorism> and <corruption>) may guide behaviour and belief negatively by branding unacceptable behaviour. Therefore, negative ideographs also play an important role in fostering collective identity when members of a society define themselves by as much disapproval of the ideas presented through negative ideographs as they do by showing commitment to the ideas encapsulated in the positive ideographs (Winkler, 2006). 

Ideographs are not philosophical abstractions but words that exist in real discourse (McGee, 1980). As such, their meanings are determined socially rather than rationally (Hackert, 2012). The meaning-making mechanism of ideographs has two structural dimensions: diachronic or vertical and synchronic or horizontal. The diachronic structure involves reference to the history of an ideograph and points to its precedent usages in previous situations. For instance, Rhidenour (2008) conducted a diachronic analysis of <collateral damage> by exploring its usages from World Wars I and II to the firebombing of Tokyo and Vietnam as well as the rise of technology in the Gulf War to the present. Thus, beginning from the current time, <collateral damage> is traced back to its initial use in the past. 

On the other hand, synchronic dimension refers to the way ideographs function presently or at the given moment when people actually make use of the terms as rhetorical forces. In other words, it helps explain how ideographs relate to or clash with each other. In the synchronic constellation, meanings of ideographs are determined by their relation or tension with other ideographs or ideographic clusters. For instance, President Nixon made synchronic use of ideographs in the Watergate conflict by linking ideographs of <principle of confidentiality> with < the rule of law>. Thus, he justified his refusal to give documents to Congress by invoking the ideograph of <principle of confidentiality>. Scholars/ideographic critics have, therefore, analyzed ideographs either from diachronic or synchronic perspectives or both. The current study used a diachronic perspective for the analysis of ideographs in the inaugural speeches. 

A review of literature on the analysis of ideographs in political speeches reveals that such research work is non-existent in Pakistan. As such, the researcher explored foreign contexts. Such studies can broadly be grouped into cross-sectional and longitudinal: Among the cross-sectional studies, some research (e.g. Scheele, 1984; Delgado,1999) examined speeches by a single leader through inductive approach – that is, the researcher does not have a list of pre-determined ideographs; rather, ideographs are explored in one or more than one speeches. In contrast, others (e.g. Pietrucci, 2012; Zamora, 2015) analyzed cross-sectional data of speeches by a single leader through deductive approach – that is, the researcher looks for a pre-determined list of ideographs, one or more than one, either in a single speech or a number of speeches.   To the second group belong studies that used longitudinal analysis. This group, again, used either inductive or deductive approaches for studying ideographs. Using the former approach, Bajema (2007) examined ideographs in the twelve addresses delivered by President George W. Bush to the nation between September 11, 2000, to May 1, 2003.  On the contrary, other longitudinal ideographic research applied a deductive approach. For example, Coe (2007) analyzed the ideograph of <freedom> in sixty-four State of the Union and eleven Inaugural Addresses delivered by US presidents from 1933 to 2006, a period spanning more than seven decades. 

Methodology

Research in applied linguistics, for the most part, is interdisciplinary in nature, which studies language use in a range of social contexts and involves the application of a variety of methods (Croker, 2009; Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky, & Starfield, 2018). The current study is also no exception, which is qualitative in nature and sits at the intersection of linguistics, rhetorical studies and communication studies. In the light of research design continua mentioned by Perry (2011) and Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky, and Starfield (2018), as illustrated through a dotted line in Figure 1, this study is primary, applied and longitudinal and used qualitative, exploratory and macro-level approach for broad coverage of ideographs in inaugural speeches over the seven-decade long political context of Pakistan. This design best suited the needs of the study for several reasons: First, the conceptual framework of the study was based on the constructivist paradigm, which concerned itself with understanding and interpreting meaning-making in the mass consciousness through analyzing texts of inaugural speeches by Pakistani Heads of State/Government. Second, the study was longitudinal and extended over a long period of time to develop a deep understanding of the ideographs used in the Pakistani inaugural speeches. 

