LEXICAL AND PHRASAL AMBIGUITIES IN THE TRANSGENDER PROTECTION BILL 2018 THROUGH A DIALECTICAL RELATIONAL APPROACH (DRA)

Abstract

Dialectical Relational Approach (DRA) has emerged as a leading analytical paradigm in Critical Discourse Studies for examining social issues that are already materially present and discursively observable. Unlike descriptive models that merely map textual features, DRA begins with the identification of an existing social wrong and proceeds through a four‑stage analytical trajectory that interrogates its discursive construction, the obstacles to its resolution, the social order that sustains it, and the possibilities for transformation (Fairclough, 2006, 2016). Responding to academic critiques that research should “discover” rather than “assume” problems, this study clarifies that DRA is premised on the recognition that social wrongs are historically produced, institutionally embedded, and linguistically manifested; thus, the task of analysis is not to invent a problem but to critically examine how it operates, persists, and may be remedied.Using Fairclough’s DRA—while also fulfilling the descriptive, interpretive, and explanatory requirements of his three‑dimensional model—this study critically analyzes the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 of Pakistan as an illustrative case. The bill is examined not as a neutral legal instrument but as a discursive site where language actively shapes identity, legitimacy, and social inclusion. The analysis identifies two interrelated social wrongs: lexical ambiguity at the word level (e.g., transgender, inter‑gender) and phrasal ambiguity at the level of extended constructions (e.g., gender identity, gender expression). These ambiguities, while framed as inclusive, generate interpretive uncertainty, cultural dislocation, and legal indeterminacy—particularly through the erasure of indigenous identity categories such as khawaja sira and khusra. The findings demonstrate that these ambiguities are sustained by sociocultural taboos, institutional silences, and the uncritical borrowing of globalized legal terminology, which collectively hinder meaningful public deliberation and policy clarity. By tracing how these linguistic choices function within broader power structures, the study advances context‑sensitive recommendations for discursive reform, emphasizing culturally grounded terminology and precise legal articulation. Overall, the study underscores the ethical and analytical strength of DRA as a transformative framework, showing that without linguistic precision and social contextualization, even progressive legislation risks reproducing the very marginalization it seeks to address.