“Mapping and projecting otherness in media discourse of the Russia–Ukraine war”

Abstract This paper shows how otherness , having a negative representation potential, is covered in media discourse with a focus on the first day of the Russia–Ukraine war. In this article, I specifically investigate the representation of otherness that weaves the web of relations within the “us versus them” narrative espoused most strongly by Teun A. Van Dijk (1992. Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse and Society 3. 87–118, 2002. Discourse and racism. In David Goldberg & John Solomos (eds.), The Blackwell companion to racial and ethnic studies , 145–159. Oxford: Blackwell) and further developed within the premises of a proximisation theory ( e.g. , Cap 2013. Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins; Chilton 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice . London: Routledge). This framework concerns the positive self-representation of Ukraine and its performance contrasted with Russia’s negative other-presentation. Following this account, otherness serves as means of legitimising media actions as preventive measures taken to inform society about the past, create the present state of the world through assertions (Dunmire 2011. Projecting the future through political discourse . Amsterdam: John Benjamins; Searle 2010. Making the social world: The structure of human civilization . Oxford: Oxford University Press) which endorse media credibility and predict future outcomes with respect to the horror of the unfolding war. This study argues that the representation of otherness takes place at the proximisation level of certain lexico-grammatical choices that are used strategically by media to cover the narrative of a “permanent military standby” and the “immediacy of otherness”.