Abstract
The study of the interrelationship between language, conflict and discourse and its linguistic manifestations is increasingly gaining academic interest and establishing itself as a field of research. However, despite the growing research on linguistic aggression and conflict, the Ukrainian crisis has received scant attention from language scholars (but see A’Beckett, 2019, for instance). This claim becomes evident when compared to the great amount of work published in the fields of social and political sciences (e.g. Baysha, 2019; Bolin et al., 2016; Wynnyckyj and Plokhy, 2019, to mention a few). To fill this gap in the literature, the volume under review provides an overview of how the crisis is discursively constructed by Ukrainian and Russian authorities and elites and by (ex)citizens, as well as by other media operating in these countries, such as Polish newspapers in Ukraine.
The introductory chapter, written by Natalia Knoblock, offers a detailed summary of the state of the art and provides an overview on the contributions to this volume. The monograph consists of thirteen diverse chapters and draws on multiple theoretical and analytical frameworks, including critical discourse studies, critical metaphor analysis, multimodal analysis, and corpus linguistics. However, the volume could benefit from being structured thematically or based on methodology to allow greater clarity since its chapters do not follow a clear order or structure.
Political discourse is the central focus of chapters 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10. Chapter 1 (by Tatyana Karpenko-Seccombe) explores parliamentary debates and draws on cross-linguistic and corpus-assisted discourse analyses to examine the ideologies and stances of both countries relating to the crisis. Chapter 2 (by Liudmila Arcimaviciene) compares Putin’s and Poroshenko’s speeches and analyses how violence and conflict is metaphorically represented and instigated in their speeches. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 share similar conclusions, as their authors discuss that Ukraine’s authorities negatively construct Russia through themes of violence and aggression, whereas Russia presents Ukraine as a powerless nation in need of protection. Similarly, Chapter 6 (by Daniel Weiss) scrutinizes Russian TV debates and the use of family metaphors to construct Ukraine as dependent on Russia. Chapter 9 and 10 take up a critical discourse analysis approach to examine local politics. Chapter 9 (by Yulia Abibok) explores the congratulatory speeches of the authorities from Luhansk and Donetsk, two self-proclaimed republics in Ukraine. The author argues that the authorities of these territories create an in-group with Russia as opposed to Ukraine and other Western countries, which are negatively represented in an out-group. By contrast, Chapter 10 (by Halyna Mokrushyna) scrutinizes speeches produced by Andriy Bilestcky, the leader of Ukraine’s far right party, and discusses how his party fosters an anti-Russian sentiment to gain significance in Ukrainian society while spreading a conservative ideology.
On the other hand, chapters 3, 7, and 13 concern discourses relating to laypeople. Chapter 3 (by Ewa Szkdlarek-Smiechowicz and Izabela Blaszczyk) employs corpus linguistics tools to examine the image of the Ukrainian crisis in the Polish media consumed by the Polish diaspora living in Ukraine. Chapter 7 (by Natalia Beliaeva and Corinne A. Seals) examines the use of first-person plural pronouns to examine the identity negotiation between Ukrainians and Ukrainian emigrants in Western countries. The authors discuss the negotiation of in-groups and out-groups depending on their status as residents or emigrants as well as on their positioning regarding the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. Lastly, Chapter 13 (by Ludmilla A’Beckett) addresses the use of linguistic patterns, especially numerical expressions and water metaphors, to analyze the discursive construction of refugees and displaced people in the Russian and Ukrainian press. Moreover, it also highlights some differences from previous research on Western media since these metaphors are used to denounce the effects of the crisis and praise the host community for its solidarity.
Finally, chapters 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 deal with online discourse and creative and verbal counteraction. Chapter 4 (by Natalia Beliaeva and Natalia Knoblock) explores the use of blended names as derogatory terms against politicians in fora and online media to express negative evaluations and emotional values. Chapter 5 (by Olga Baysha) provides a multimodal analysis of the use of memes on Ukrainian Facebook to intensify radicalization during the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. Chapter 8 (by Alla Nedashkivska) explores the use of Ukrainian and its dialects on Facebook as a political tool against Russian to express freedom and individualism from Russia. Chapter 11 (by Alla Tovares) focuses on the resemiotization of a famous 19th century painting on Youtube to promote anti-Russian sentiment and to engage in digital activism and creative insurgency. Lastly, chapter 12 (by Yaroslava Sazonova) shows how humor and ridicule, especially sarcasm and irony, are used by a popular Ukrainian blogger as a means of non-violent resistance against Russia.
Overall, this volume achieves its aim to fill the gaps in the literature of linguistic violence and conflict by highlighting the discursive practices of social actors and the role of language in the Ukrainian crisis. Moreover, not only is this monograph a great contribution to the field, but also a great source of information with diverse ideologies and stances on the conflict. Certainly, it should provide an insightful read to scholars and readers of Discourse Studies who are interested in political conflict as well as in the different types of discourses that were scrutinized in its chapters.