EVALUATIVE LANGUAGE IN POLITICAL INTERVIEWS WITH PAKISTANI POLITICIANS: AN SFL-BASED APPRAISAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

This study investigates the evaluative language employed by key Pakistani politicians in their political interviews.
Six interviews were selected for analysis—two interviews each with Imran Khan, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and
Shahbaz Sharif. Following Martin and White’s Appraisal Framework (2005), the relative frequency of various
appraisal resources was calculated using the UAM Corpus Tool. The findings revealed that all types of major
appraisal resources—attitude, engagement, and graduation, along with their subcategories such as affect, judgment,
appreciation, monoglossia, heteroglossia, force, and focus—were used in their interviews. Imran Khan employed
more negative attitudinal resources, particularly the subtype judgement, than others. He evaluated his opponents
negatively and held them responsible for Pakistan's decline. Bilawal Bhutto was found to use more appreciation
resources and appraised the coalition government for lifting Pakistan out of the crisis. Shahbaz Sharif
predominantly used the affect subtype of attitude to convey emotional appeals and support his economic recovery
agenda. Notably, Imran Khan and Bilawal Bhutto used monoglossia and closed space for multiple voices in one of
their interviews, whereas Shahbaz Sharif employed heteroglossia and opened space for multiple voices in both of his
interviews. He also consistently used the force subtype of graduation to emphasize the urgency of international aid
for flood victims in Pakistan and the importance of Pak-China friendship. The study concludes that politicians use
evaluative language as a powerful tool in their political interviews and speeches to position themselves positively
while criticizing and discrediting opponents in political discourse. By employing evaluative language, they influence
public opinion and promote their political agendas.