Linguistic Framing and Media Discourse in the Sudanese Conflict: The Strategic Function of Lexical Choice

Abstract

This study analyzes the systematic weaponization of language in Sudan’s ongoing armed conflict between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which began in April 2023. We employed qualitative discourse analysis based on critical discourse analysis and sociolinguistic theory to analyse 1,842 social media postings, 387 transcripts from state media, 92 official documents, and 37 ethnographic interviews collected in the span of April 2023 to June 2025. The analysis classified 87 unique phrases into eight different functional categories: incitement of war; sarcasm; hatred; racism/ethnic incitement; mobilization; delegitimization; dehumanization; and symbolic and/or military language. The findings show that lexical choices are manifestations of performative violence, constantly producing realities of conflict through nominalized and othering and legitimizing language. The RSF supporters demonstrated more linguistic creativity when challenging the institutional legitimacy of the SAF in their postings and comments, though both sides engaged in dehumanizing language as had occurred prior to historically documented instances of ethnic violence in other countries. Social media platforms supported the hastening of semantic invention while more widely producing ideological echo chambers of extreme discourse. Linguistic warfare builds upon historical centre-periphery divides and hierarchies of Arabic language established during the colonial period, and there were notable correlations between patterns of hate language and humanitarian outcomes impacting millions of people. The findings support the theories of performative violence and necro politics and have important implications for peace journalism intervention, content moderation practices, and post-conflict reconciliation.