A Comparative Analysis of Political and Media Discourses About Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

​This book explores the dimension of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It analyzes how political leaders and ordinary people in Ukraine discuss the war.

Book Review: <i>A Comparative Analysis of Political and Media Discourses about Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine</i>

Correction to: A Comparative Analysis of Political and Media Discourses about Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

The European “refugee crisis” spurred heightened political and media discourses on forced migration. Research has surveyed and compared typical frames and discourses, but there are few studies attempting to explain cross-country similarities and differences using contextual elements. This study uses frame analysis to compare Italy and Ireland's parliamentary and media discourses from 2013 to 2022, revealing consistent yet contrasting patterns. Italian politics predominantly uses the threat frame, while media coverage leans towards humanitarian perspectives. In Ireland, politics tends to use a humanitarian frame, contrasting with more negative media narratives. Economic circumstances, political cleavages, numbers of forced migrants hosted and social attitudes do not completely predict these findings; rather, country-specific drivers of frame emergence lead to frames being differently constructed and used in different country contexts. Similar frames may be the result of different processes and divergent frames might not accurately reflect actual divergence in discourse.

The war unleashed by Russia in 2022 is widely presented in online versions of English-language newspapers; Ukraine is constantly in the epicentre of the world news. This study highlights political and ideological contexts of the war in Ukraine, the sociopolitical and cognitive aspects of news according to an interdisciplinary approach considering the language as a social practice. The article highlights the polarization in the presentation of the events and the main actors entitled in the discursive strategies, representing the dichotomy In- versus Out-group. The study is aimed at the investigation of the ideological structures and their manifesting linguistic devices in political discourse based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of discursive strategies for constructing the images of Ukraine and Russia in the British and American press. The integrated Critical Discourse Analysis was applied to the research of the news to study the media discourse and the language, where CDA focuses on social practice, social power and ideology. Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) is used to research the ideology of war images presented in the language of news reports. The relevance of this study determined by the aim is to show the main discursive strategies of polaeization in political media discourse. The research methods of the article combine three vectors of the analysis by Fairclough with explanatory tools (by van Dijk), and the elements of stylistic analysis and Critical Metaphor Analysis. The illustrative material was collected by information search and continuous sample from the open access newspapers and magazines issued in the US and Great Britain (The Daily Mail, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and others). Conclusion. This research argues that polarisation is being demonstrated in the media discourse on the war in Ukraine in 2022. The taxonomy of the identified discursive strategies of polarization deployed in the media political discourse includes labelling, evidentiality, number game, hyperbolism, victimization, personalization and analogy, that can either be used singly or intervened. The discursive strategy of evidentiality is applied to authorities, officials, witnesses that are accepted as trustworthy sources of data; the number game strategy combined with victimization are verbalized by metaphoric simile, metonymy, enumerating and magnifying the numbers with the modifying adverbs; the strategy of hyperbole conveys the positive impression of the in-group and negative acts magnification of the out-group verbalized by metaphor, metonymy, metaphtonymy; the personalization strategy is deployed with the purpose of foregrounding the positive actions of the in-group that implies negative out-group actions; the strategy of analogy is applied in the comparison of the war in Ukraine and the struggle of the Ukrainians for their independence with other historical events. Linguistic means used to realize the discursive strategies of polarization include the conceptual metaphor, metonymy, simile, idioms, metaphtonymy, intertextual allusion and personification.

The present chapter proposes to build bridges between political discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. We intend to bring to light methodological benefits arising from the synergy of (political) discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, pointing to fruitful contribution from French text statistics. Taking the discourses of Nicolas Sarkozy as an example, we show how political discourse analysis can benefit from a reflection on corpora (their constitution, their role in the research process); on linguistic analysis and processing methods (particularly the computer-assisted methods of text statistics); and finally on the interpretative paths at a time of establishment of a numerical hermeneutics.

This paper explores how the maritime border dispute between Albania and Greece is framed through nationalist narratives and media discourse, revealing the persistence of banal nationalism in contemporary Southeast Europe. While formally a legal and diplomatic issue, the dispute has become a symbolic battleground for the articulation of sovereignty, national dignity, and historical justice. Drawing on theories of banal nationalism, symbolic borders, and cultural nationalism , the paper argues that the dispute is embedded in everyday discursive practices that sustain national imaginaries and perpetuate the symbolic boundaries of the nation-state. Through a comparative analysis of media and political discourse in both countries, the paper demonstrates how the maritime border functions not only as a site of geopolitical negotiation, but as a space where the nation is routinely imagined, performed, and defended.

