Lingua-Pragmatic Interpretation of the Conflict Between the Individual and Society in the Works of Said Ahmad and George Orwell

The ideological representation of the societyindividual conflict in literary discourse remains a complex issue, particularly when ideology is conveyed not only through thematic content but also through linguistic and pragmatic choices. From this perspective, the present study approaches literary texts as discursive spaces in which tensions between social structures and individual agency are constructed and interpreted through language.
The analysis focuses on the works of Said Ahmad and George Orwell, which offer distinct models of representing this conflict. In line with this orientation, the research is guided by several interconnected objectives, namely (1) to examine the conceptual foundations of the societyindividual conflict within literary discourse; (2) to identify key linguopragmatic mechanisms that shape ideological meaning; (3) to analyze evaluative language, implicit strategies, and connotative elements in constructing ideological framing; (4) to compare the discursive representation of conflict in the selected works, and (5) to determine how linguistic choices influence the perception of power relations and individual autonomy.
The study employs linguopragmatic analysis, discourse analysis, and a comparative literary approach. The texts are examined through close reading, focusing on speech strategies, presuppositions, irony, and context-dependent semantic layers. The findings demonstrate that the society-individual conflict is represented through different ideological models. In the works of S.Ahmad, the conflict is mediated through social harmony and ethical balance, whereas G.Orwell constructs it as a rigid opposition characterized by control and the limitation of personal freedom. Ideological meanings are primarily conveyed through implicit strategies, including irony and evaluative framing.
The study concludes that ideology in literary discourse is systematically realized through linguistic and pragmatic mechanisms, highlighting the value of comparative analysis in identifying both universal and context-specific patterns of the society-individual conflict.