NLP Persuasive Language Patterns in Competing Pakistani Political Discourses on X (Twitter) During Crisis (2023–2024): A Comparative Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

This study is a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of three Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) persuasive language patterns – reframing, presuppositions and metaphorical framing – in the X (Twitter) discourse of two leading Pakistani political personalities, one in government and the other in opposition, during Pakistan’s political crisis of 2023–2024. Drawing on ten purposively selected X posts (five for each leader), the study explores the differential use of the same persuasive strategies from within and outside institutional power through Fairclough’s (1992; 2003) three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Bandler and Grinder’s (1975) linguistic model from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). Findings suggest that both leaders use the same NLP toolkit but in systematically different ways: the opposition leader’s discourse deploys these patterns to delegitimise state authority, build persecution narratives and sustain mass mobilisation, while the governing leader’s discourse deploys them to construct institutional legitimacy, delegitimise the opposition and perform governance authority. The study proposes the Power-Position Hypothesis as a theoretically generalisable contribution to Applied Linguistics, Critical Discourse Studies, and digital political communication research: The proposition that NLP persuasive patterns in political discourse are systematically shaped by a speaker’s structural position in the political field.