COGNITIVE PRAGMATIC MECHANISMS, AND IDEOLOGICAL FRAMING OF JUSTICE AND PEACE IN IMRAN KHAN’S UNO SPEECH (2019)

Abstract

This study explores the cognitive-pragmatic mechanisms, grammatical patterns such as nominalization. It focuses on modality and ideological framing in Imran Khan’s 2019 UN General Assembly (UNGA) speech. The research integrates three central perspectives: Cognitive Pragmatics, Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), and Ideological Framing Theory. It shows how language and thinking work together to create meanings of justice and peace. The study uses qualitative discourse analysis of the speech transcript. It relies on Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory, Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, and Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Model of Ideology. Imran Khan’s speech makes use of pragmatic inference, implicature, and presupposition to create his moral authority. Grammatical tools such as transitivity, nominalization, and modality affect how people understand agency, obligation, and moral certainty. Nominalization turns abstract ideas like injustice, oppression, and peace into fixed truths. This hides human actions and makes certain beliefs seem natural. Modality shows how necessary, likely, or morally strong something is. Phrases like “we must act” and “the world should respond” turn moral points into universal rules, not just personal views. The way we think about justice and peace shapes how speakers connect with audiences. They use common moral ideas to bring people together. The analysis shows that cognitive-pragmatic and grammatical features work together. They reinforce the divides between oppressors and the oppressed. This portrays Pakistan as a moral player in the global struggle for justice. This synthesis helps cognitive linguistics and critical discourse studies. It shows how cognition, grammar, and ideology work together to shape political meaning.