Figure 1

Research Design Continua



Third, the research questions posed by the study entailed understanding the subjective meanings of ideographs as used by the Pakistani Heads of State/Government in their inaugural speeches. This, in turn, necessitated the researcher to closely position himself to these rulers and see the Pakistani socio-political context from their angles. Hence, the researcher approached the data from an emic or ‘insider’ perspective and used the rulers’ “own terms and concepts to describe their worlds when analyzing data and presenting findings” (Croker, 2009, p. 8).  Fourth, the study is exploratory and inductive in nature as, to the researcher’s best knowledge, there is no previous study conducted for identification and analysis of ideographs used in the seven-decade long spectrum of Pakistani inaugural speeches. Moreover, the study did not pose any hypothesis for testing through a confirmatory approach. Fifth, the study did not primarily aim to generalize its findings to other socio-political contexts but tried to learn about the specific and the distinctive in Pakistani setting as an end in itself. It leaves it up to the readers to decide as to what extent the findings are relevant to their own contexts. Sixth, the study did not follow a linear or formulaic sequence; rather, it was simultaneous and iterative, calling for constant going back and forth between data collection, analysis and interpretation. Seventh, like any other qualitative study, the researcher was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis in this research. It was against this backdrop that the study analyzed inaugural speeches by Pakistani Heads of State/Government. While the data involved analysis of ideographs in inaugural speeches, the study applied the rhetorical analytical model of Ideographic Criticism developed by McGee in 1980. The data was collected and analyzed in several steps, following a snowball approach, as explained below. 




Data Collection 

First, a dependable population frame, that is, a list of Heads of State/Government who ruled the country since creation, was developed from the National Assembly of Pakistan’s website (http://www.na.gov.pk/en/index.php) where complete and detailed lists of the Governor Generals, the Presidents and the Prime Ministers of Pakistan, who ruled from the country’s founding to date, was available. About military rulers, such information was gathered from books on Pakistan’s political history. 

The next step involved data collection in varied forms, that is, both texts of the speeches as well as their audios/videos for two reasons: (a) to avoid reliance on a single form/source for text authentication; (b) to verify the language, English or Urdu, in which the speeches were originally delivered. Thus, this stage of data collection entailed a multiple-source approach. As such, a list of some potential data collection sources was prepared, which included the National Library of Pakistan, Islamabad; Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC) Headquarters, Islamabad (Radio Pakistan); and Pakistan Television (PTV) Headquarters, Islamabad, which were personally visited by the researcher. At this stage, an Urdu compilation by Chaudhry (1997) on inaugural speeches by Heads of State/Government of Pakistan was of great help. Moreover, visits to the Directorate of Electronic Media & Publications (DEMP), Islamabad; the Library of National Assembly, Islamabad; Press Information Department (PID), Islamabad; and National Archives of Pakistan were of great help in the collection of the target speeches. 

After collecting written texts of the speeches, the original language of the speeches was cross-checked from videos obtained from Pakistan Television (PTV); audios gathered from Radio Pakistan (RaP) headquarters located in Islamabad and its regional headquarters in Peshawar, Karachi and Lahore; and text of speeches published in the RaP Urdu magazine Aahang. In case of non-availability of data from such sources, reliance was placed on non-official sources, that is, the national English and Urdu dailies. In this way, a total of fifty-eight speeches of Heads of State/Government from 1947-2018 were collected, which contained a total of 124,363 words, averaging 2,144 words apiece. 

Data Analysis

Following the general guidelines given by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), analysis was carried out through

managing data in three stages: Data Preparation, Data Identification and Data Manipulation, which was conducted through word processing and spreadsheet packages, such as MS Word and MS Excel. The first stage involved typing, manual transcription and data entry into an easily retrievable form. MS Word package was used for typing speeches both in English and Urdu (based on Unicode System). Moreover, the texts of speeches found in newspapers and official documents were scanned and retyped. Thus, the entire data was converted into soft form. The typing/retyping of data also later helped in coding and determining the frequency of ideographs in speeches with accuracy and efficiency, which would otherwise have proved to be cumbersome, time-consuming and inaccurate, given its large size.

