IDEOLOGICAL POLARIZATION IN GLOBAL CONFLICT: CORPUS-BASED CDA OF ENGLISH MEDIA REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RUSSO-UKRAINIAN CONFLICT

Abstract

The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, one of the most significant geopolitical issues of the 21st century, has drawn considerable attention from global media. This study investigates how the conflict is framed in the news reports of Tehran Times and The New York Times, focusing on the linguistic constructions of pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian stances. The research is based on the premise that media discourse is shaped by underlying ideological biases, influenced by the social, political, and economic contexts in which media outlets operate. The study draws on an eclectic framework combining Van Leeuwen’s socio-semantic model, Halliday’s Transitivity model, and Van Dijk’s Ideological Square to interpret the ideological implications of these linguistic choices. The findings indicate that The New York Times and Tehran Times media representation of Russo-Ukrainian conflict is biased. It reveals that Tehran Times adopts a pro-Russian stance, foregrounding Russia’s military actions and frames them positively as strategic, coordinated, or expected, rather than aggressive. It backgrounds Russian forces as recipients as being repelled, or fought off against Ukraine. Whereas, Ukraine is consistently framed as a Western proxy, with its forces depicted as instruments of NATO and U.S. interests rather than independent actors in the conflict. On the other hand, The New York Times takes an anti-Russian stance, by consistently portraying Russia as the sole aggressor and invader, foregrounding Ukrainian victimhood. Thus, the present study demonstrates how linguistic choices in media discourse not only reflect but also reinforce ideological biases. It underscores the role of media in shaping public perception and geopolitical alignment through linguistic framing of the global conflicts.