Constructing competing discourses on the Russo-Ukrainian war: journalistic translation in wartime

Abstract

This study employs critical discourse analysis to examine two opinion articles published in Western press that propose divergent strategies for the West in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The analysis focuses on three key aspects: representations of the war, evaluations, and dialogicality. The study also analyses Ukrainian journalistic translations of the articles. One article argues for equipping Ukraine with all necessary weapons for a swift victory over Russia, while the other supports incremental weapons supplies, leading to a prolonged war. The findings reveal that the former article portrays the war as Ukraine’s fight for independence and a battle to uphold international law, whereas the latter predominantly depicts it as territorial aggression that threatens global nuclear security. The former article employs a wide range of evaluative devices to underscore Russia’s brutality and condemn the delayed provision of Western weapons to Ukraine. In contrast, the other article primarily employs evaluative language to amplify fears of nuclear escalation. Regarding dialogicality, one author structures his text as an implied dialogue with hypothetical opponents, employing rhetorical questions, imperative sentences, irony, and first-person narration, whereas the other author references individuals with institutional authority to validate his assertions. The divergent treatment of these articles by the Ukrainian media, both at the macro and micro levels – reflected in the significant disparity in translations (12 to 1) and the manner in which the articles were reframed during translation – reveals the gatekeeping function of translation and suggests the Ukrainian media’s focus on positive news from the West as a means to keep up the country’s morale.