The relevance of this study is conditioned by the comparison of the original texts (in Kazakh) and translated texts (in English) within the framework of the analysis of political discourse and translation analysis. The purpose of the study is to identify the features, patterns, and difficulties for translators to comprehensively assess the adequacy (quality) of the translation and recommendations for compilation to facilitate the translation process. The paper provides a comparative analysis of the modern Kazakh political discourse and its translation into English to identify the features of the translation of language tools, taking into account their pragmatic potential. The theoretical relevance and originality of this research are due to the considerably increased interest in the study of political discourse in the aspect of translation. A comparative approach in political discourse consisting of two languages can be a useful material for studying and comparing political discourse in each of the languages, as well as arouse interest in further research of translation in this language pair. The practical relevance lies in the fact that the presented results can be used in teaching courses of the following disciplines: onomastics, pragmalinguistics, terminology, political science, LSP (language for special purposes), and SPVE (special professional vocabulary of the English language). The materials of this paper can be useful in the field of international relations for international specialists, journalists, translators.

This article provides an exhaustive analysis of American and Russian political discourse through the examination of the linguistic techniques employed by President Joe Biden and President Putin in their speeches. The aim of this research is to examine the linguistic approaches employed in referencing social and political traditions in the United States and Russia, investigate disparities in linguistic strategies within both political discourses, and assess variations in semantic outcomes. The analysis has been conducted to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the linguistic methods of referring to social and political traditions in America and Russia? (2) Do the linguistic strategies differ depending on the political discourse? (3) Is the semantic output different depending on the political discourse? The findings reveal marked differences between the two discourses, reflecting the social and political discrepancies between the political systems of the United States and Russia.

This article examines the tipping point of the Euro crisis as a turning point for EU integration processes. First, I introduce the concept of securitization and its usefulness to grasp breaches within the constitutional order. I then define the concept of ‘crisis’ around which this article revolves. A contextualization of the Spanish bail-out and the ECB’s intervention of mid-2012 follows. Before moving on to the results of the analysis, brief methodological comments are made. Reading the episode at hand through the discourses of a variegated sample of political actors provides hindsight into its complexity. While newspapers’ discursive strategy fits the concept, Rajoy and Draghi’s interventions defy the logic of securitization by acting extraordinarily while denying threats and their own exceptional behavior.

This case study is an example of interdisciplinary research, which couples the linguistic aspects with the study of public political discourse in social media. The purpose of the study is to identify how “realism” terms and national/global agenda are represented in Twitter discourse of leaders of countries which claim to be global powers today. Obviously, it is impossible to claim a high status in the modern world without participation in global discussions (including the level of influence on public opinion in Twitter). We collect data from official accounts of the U.S. President Donald Trump, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Then we propose a research method developed by us which contains 5 stages. The main method of research is traditional content analysis, not only selective (under this or that theory), but also “front-line” one. We are interested in the subject matter (key, most frequent vocabulary) that dominates the considered texts. We separate the same amounts of text (approximately 33 000 words) in the content of the Twitter pages of Trump, Macron, Putin and Medvedev. Then we quantify the words and identify the key concepts which are specific for political realism and political idealism. We perform a “frontal” general analysis of all the most frequently used concepts. We make a quantitative assessment of the nature of the use of political leaders’ key concepts (this stage of analysis is divided on several sub-stages). Finally we compare the frequency of concepts’ use by leaders of the West and Russia.

The role of metaphors in the communication process is one of the major issues facing scholars dealing with discourse analysis today. Their research is important not only from theoretical but also practical point of view. The analysis of political and media discourses, which play a special role in society, is characterized by the fact that, unlike other discourse types (literary and scientific), they occur in real time and therefore generate a strong pragmatic interest. Based on scientific sources, we would like to note that political and media discourses refer to the most verbose type of discourse in the conceptual metaphor. The main purpose of the research is to analyze the metaphors used in the implementation of intensity in political and media discourses in French. Metaphor is one of the main means affecting the recipient. The use of metaphors in political and media discourses varies depending on the adresser's cognitive ability, the level of creativity of metaphorical thinking and his goals. As a result of analyzing specific language materials, it was possible to identify different groups of metaphors (medical metaphors, household metaphors, military metaphors, economic metaphors, etc.). The opinions and considerations made during the study have been explained on concrete language materials (French written press: Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Temps, etc.)..

