EUPHEMISTIC STRATEGIES IN THE LEXICO-DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF AI-MEDIATED WAR NARRATIVES

Unais Ali; Farhan Ullah Khan; Usman Hameed; Masharibov Anvarbek

doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i7s.2026.7973

Authors

Unais Ali Department of Master of Science in Engineering Management, Eastern Michigan University, United States
Farhan Ullah Khan Department of English, University of Malakand, Totakan, Pakistan
Dr. Usman Hameed Professor of Criminology, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Masharibov Anvarbek Lecturer, Department of Transport Systems, Faculty of Technical, Urgench State University named after Abu Raykhan Biruni, Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i7s.2026.7973

Keywords:

Euphemism, Discourse Of War, Critical Discourse Analysis, Ai-Mediated Discourse, Lexical Mitigation, Nominalization, Agency Concealment, Ideological Framing, Violence Representation

Abstract [English]

The paper focuses on the role of euphemistic language in the lexico-discursive construction of violence in AI-mediated war discourse. The research examines how lexical choice, syntactic structure, and discursive framing transform violence into sanitized, abstract, and institutionally acceptable forms. The proposed study is situated at the crossroads of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), media linguistics, and the emerging research on algorithmically generated discourse. Precision strike, neutralize, engagement, and collateral damage are not simply expressions used in place of another in the war discourse; they regulate affect, background agency, and transform bodily harm into technical procedure. Although the use of euphemism in political and media speech has been well-researched, its functionality in AI-mediated narratives is relatively under-researched. The study is based on the qualitative CDA framework guided by the three-dimensional model of Fairclough and the socio-cognitive approach of van Dijk. Moreover, the current research examines AI-generated and AI-mediated war-related discourse to detect the repetitive patterns of lexical mitigation, nominalization, passivization, abstraction, and neutralizing frame construction. The analysis reveals that AI systems often recreate institutional repertoires of war language instead of producing ideologically empty descriptions. Their outputs often appear neutral, balanced, and informative, yet this neutrality is itself discursively produced through linguistic strategies. Such linguistic strategies suppress asymmetry, diffuse responsibility, and normalize violence. The paper thus argues that AI is not only a technical medium of transmission but also a discursive agent that exists within inherited systems of representation. The article extends the field of euphemism study to the area of AI discourse, thus, making a contribution to the current field of linguistics and emphasizing the necessity of critical examination of the algorithmically mediated representation of conflict.

References

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. Oxford University Press.

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306.

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). ACM. (ACL Anthology)

Billig, M. (2006). Linguistic varieties and social identity. In Language and social psychology (Rev. ed.). Sage.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.

Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chouliaraki, L. (2005). The spectatorship of suffering. Sage.

Chouliaraki, L. (Ed.). (2007). The soft power of war: Legitimacy and community in Iraq war discourses. John Benjamins.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge.

Kaeberlein, A., & Alikhani, M. (2025). How LLMs influence perceived bias in journalism. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing: Natural Language Processing in the Generative AI Era (pp. 501–510). INCOMA. (ACL Anthology)

Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Peace Research, 23(2/3), 25–32.

Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Sage.

Mazid, B. E. M. (2007). Euphemism and dysphemism in the war-on-Iraq discourse. In L. Chouliaraki (Ed.), The soft power of war: Legitimacy and community in Iraq war discourses (pp. 39–62). John Benjamins.

Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.

Steen, J., Markert, K., de Rijke, M., & Fokkens, A. (2024). Bias in news summarization: Measures, pitfalls and corpora. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 (pp. 5962–5983). Association for Computational Linguistics. (ACL Anthology)

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

van Dijk, T. A. (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of the war in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(1), 65–91.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 728–740). Elsevier.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.

Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

Yoo, J. (2025). Fair or framed? Political bias in news articles generated by large language models. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. (ACL Anthology)

Zhang, Y., & Dafoe, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends. SSRN Electronic Journal.