EVALUATIVE LANGUAGE IN INDO-PAK CONFLICT: AN APPRAISAL THEORY ANALYSIS OF MINISTERIAL SPEECHES

Abstract

A review of the use of evaluative language in official speeches made by Indian and Pakistani defence and foreign ministers after the 7th May 2025 conflict is conducted in this study. Applying the Appraisal Theory from Martin and White (2005), the research looks at how each country uses Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation to describe narratives of aggression, assigning blame, and expressions of national identity. Analysis of 250-300 word excerpts from four speeches examined expressions of emotion, judgment, inter-speaker alignment, and linguistic intensity. It was found that Pakistani ministers mainly use subjective judgment and language, depicting India as the attacker and themselves as the innocent and morally rightful victims. Instead, Indian officials bring up the idea of strong, responsible actors backed by precise military skills. It is clear that India prefers to give just one version of events, but Pakistan is more likely to use both denial and dismissal techniques when contending with Indian claims. In terms of graduation resources, Pakistan tries to stress belief and emotion more intensely, but India expresses itself in a milder, more controlled manner. They work to give a country’s actions credibility, impact public and world opinion, and strengthen the idea that national sides are different in a period of great conflict. This work fills a gap in research by using Appraisal Theory to analyze the way political language affects the development of Indo-Pak wars. It points out how discourse analysis helps explain the relationship between language, authority, and global relationships in both peacetime and conflict situations.