This paper draws attention to the significance of incorporating decolonial methodologies in analyzing political discourse in a postcolonial world, particularly in Africa. The decolonial approach to political discourse focuses on the ways politics in postcolonial context is imbricated in the logic of coloniality. Decolonial approach is considered necessary rather than sufficient in interrogating the hegemonic structure of colonialism in Africa's political discourse. The paper uses critical discourse analysis situated within decolonial methodologies to analyze former President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan's declaration-of-intent speech to seek re-election. The paper specifically draws on [Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures decolonial options. Duke University Press.] and [Macgilchrist, F. (2014). Media discourse and de/coloniality: A post-foundational approach. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 385–405). Bloomsbury Publishing] decolonial frameworks and [Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Routledge] legitimization model. Situating decolonial approaches together with Chilton's legitimization model is, on the one hand, a way of interrogating hegemonic structures in Goodluck Jonathan's speech and on the other hand works to show the limitation of Chilton's theory in analyzing discourses from Africa. This limitation of Chilton's model underscores the need to bring decolonial approaches in constructing a nuanced understanding of Africa and its epistemic diversity because it is impossible to think of overcoming the coloniality of power without approaching it from the perspective of the colonized.

Isabela and Norman Fairclough have written a very important book whose full significance is perhaps in danger of being missed if we view it simply, in their own self-depiction, as a text for advanced students. Indeed, in what follows I want to argue that their book is much better seen as the occasion for a debate that we desperately need to be having about how to conduct political discourse analysis rather than as the elucidation of an agreed, almost official, methodology for the conduct of such a form of discourse analysis. At times their book reads like the definitive statement of the only credible approach to the analysis of political discourse as both political and as discourse, derived logically and forensically from a consideration of the specificity of the political itself. While I have considerable sympathy for the attempt to reflect and preserve the specificity of the political in an avowedly political discourse analysis, I have rather more problem, as will become clear in what follows, in the methodological absolutism that leads the Faircloughs to present their approach as, in effect, the only way to do political discourse analysis properly. At this stage in its development political discourse analysis needs a proliferation, not a narrowing, of methods and acknowledgement that there is more than one way to analyse political discourse politically. I will argue for a certain methodological pluralism in political discourse analysis, pointing to problems both with the approach to political discourse analysis that the Faircloughs espouse and with their attempt to foreground such an approach in an essentially Aristotelian account of the specificity of the political.

A comparative analysis of Ukrainian and Russian non-official political discourses is presented in the paper. Indicators of emotionality and political interrelations intensity are considered. Political texts of online-media «Ukrainska Pravda» and «Lenta.ru» were used for the research. Period: 2005 – 2019. The indicators were calculated with computer programs (Python language). The difference between the two discourses was observed in 2005-2013. In Ukraine political interrelations intensity indicator is larger, however has been decreasing from 2005 (1,4 – 0,9), in Russia the indicator is much smaller (0,41-0,47). In 2014-2015 in Ukraine the indicator decreased to 0,86-0,88, and in Russia an insignificant growth was observed. This may be explained with information policy change of the Russian mass media because of the «hybrid» war. The general trend in Ukrainian political discourse is decrease in political interrelations intensity, which is interpreted as being a reason of constant non-official mass media discourse digitalization. There is one more difference between the two discourses – in the emotionality indicator. High numbers (0,35-0,42) in Ukraine in 2005-2013 and low ones in Russia (0,19-0,22). And the positive correlation is found between political interrelations intensity indicator and emotionality in Ukraine. And there is no such correlation for Russia, thus political interrelations in the country don’t provide emotions. After 2014 emotionality indicators are almost the same (for Ukraine decrease of the indicator, for Russia – increase). And one more difference is in emotional level of texts about political actors (the countries’ presidents). Here to 2013 a significant difference is observed with high emotionality of messages about Yuschenko and Yanukovych (however in the case of the latter constant decrease of the indicator is observed). In the times of Poroshenko low numbers are discovered, however, in 2019 the largest indicator is fixated. In Russia the less emotional period is for Medvedev, this shows the imitative character of the power change in the country, and from 2014 the indicator growth is observed. Thus, in the first period of digitalization, emotionality and political interrelations intensity indicators seems to be significant to differentiate the authoritative (Russian) and transitive (Ukrainian) regimes.