The next stage was data identification, which involved identifying ideographs and assigning them codes. For this purpose, the study used McGee’s framework of Ideographic Criticism. As identification and analysis of ideographs were qualitative in nature, ideograph was set as a unit of analysis. The analysis was conducted in five steps, which included: identification, translation (in case of Urdu speeches), categorization, contextualization and interpretation. Thus, both positive and negative ideographs in the speeches were identified to isolate ideographs of Pakistani political rhetoric. The process followed an inductive approach and did not look for a pre-determined set of ideographs in the speeches. In so doing, the presence or otherwise of ideographs was explored in the texts stored in MS Word format. To this end, an iterative process was employed, which involved reading and rereading the speeches. Thus, repeated close readings of the speeches were carried out to identify ideographs. The scan for ideographs included single words and phrases or multiple word clusters. As such, only those positive and negative ideographs were selected and analyzed, which had a frequency of 10 or above in both English and Urdu speeches taken together or in either of the languages. Following McGee’s categorization of ideographs, the data was colour-coded—a well-established technique for qualitative data analysis (Aubel, 1994; Thyer, 2009; Anderson, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The ideographs identified thus were entered into spreadsheets for the subsequent count, and a list of ideographs was prepared.

The bilingual nature of the data involved both translation and transliteration. The present study used the transliteration system based on International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) system for Urdu as applied and explained in Oxford Urdu-English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2013). During translation and transliteration, the Urdu script was written in Jameel Noori Nastaleeq font style using MS Word Unicode. Moreover, the ideographs, their transliteration and glosses were enclosed within chevrons or angle brackets <---->, slashes /---/ and square brackets [---] respectively, that is,????> > /?v?:m/ [people]. All possible effort was made to ensure that the font style, script, and diacritics, if any, are accurate and consistent. 

Results and Discussion

In all, 493 ideographs were identified in the inaugurals speeches. However, analyzing such a large number of ideographs was practically impossible. As such, based on the criterion of 10-frequency, as mentioned above, a total of 58 ideographs (47 Positive and 11 Negative), as tabulated at Appendix A, were analyzed diachronically; the fifty-eight ideographs were divided into six major Thematic Domains, which included Economy-Focused, Governance-Focused, Nationalism-Focused, Politics-Focused, Religion and Values-Focused and Society-Focused Ideographs, as detailed at Appendix B.  A number of similarities and differences were observed in the employment of both Positive and Negative Ideographs by Heads of State/Government. As regards 47 Positive Ideographs, 14 appeared in the speeches of all Heads of State/Government, that is, Governor Generals, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Military Leaders. These 14 common Positive Ideographs included: <country>, <nation>, <Pakistan>, <state>, <Islam>, <cause>, <justice>, <equality>, <democracy>, <constitution>, <stability>, <progress>, <citizens> and <people>. Among these ideographs, the highest use of <country>, <Islam> and <stability> was found in the Inaugural Speeches of Military Leaders, whereas the highest incidence of <democracy>, <justice> and <people> occurred in the Inaugural speeches of Prime Ministers. On the other hand, the highest use of <nation>, <Pakistan>, <state>, <cause>, <citizens> and <equality> appeared in the speeches of Governor Generals, whereas the highest frequency of <constitution> and <progress> was found in the speeches of Presidents. These ideographs revealed that all Heads of State/Government chiefly relied on nationalist sentiment. Among these, <Pakistan> emerged as the highest frequency ideograph in the Inaugural Speeches of Heads of State/Government of Pakistan, whereas <country> and <nation> appeared as the third and fourth frequently employed ideographs in the Inaugural Speeches, respectively. 

The high incidence of these ideographs in the inaugurals also indicated their significance in Pakistani political rhetoric. These ideographs occurred in the inaugurals right from the creation of Pakistan in August 1947 and recurred in the speeches in the subsequent decades till the last inaugural in the country’s history in September 2018. The 14 common ideographs mentioned above did not contain any Economy-Focused Ideographs, which indicated that all Heads of State/Government chiefly relied on ideological orientation instead of real issues. Moreover, in the speeches of Military Leaders, 06 Positive Ideographs, that is, <country>, <dignity>, <economy>, <Islam>, <law and order> and <stability> and 02 Negative Ideographs, that is, <bribery> and <crisis> had the highest percentage in the Inaugural Speeches.

