State and Regions. Series: Social Communications

The aim of the article is to examine the distinctive features of narrativization markers’ functioning in news discourse on Telegram and to determine their role in shaping interpretive models of events in the Russian-Ukrainian war (as exemplified by the Telegram channels «RBK-Ukraina» and «Suspilne Novyny»).

Research methodology. The following scientific methods were employed in this study: analysis of the academic literature in accordance with the research objectives and tasks; discourse analysis – to identify features of news messages’ linguistic structure; elements of frame analysis – to determine the interpretive frameworks for presenting events; content analysis – to identify the recurrence of narrativization markers; comparative method – to compare the features of narrativization in the Telegram channels «RBK-Ukraina» and «Suspilne Novyny»; method of systematic analysis and generalization – to establish the correlation between linguistic means, frames, and narrative models.

Results. In contemporary communication and discourse analysis studies, narrative is viewed as a mechanism for making sense of social reality (V. Fischer; P. Ricœur), while framing is seen as a way of selecting and highlighting aspects of events that determine the parameters of their interpretation (R. Entman). Works on media discourse emphasize the role of linguistic and discursive means in structuring messages and forming semantic connections (D. Schiffrin; R. Wodak; N. Fairclough). In the Ukrainian academic tradition, media discourse is defined as a multidimensional communicative field within which linguistic means perform not only an informative but also an interpretive function (N. Shumarova; L. Shevchenko; L. Ponomarenko). At the same time, the issue of how narrativization markers function in news Telegram discourse, particularly in the context of wartime communication, remains underdeveloped, which underscores the relevance of this study.

It has been established that news discourse on Telegram is characterized by the use of recurring markers of narrativization at various levels (lexical, syntactic, as well as pragmatic, temporal, and quantitative), which form standardized linguistic models in messages. Furthermore, it has been shown that the regular reproduction of these models enables the formation of interpretive frames of threat, control over the situation, credibility, and magnitude, within which the events of the war are conceptualized as a continuous and structured process. At the same time, narrativization is realized as a cumulative process through the accumulation of messages and their repetition. It was found that, despite sharing common basic narrativization markers, the studied Telegram channels implement different communicative strategies: «RBK-Ukraina» tends toward an operational-stream model of information presentation, while «Suspilne Novyny» forms a contextual-explanatory model focused on verification and interpretation.

Novelty. This study identified the mechanism of events’ narrativization in the Russian-Ukrainian war within the Telegram news discourse through the interaction of relevant markers, their repetition, and the cumulative effect of the news stream. It was established that narrativization was realized not at the level of individual messages, but through their systematic accumulation and the regular reproduction of typical linguistic models, which enabled the formation of stable interpretive frameworks.

Practical significance. The practical significance of the findings lies in their potential application in teaching courses on journalism and media language. The research findings can be applied by practicing journalists when creating news content for digital media, as well as in analytical work related to the study of media discourse and interpretive strategies for presenting socially significant events.

Key words: news Telegram discourse, markers of narrativization, linguistic models, framing, media communication, the Russia-Ukraine war.

Batsevych, F. S. (2004). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky [Fundamentals of communicative linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademiia [in Ukrainian].

Ponomarenko, L. (2020). Masmediina realnist: phliad u chasy pandemii koronavirusu [Mass media reality: A look at the times of the coronavirus pandemic]. Aktualni problemy mediaprostoru, 78–83 [in Ukrainian].

Solomenko, L. I. (2023). Sotsialni merezhi yak dzherelo novynnoi informatsii vid pochatku rosiiskoho povnomasshtabnoho vtorhnennia: osnovni tendentsii vykorystannia [Social networks as a source of news information since the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion: main usage trends]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Sotsialni komunikatsii, 3, 134–142 [in Ukrainian].

Tonkikh, I. Yu. (2023). Spetsyfika formuvannia novynnoho kontentu zhurnalistskykh telehram-kanaliv v umovakh voiennoho stanu [Specifics of news content formation in journalistic telegram channels under martial law]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Sotsialni komunikatsii, 2, 56–64 [in Ukrainian].

Shevchenko, L. I. (2014). Medialinhvistyka: slovnyk terminiv i poniat [Medialinguistics: a dic-tionary of terms and concepts]. Kyiv: VPTs «Kyivskyi univer-sytet» [in Ukrainian].

Shumarova, N., & Marynenko, I. (2025). Mova media: dvi tendentsii tekstotvorennia [Media language: Two trends in text creation]. Naukovi zapysky Instytutu zhurnalistyky, 87 (2), 21–32 [in Ukrainian].

Shumarova, N. P., & Ponomarenko, L. H. (2024). Mediadyskurs: metodolohichni mozhlyvosti vyvchennia [Media discourse: Methodological possibilities of study]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Sotsialni komunikatsii, 4, 51–57. doi: 10.32840/cpu2219-8741/2024.4(60).9.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [in English].

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge [in English].

Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia : University of South Carolina Press [in English].

Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [in English].

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press[in English].

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis. R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.). London: Sage [in English].