Online Pravda’s Communicative Intentions Regarding the War in Ukraine: A CDA-Based Study of the Website’s Opinion Articles

Mohammed El-Astal (1), Abdulaziz Al-Mutawa (2)
(1) Department of Mass Communication and Public Relations, Gulf University, Sand 26489, Kingdom of Bahrain, Bahrain,
(2) Department of English Literature and Linguistics, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar


This research paper, based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), aimed to uncover how the opinion articles published on discursively depicted the war in Ukraine and the parties involved. To achieve this, two elements of CDA analysis, namely presupposition and structural opposition, were examined. The first element was scrutinized to determine how depicted the war in Ukraine (RQ1), while the second element was analyzed to understand how portrayed the parties involved, whether directly or indirectly, in the war (RQ2). For this study, 83 articles were subject to critical discourse analysis, covering the period from February 25, 2022, to February 24, 2023, the first year of the war. The results obtained from this study indicated that employed various techniques to construct presuppositions and structural oppositions. portrayed the war as a 'special military operation' and a 'proxy war.' The former, characterized as a euphemism, aimed to mitigate the impact of the word, presupposing that the events did not constitute aggression against Ukraine. The latter presupposed that Russia was a victim of a conspiracy. Furthermore, the results revealed that used stigmatization and religious affiliations and terms to construct structural oppositions.

Full text article

Generated from XML file


Atkin, A., & Richardson, J. E. (2007). Arguing about Muslims: (Un)Reasonable argumentation in letters to the editor. *Text & Talk, 27*(1), 1-25. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Bekalu, M. A. (2006). Presupposition in news discourse. *Discourse & Society, 17*(2), 147-172. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Berrocal, M. (2017). 'Victim playing' as a form of verbal aggression in the Czech parliament. *Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5*(1), 81-107. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow, Longman.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), *Discourse as Social Interaction* (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London, Routledge. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Frowe, H. (2022). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Hinton, A. L. (2002). The dark side of modernity: Toward an anthropology of genocide. In A. L. Hinton (Ed.), *Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide* (pp. 1-40). Berkeley: University of California Press. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Holtgraves, T. M. (2002). Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kadmon, N. (2001). Discourse Representation Theory and File Change Semantics ‘(Ch. 2) in Formal Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Keith, A., & Kate, B. (2006). Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Khosravinik, M. (2009). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British general election (2005). *Discourse & Society, 20*(4), 477-498. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Krippendorf, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Melbourne: Sage Publications.

Laqueur, W., & Baumel, J. T. (2001). *The Holocaust Encyclopedia.* New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.

Lillian, D. L. (2006). Neo-conservative racist discourse: A Canadian case study. *Word, 57*(1), 71-95. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Lin, A. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in applied linguistics: A methodological review. *Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34*, 213-232. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Approach. Los Angeles: Sage.

Matu, P. M., & Lubbe, H. J. (2007). Investigating language and ideology: A presentation of the ideological square and transitivity in the editorials of three Kenyan newspapers. *Journal of Language and Politics, 6*(3), 401-418. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Maussen, M., & Grillo, R. (2014). Regulation of speech in multicultural societies: Introduction. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40*, 174-193. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

McElmurry, S. E. (2009). Elvira Arellano: No Rosa Parks: Creation of-us versus them-in an opinion column. *Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31*(2), 182-203. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition. New York and Hove: Psychology Press. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Miller, D. (2002). Promotion and power. In A. Briggs & P. Cobley (Eds.), *Introduction to Media (2nd ed)* (pp. 41-52). London: Longman.

Newmark, P. (1991). About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Norrick, N. R. (2001). Discourse and semantics. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), *The Handbook of Discourse Analysis* (pp. 76-99). Oxford: Blackwell. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Oktar, L. (2001). The ideological representation of representational processes in the representation of them and us. *Discourse & Society, 12*(3), 313-346. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Pace-Sigge, M. (2018). Spreading Activation, Lexical Priming, and the Semantic Web: Early Psycholinguistic Theories, Corpus Linguistics, and AL Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Pettersson, K. (2019). "Freedom of speech requires actions": Exploring the discourse of politicians convicted of hate speech against Muslims. *European Journal of Social Psychology, 49*, 938-952. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Polyzou, A. (2015). Presupposition in discourse: Theoretical and methodological issues. *Critical Discourse Analysis, 12*(2), 123-138. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar] website. (n.d.). *About.* Retrieved from []( website. (2022-2023.) *Opinion.* Retrieved from [](

Saeed, A. (2007). Media, racism, and Islamophobia: The representation of Islam and Muslims in the media. *Sociology Compass, 1*(2), 443-462. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Saleh, N. (2013). *The Complete Guide to Article Writing: How to Write Successful Articles for Online and Print Markets.* Ohio: Writer's Digest Books.

Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. *Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3*, 193-209. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Sheyholislami, J. (2007). Yesterday's «separatists» are today's «resistance fighters»: Mainstream media as agents of hegemony. In J. M. B. Paniagua, G. L. García, P. S. Cremades, & E. S. Alegre (Eds.), *Critical Discourse Analysis of Media Texts* (pp. 95-110). Aldaia, València: Guada Impresores, S. L.

Solanke, I. (2017). Discrimination as Stigma: A Theory of Anti-Discrimination Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd.

Sabah, B., Hani Shaari, A., & Aladdin, A. (2023). Headlines and Hegemony: Unraveling Ideological Narratives in Arab and Western Media’s Portrayal of Arab Women. *Journal of Intercultural Communication, 23*(4), 82–94. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Stalnaker, R.C. (2000). Pragmatic presupposition. In A. Kasher (Ed.), *Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol. IV: Presupposition, Implicature and Indirect Speech Acts* (pp. 16-31). London: Routledge.

Stanton, G. (2013). *The 10 Stages of Genocide.* Retrieved from [](

Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers. *Discourse & Society, 11*(1), 7-49. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

The Moscow Times (2023). *Opinion.* Retrieved from [The Moscow Times](

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. *Discourse & Society, 4*(2), 249-283. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. London: Sage.

van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), *Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis* (pp. 95-120). London: Sage. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. *Discourse & Society, 17*(3), 359-383. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Wikipedia. (n.d.). ** Retrieved from [Wikipedia](

Wodak, R. (2001a). The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), *Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis* (pp. 63-94). London: Sage. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Wodak, R. (2001b). What is CDA about - A summary of its history, important concepts, and its development. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), *Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis* (pp. 1-13). London: Sage. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Wodak, R. (2009). The semiotics of racism: A critical discourse-historical analysis. In J. Renkema (Ed.), *Discourse, of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies* (pp. 311-326). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). *Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology.* In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), *Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis* (2nd ed.; pp. 1-33). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Young, N. (2011). Working the fringes: The role of letters to the editor in advancing non-standard media narratives about climate change. *Public Understanding of Science, 22*(7), 795-809. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Zinken, J., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2008). Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. *Cognitive Linguistics, 19*(1), 141-157. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Zoppi, I. M., & Pedrazzini, A. (2007). The use of evaluative strategies in student writing: A contrastive corpus study. *Journal of Pragmatics, 39*(11), 1999-2021. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Zollmann, S. (2019). Ethical and social implications of the use of conversational agents in the classroom. *AI & Society, 34*, 825-835. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]


Mohammed El-Astal (Primary Contact)
Abdulaziz Al-Mutawa
Author Biographies

Mohammed El-Astal, Department of Mass Communication and Public Relations, Gulf University, Sand 26489, Kingdom of Bahrain

Mohammed Elastal is an assistant professor of public relations at Gulf University, Bahrain. Elastal has a Ph.D. in public relations and three master’s degrees: one in applied linguistics and discourse studies, another in mass communication, and the third in conflict studies. Elastal has extensive experience in teaching communication, journalism, and public relations courses in the Middle East. His research interests include curriculum, writing, public relations, communication, and ethics.

Abdulaziz Al-Mutawa, Department of English Literature and Linguistics, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha

Abdulaziz M. Al-Mutawa is an assistant professor of English literature at Qatar University (QU), Qatar. He holds a Ph. D. and an MA in English literature, and a BA in English language and literature. Al-Mutawa has extensive experience teaching English literature at Qatar University. Currently, Dr. Al-Mutawa is the Associate Dean for Languages, Communication, and Translation (College of Arts and Sciences, QU). His research interests lie mainly in the field of English literature with a focus on Elizabethan writers like Christopher Marlowe and Shakespeare.

El-Astal, M., & Al-Mutawa, A. (2024). Online Pravda’s Communicative Intentions Regarding the War in Ukraine: A CDA-Based Study of the Website’s Opinion Articles. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 24(2), 26–36.

Article Details

Smart Citations via scite_
  • Abstract 43
  • Download PDF 10
  • XML 0