The analysis also revealed that the Heads of State/Government used ideographs in the speeches for a variety of purposes, including justification of self-rule, policies, decisions, actions, schemes/programmes, appeal for unity and support, showing commitment, blaming politicians/the Opposition. The analysis also showed that the ideographs were usually invoked in three types of situations in the Inaugural Speeches. One, a crisis arising out of death or serious illness of Heads of State or Government; Second, a political crisis emanating from the imposition of Martial Law, dissolution of Assemblies or at times their restoration and disqualification of Heads of Government by the Supreme Court of Pakistan; Third, the coming into power of new leadership after due process of elections. Moreover, the diachronic analysis of these ideographs in the inaugural speeches showed a certain evolution over time. For instance, diachronically, the ideograph <accountability> in the speeches appeared in two broader connotations: principle and process. Likewise, the ideograph <tax> diachronically occurred in the speeches as a system and an obligation.  <Tax> appeared as a system in the initial decades (1977-1984), and the main focus during this time was on reforms in the tax system, whereas as an obligation, the ideograph appeared in the last decade as a legal obligation rather than an option. Similarly, the ideograph <economy> appeared in two main connotations: system and state/condition. As a system, <economy> occurred in two forms: conventional (Western) and Islamic, but as a state/condition, <economy> also had two forms: weak and strong. Thus, throughout the speeches, the bust and boom in <economy> remained visible. In the same fashion, the ideograph <Islam> showed up in the speeches in three different connotations, that is, as a force, religion and system. 

Furthermore, the ideographs recurred in the inaugurals over decades and consistency in the recurrence of ideographs in the speeches was observed. As such, it could be argued that these ideographs were mostly repetitive in nature and more often than not, the same ideograph was used in different situations and contexts across decades. For instance, the diachronic analysis of <???????> /mæh?g?:i/ )price hike( showed that the term first appeared in inaugurals in 1985 and then recurred in the subsequent decades in the inaugural speeches. Similarly, the ideograph <health> appeared first in inaugurals in 1956, almost nine years after the creation of Pakistan, and it recurred in the subsequent decades till 2018. In the like manner, the ideograph <education> first showed up in the speeches in 1948 and continued to recur in the subsequent decades until 2018. The same was the case with <corruption> ideograph, which first appeared in 1947 and continued to recur in the speeches of Prime Ministers, Presidents and Military Leaders till 2018. Thus, the ideograph was used over decades for justification of self-rule, policies and actions. It follows that the ideographs which appeared in the inaugural speeches are likely to recur in future inaugural speeches because these constitute the rhetorical culture of Pakistan. Moreover, the 58 ideographs analysed in this study were mostly abstract in nature such as <equality>, <freedom> and <progress>. However, 07 ideographs, that is, <citizens>, <common man>, <labour>, <minorities>, <people>, <refugees> and <women> seemed too concrete and far more material in nature to work as ideological abstractions. Although these ideographs existed materially, they referred less to actual <labour> or <women> than to an ideological understanding of the rhetorical meanings of these ideographs. Thus, the concept of ideograph has been expanded from abstraction to material objects over time. 

