This article explores the discourse construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as represented within Chinese and US mainstream media. The study uses a corpus-based discourse-historical approach to compare the nomination and predicative strategies employed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict discourse. In doing so, we used a self-built corpus of Chinese media reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a corpus of US media reports. The findings of the study indicate that Chinese and US media prioritize distinct primary social actors. Chinese media often portray Israel as the “out-group” and Palestine as the “in-group,” emphasizing China's dedication to peace, justice, and the pursuit of a comprehensive, equitable, and nonviolent resolution to the Palestinian issue. In contrast, US media present a more nuanced portrayal of Israel and Palestine as both “in-group” and “out-group” entities; however, they accord greater prominence to Israel's “in-group” image and Palestine's “out-group” image, thereby mirroring the United States’ explicit pro-Israel position and its diplomatic commitments to counterterrorism and the promotion of international humanitarian principles. The study makes a substantial contribution by elucidating the linguistic variations in the discourse construction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within Chinese and US mainstream media.
AfzaalM (2023) Discussions: Similarities and differences of BRI and CPEC in media discourses of India and Pakistan. In: HuKDingH (eds) A Corpus-Based Analysis of Discourses on the Belt and Road Initiative. Springer, pp.107–124.
2.
AfzaalMHuKIlyas ChishtiM, et al. (2019) Examining Pakistani news media discourses about China–Pakistan economic corridor: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Cogent Social Sciences5(1): 1683940.
3.
AfzaalMZhangCChishtiMI (2022) Comrades or contenders: A corpus-based study of China’s Belt and Road in US diplomatic discourse. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics7(3): 684–702.
4.
BakerPGabrielatosCKhosravinikM, et al. (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 and Society19(3): 273–306.
5.
BakerPMcEneryT (2005) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics4(2): 197–226.
6.
BatesD (2023) “The jobs all go to foreigners”: A critical discourse analysis of the Labour Party’s “left-wing” case for immigration controls. Critical Discourse Studies20(2): 183–199.
7.
BennettWL (1990) Toward a theory of press–state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication40(2): 103–125.
8.
BradyA-M (2008) Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China. Rowman and Littlefield.
9.
ChenL (2015) 充分认识中华独特价值观——从中西比较看 [Fully recognizing the unique values of China: A comparison of Chinese and Western perspectives]. Reference for Party and Government Officials6: 5–6.
10.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
11.
HamamraBAlzaghalNMleitatA, et al. (2024) Hair cutting as resistance: Gazan women and the failures of global feminism. Journal for Cultural Research29(3): 609–623.
12.
HamamraBMahamidFBdierD, et al. (2025) War-related trauma in narratives of Gazans: Challenges, difficulties and survival coping. Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health12: e34.
13.
HermanESChomskyN (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
14.
LiuKGuoF (2016) A review on critical discourse analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies6(5): 1076–1084.
15.
NiuXC (2017) 以色列在中美媒体中的形象: 差异与根源 [Israel’s image in the Chinese and American media: Differences and causes]. Contemporary International Relations9: 27–35.
16.
O’HalloranK (2009) Inferencing and cultural reproduction: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Text & Talk29(1): 21–51.
17.
ReisiglM (2017) The discourse-historical approach. In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Routledge, pp.44–59.
18.
ReisiglMWodakR (2009) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Peking University Press, pp.87–121.
19.
ReisiglMWodakR (2016) The discourse-historical approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 3rd ed.Sage, pp.23–61.
20.
ScottMTribbleC (2006) Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
21.
ShambaughD (2007) China’s propaganda system: Institutions, processes and efficacy. China Journal57: 25–58.
22.
ShehabEHamamraB (2025) Digital resistance and survival: Palestinian women’s online appeals during Gaza war. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1332/17598273Y2025D000000054.
23.
ShehabEHamamraBMayalehA (2025) “Every day my children ask me when they will eat”: Mothers’ voices on starvation as a weapon of genocide in Gaza. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2025.2591305.
24.
SparrowBH (2004) Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. Foreign policy. Perspectives on Politics2(4): 839–840.
25.
StockmannD (2012) Media Commercialization and Authoritarian Rule in China. Cambridge University Press.
26.
SunJS (2017) 传统文化与十八大以来中国外交话语体系构建 [Traditional culture and the construction of China’s diplomatic discourse system since the 18th National Congress]. Foreign Affairs Review4: 1–31.
27.
van DijkTA (2008) Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
WangLY (2025) Comparing discursive reproductions of national military image between China and the United States. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12(1): 447.
29.
WodakR (1996) Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.
30.
WodakR (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 1st ed.London: Sage, pp.63–94.
31.
WodakR (2009) The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Unusual. London: Palgrave.
32.
WodakRBoukalaS (2015) European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics14(1): 87–109.
33.
WodakRMeyerM (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage.
34.
YangMFuXL (2018) 基于语料库的"历史语篇分析” (DHA）的过程与价值——以美国主流媒体对希拉里邮件门的话语构建为例 [Processes and values of corpus-based discourse-historical analysis: A case study of discursive constructions of Clinton email in American mainstream media]. Journal of Foreign Languages41(2): 77–85.
35.
ZhaoY (2008) Communication in China: Political Economy, Power, and Conflict. Rowman and Littlefield.
36.
ZhaoYG (2021) 媒体并购话语中的中国企业形象对比研究——一项语料库辅助的话语-历史分析 [A comparative study of Chinese corporate image in the media discourse of mergers and acquisitions – A corpus-based discourse-historical approach]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages1: 62–70.
