FRAMING, LEGITIMATION, AND OTHERING: A CORPUS-ASSISTED CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF IRAN-US CONFLICT DISCOURSE ACROSS ELITE MEDIA AND POLITICAL SPEECHES (2022–2026)

Abstract

This study presents a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Iran-US conflict discourse spanning 2020 to 2026, examining how framing, legitimation strategies, and othering mechanisms operate across elite media and official political speeches from both nations. Drawing on a bilingual corpus of 1,200 texts sourced from major English-language newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC News) and Persian-language outlets (IRNA, Tasnim News Agency), alongside transcripts of United Nations Security Council statements and presidential addresses, this research applies Van Dijk's socio-cognitive model of CDA, Reyes' legitimation typology, and Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory. The corpus was compiled and analyzed using AntConc 4.2 and Sketch Engine, enabling systematic keyword frequency, concordance, and collocation analysis. Findings reveal asymmetrical discursive constructions: American media and political discourse predominantly frames Iran through metaphors of threat, contamination, and rogue state identity, employing authorization and rationalization as primary legitimation strategies. Iranian discourse, conversely, deploys sovereignty, victimhood, and anti-imperialist resistance framing, legitimizing national positions through moral evaluation and mythopoesis. The study identifies a significant research gap in bilingual comparative corpus studies of this specific geopolitical conflict, particularly regarding the post-2022 nuclear deal collapse and 2024 direct military exchange discourse. Results contribute to applied linguistics, geopolitical discourse studies, and cross-cultural communication, offering insights into how language constructs and sustains international conflict. Pedagogical implications for critical media literacy are discussed.