Conclusion

This study is a maiden effort of its kind in Pakistan. As such, it is hoped to contribute at four levels: Theory (to study ideographs), Method (employing Ideographic Framework), Genre (Inaugural Speeches) and Context (Pakistan). Since it was a macro-level work with a breadth of coverage spread across the entire canvas of over a seven-decade long political history of Pakistan, in-depth analyses of the ideographs were not possible—an inherent limitation of macro-level studies. However, the study offers greater scope for future research in the country’s context. Modelled on it, future studies could continue macro-level research on inaugural speeches, which would not only make the inaugural genre a well-established part of research culture in Pakistan but would also help develop a rich repository of ideographs used in such speeches. Moreover, micro-level studies on inaugurals can be carried out, choosing one or two ideographs for exhaustive in-depth analysis, either diachronically, synchronically or both. Furthermore, the ideographic evolution of each Head of State/Government could be studied by analyzing subsequent speeches following the inaugural during their entire term in office. It would also be useful to analyze ideographs in the speeches delivered by the Opposition Leaders or Heads of the Opposition Parties in the National Assembly, particularly following the inaugural speeches by the ruling leadership. Moreover, while this study analyzed the target speeches from an Ideographic Perspective, the same speeches could be analyzed from other perspectives (e.g., Move Analysis, Corpus Analysis, Topical Analysis) to examine new dimensions and find out useful insights for future research. Last but not least, there is a dire need to compile and maintain an official genre-wise online archival records of speeches by Heads of State/Government to ensure easy accessibility to authentic data for future studies.  

Appendix A

Positive Ideographs and their Equivalents (English and Urdu)

S. No	Language	Ideograph	Frequency	Total
1	English	<Pakistan>	170	391
	Urdu	<???????> [Pakistan]	221
2	English	<people>	201	347
	Urdu	????>> /?v?:m/	146
3	English	<nation>	79	259
	Urdu	???>> /q?:m/	180
4	English	<country>	111	244
	Urdu	???>> /m?lk/	133
5	English	<election(s)>	97	160
	Urdu	????????>>/?nt?ex?:b?:t?/	63
6	English	<democracy>	65	153
	Urdu	???????>> /d??mhu:r?j?t?/	88
7	English	<constitution>	85	149
	Urdu	????>>/?:i:n/	64
8	English	<progress>	30	120
	Urdu	<????> /t??r?qqi/	90
9	English	<institution(s)>	13	81
	Urdu	?????? / ?????>> /?d??:r?; ?d??:ro?/	68
10	English	<peace>	39	72
	Urdu	???>>/?mn/	33
11	English	<education>	17	69
	Urdu	<?????>/t???li:m/	52
12	English	<women>	22	62
	Urdu	<??????> /x?v?:t?i:n/	40
13	English	<economy>	28	62
	Urdu	<?????> /m??i:??t?/	34
14	English	<Islam>	21	58
	Urdu	<?????> /?sl?:m/	37
15	English	<stability>	23	58
		<???????> /?st?ehk?:m/	35
16	English	<rights>	30	57
	Urdu	<????> /h?qu:q/	27

17	English	<law>	25	54
	Urdu	<?????> /q?:nu:n/	29
18	English	<reforms>	38	47
	Urdu	<???????> /?sl?:h?:t/	9
19	English	<state>	34	46
	Urdu	<?????> /r?j?:s?t?/	12
20	English	<justice>	20	43
	Urdu	<?????> /?ns?:f/	23
21	English	<prosperity>	11	43
	Urdu	<???????> /x??h?:li/	32
22	English	<change>	18	41
	Urdu	<??????> /t??bd?i:li/	23
23	English	<freedom>	9	41
	Urdu	<?????> /?:z?:d?i/	32
24	English	<investment>	12	37
	Urdu	<?????? ????> /s?rm?:j?k?:ri/	25
25	English	<citizens>	16	35
	Urdu	<< ???? / <??????> /?æhri/ /?æhrio?/	19
26	English	<accountability>	8	34
	Urdu	<??????> /eht?es?:b/	26
27	English	<minorities>	13	33
	Urdu	<???????/???????> /eql?jeto?/	20
28	English	<welfare>	27	32
	Urdu	<???? ? ?????> /f?l?:ho b?hbu:d/	5
29	English	<labour>	18	31
	Urdu	<?????> /m?zd?u:r/	13
30	English	<faith>	29	31
	Urdu	<?????> /i:m?:n/	2
31	English	<common man>	18	31
	Urdu	<??? ????> /?:m ?:d?mi/	13
32	English	<dignity>	6	29
	Urdu	<????> /v?q?:r/	23
33	English	<security>	23	27
	Urdu	<???????> /s?kj?r?ti/	4
34	English	<law and order>	8	27
	Urdu	<??? ? ????> /?mno: ?m?:n/	19
35	English	<tax>	12	27
	Urdu	<????> /teks/	15
36	English	<unity>	12	24
	Urdu	<?????> /?t?t?eh?:d?/	12
37	English	<agriculture>	11	23
	Urdu	<?????> /z?r?:??t?/	12
38	English	<health>	7	20
	Urdu	<???> /sehh?t?/	13
39	English	<system>	7	19
	Urdu	< ????> /n?z?:m/	12
40	English	<media>	6	18
	Urdu	<?????> /mi?di?/	12
41	English	<refugee(s)>	13	17
	Urdu	<???????> /m?h?:d??ri:n/	4
42	English	-	0	17
	Urdu	<????> /k?rsi/	17
43	English	<equality>,	4	17
	Urdu	<??????> /m?s?:v?:t? /	13
44	English	<cause>	16	16
	Urdu	-	0
45	English	<employment>	2	16
	Urdu	<??????> /ro:zg?:r/	14
46	English	<referendum>	12	13
	Urd	<???????????> /?st??sv?:b?r?:e/	1
47	English	<press>	5	12
	Urdu	<????> /pres/	7

