No more binaries: a case of Pakistan as an anomalistic discourse in American print media (2001–2010)

Discourse shapes our understanding of reality. In the post-9/11 world, American media employed a binary framework of 'us vs. them' to represent nations as either allies or enemies based on their support for the War on Terror. This study focuses on the anomalous case of Pakistan and General Pervez Musharraf. Pakistan's cooperation with the US in the War on Terror created a complex relationship, making its media representation deviate from the simple binary. The study analyzes how this discursive manipulation reflected underlying ideologies in American foreign policy and the negotiation of power between the US and Pakistan. The deployment of numerous US journalists in Pakistan and Afghanistan following 9/11 internationalized news coverage, significantly impacting Pakistan's image. This research examines the American media's portrayal of Musharraf, highlighting the blurring of in-group and out-group boundaries in his representation, departing from the usual portrayal of foreign leaders, which typically centers on their political roles. The study limits its scope to Musharraf as the primary political actor, examining his unique position within the 'friend or foe' dynamic and filling a gap in research on individual actor representation in this context.

The study builds upon the synergy of corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis, addressing criticisms leveled at both approaches. Corpus linguistics is criticized for ignoring context and neglecting the analysis of absences in data, while critical discourse analysis is criticized for using small datasets and a lack of methodological transparency. This research combines quantitative corpus analysis with qualitative critical discourse analysis to overcome these limitations. It draws on Sinclair's notion of a 'lexical item', including 'core', 'collocation', 'colligation', 'semantic preference', and 'semantic prosody'. For critical discourse analysis, the study integrates Reisigl and Wodak's model (nomination, predication, etc.), van Leeuwen's strategies for social actor representation (deletion, rearrangement, substitution), and van Dijk's ideological square ('us vs. them').

The research utilizes a corpus of 509 articles from Time magazine published between September 2001 and December 2010. Time magazine was chosen for its wide circulation and sophisticated analysis. Data was collected from the University library of Karl Franzens University of Graz. GraphColl and Wordsmith software were used to analyze the corpus, focusing on noun collocates of 'Musharraf'. Statistical tests (t-test and MI²) were employed to identify significant and strong collocates. A threshold frequency of 10 was set. Collocates were manually categorized into semantic fields, and the top eight categories were analyzed qualitatively using critical discourse analysis strategies focusing on nomination and predication. The analysis included examining diachronic patterns in Musharraf's mentions, identifying key collocates, and interpreting semantic categories within the broader political context. The limitations of the study include focusing on a single actor, a specific time frame, and restricting the analysis to noun-noun combinations for feasibility.

The analysis revealed a diachronic pattern of Musharraf's mentions in Time magazine, with peaks in 2002 and 2007 corresponding to significant events. Statistical analysis using t-test and MI² showed that Musharraf's identity was primarily presented politically rather than militarily, downplaying his dictatorial past to align with US foreign policy. The strongest collocates included his first name, 'president,' and 'Bush,' highlighting his political identity and relationship with the US. Semantic categorization showed that 'Politics' was the most frequent category, followed by 'Proper Nouns' and 'Country and Nationality', with more than 50% weightage. Qualitative analysis revealed a nuanced portrayal of Musharraf, alternating between ally and a subject of criticism. The media often employed unnamed actors or personified entities like 'Washington' to express criticism, subtly avoiding direct confrontation with US foreign policy. Musharraf's actions in the War on Terror were presented as both positive and negative, reflecting his position as a dubious ally. The low frequency of 'dictator' further emphasized the downplaying of his undemocratic rule. The study found that the 'us vs. them' binary did not fully apply to Musharraf's representation, highlighting his unique, ambiguous position. The study also highlighted the use of the 'power' attribute assigned fluidly and negotiated between the US and Musharraf; used to portray positive or negative aspects according to US foreign policy goals at any given time.

The findings demonstrate how American media discourse constructed a complex and contradictory image of Musharraf. His representation deviated from the simple 'friend vs. foe' binary, instead depicting him as a fluctuating ally whose value depended on his usefulness to US foreign policy. The study's use of corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis effectively revealed subtle discursive strategies used to shape his image, highlighting the power of media in constructing and maintaining uneven power relations between states. The downplaying of Musharraf's dictatorial past and the ambivalent portrayal of his role in the War on Terror expose how media discourse can serve specific ideological purposes. By highlighting the inherent ambiguity and the lack of application of 'us vs. them' dichotomy, the paper challenges existing research which focuses on the clear-cut binary divisions in post-9/11 media representation.

This research contributes to our understanding of how media discourse shapes the perception of foreign leaders and nations, particularly in the context of international relations. The case of Musharraf shows the limitations of simplistic binary frameworks in analyzing complex geopolitical relationships. The study demonstrates the effectiveness of combining corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis for uncovering subtle discursive strategies. Future research could explore similar cases to determine whether this ambiguous representation of foreign actors is common in American media coverage of the War on Terror, or if Musharraf's case is an anomaly.

The study's scope is limited to Time magazine and the period 2001-2010. The focus on a single actor and a specific time frame limits the generalizability of the findings. The analysis also focused mainly on noun-noun collocations, potentially overlooking other significant linguistic features. Despite these limitations, the findings provide valuable insights into the complexities of media representation in international politics.