 

Appendix A (Continued)

Negative Ideographs and their Equivalents (English and Urdu)

S. No	Language	Ideograph	Frequency	Total
1	English	<corruption>	15	38
	Urdu	????????> > /b?d???nv?:ni/ ; ?????>>/k??r?p?(?)n/	23
2	English	<crisis>	14	29
	Urdu	<????? > /bohr?:n/	15
3	English	<poor>	10	20
	Urdu	????>>/??ri:b/	10
4	English	<terrorism>	6	19
	Urdu	???? ????> > /d?æh??t? g?rd?i/	13
5	English	<poverty>	5	16
	Urdu	????>>/??rb?t?/	11
6	English	<dictatorship>	3	13
	Urdu	?????>>/?:m?r?jj?t?/ ; ????????>>/?:m?r?jj?t?o?/	10
7	English	<unemployment>	1	13
	Urdu	?? ???????/?????????>> /bero:zg?:ri/	12
8	English	-	0	13
	Urdu	??????>>/m?n???i?:t?/ [drugs]	13
9	English	<bribery>	1	12
	Urdu	????>>/r??v?t?/	11
10	English	<martial law>	5	10
	Urdu	????? ??? >>/m?:r??l l?:/	5
11	English	-	0	10
	Urdu	??????? >>/mæh?g?:i/ [price hike]	10

Distribution of Ideographs According to Related Domains (Appendix B)

S. No	Domains	Positive Ideographs	Negative Ideographs
1	Economy-Focused Ideographs	<agriculture>, <economy>, <tax> <employment>, <labour>, <investment>, <prosperity>,	<poor>, <poverty>, <???????> <unemployment>,
2	Governance-Focused Ideographs	<accountability>, <education>, <health>, <system> <institutions>, <law>, <press>, <stability>, <law and order>, <media>, <progress>, <reforms>, <change>, <security>,	<bribery>, <crisis>, <corruption>, <terrorism>
3	Nationalism-Focused Ideographs	<country>, <nation>, <Pakistan>, <state>	Nil
4	Politics-Focused Ideographs	<constitution>, <democracy>, <elections>, <referendum>, <????>	<dictatorship>, <martial law>
5	Religion and Values-Focused Ideographs	<Islam>, <faith>, <cause>, <dignity>, <equality>, <freedom>, <justice>, <peace> <unity>	Nil
6	Society-Focused Ideographs	<citizens>, <common man>, <minorities>, <people>, <women> <refugees>, <right(s)>, <welfare>	<??????>
Total		47	11

References

• Ahmad, S., Arshad, A., & Rubab, Z. (2019). A critical discourse analysis of Prime Minister Imran Khan's victory and inaugural speech. Contemporary Dilemmas: Education, Politics and Values, Year VI (Special Edition). Retrieved from
• Anderson, E. I. (2013). Supporting crisis survivors: A resource for Careprofessionals and lay people. Indiana, USA: Xlibris Corporation.
• Aubel, J. (1994). Guidelines for studies using the group interview technique (Vol. 68). International Labour Organization.
• Bajema, H. A. (2007). Islam as a rhetorical constraint: the post-September 11th speaking of George W. Bush. (Unpublished thesis). Communication Studies. Retrieved from
• Chaudhry, L. A. (1997). Taqareer-e-Sarbarahan-e- Pakistan (Awaleen Khitabat): 1947-1997. Lahore: Ganj Shakar Printing Press.
• Coe, K. (2007). The language of freedom in the American presidency, 1933-2006. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37(3), 375-398.
• Connelly, E. M. (2010). [Redacted Text] and surveillance: An ideographic analysis of the struggle between national security and privacy (Unpublished Master's thesis). Georgia State University, College of Arts and Sciences.
• Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham, & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 3-24). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• DeChaine, D. R. (2005). Global humanitarianism: NGOs and the crafting of community. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books.
• Delgado, F. (1999). The rhetoric of Fidel Castro: Ideographs in the service of revolutionaries. The Howard Journal of Communications, 10(1), 1-14. doi:0.1080/106461799246861
• Hackert, S. (2012). The emergence of the English native speaker. In R. J. Watts, & D. Britain Eds.), Language and Social Processes 4, 1-306, Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.
• Lee, R. (2009). Ideographic criticism. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism: Perspectives in action (pp. 285-320). Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
• Lodhi, M. A., Mansoor, R., Shahzad, W., Robab, I., & Zafar, Z. (2018). Comparative study of linguistic features used in the inaugural speeches of American presidents. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(6), 265-280.
• McGee, M. C. (1980). The
• McKerrow, R. E. (2010). Research in rhetoric: A glance at our recent past, present, and potential future. The Review of Communication, 10(3), 197-210.
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. USA: Jossey-Bass.
• Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. J. (2007). Postmodern public administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
• Munir, M. (2014). Critical discourse analysis of Benazir Bhutto's selected speeches (unpublished M Phil dissertation). GIFT University, Gujranwala, Pakistan, Department of English Language and Literature.
• Naqvi, S. R. (2017). Patterning through linguistic posterity: A socio-cognitive discourse analysis of Bhutto's political rhetoric (Unpublished MS thesis). COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT) Lahore Campus, Department of English, Lahore.
• Oxford University Press. (2013). Oxford Urdu- English dictionary. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
• Perry, F. L. (2011). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. New York, USA: Routledge.
• Phakiti, A., Costa, P. D., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (2018). Applied linguistics research: Current issues, methods, and trends. In A. Phakiti, P. D. Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 5-29). London: UK.
• Pietrucci, P. (2012). Strategic maneuvering through shifting ideographs in political discourse. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(3), 291-311. doi:10.1075/jaic.1.3.02pie
• Rhidenour, K. (2008). Ideographs, fragments, and strategic absences: An ideographic analysis of
• Scheele, H. Z. (1984). Ronald Reagan's 1980 acceptance address: A focus on American values. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48(1), 51-61. doi:10.1080/105703 18409374141
• Terrell-Curtis, K. B. (2012). Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Obama
• Thyer, B. (2009). The handbook of social work research methods. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications.
• Vrooman, S. S., Sia, T., Czuchry, M., & Bollinger, C. (2018). Mediagasm, ironic nerds, and mainstream geeks: A multimethodological ideographic cluster analysis of
• Weaver, R. M. (1953). The ethics of rhetoric. Chicago: H. Regnery Co.
• Winkler, C. K. (2006). In the name of terrorism: Presidents on political violence in the Post- World War II Era. Albany, USA: State University of New York Press.
• Woodward, G. C. (2003). The idea of identification. Albany, New York, USA: State University of New York Press.
• Zamora, A. G. (2015). 'I am also a Londoner': An ideographic analysis of David Cameron's assault on