A Choice Between Linguistic Accuracy and Stylistic Ambiguity
How does a translator's word choice reshape political reality? This study traces three politically salient expressions across English and Ukrainian media and official discourse — examining how stylistic variability in translation can both amplify and neutralise ideological narratives in the context of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Daineko, V., Prysiazhniuk, L. (2026). Sense and Sensibility in Political Translation: A Choice Between Linguistic Accuracy and Stylistic Ambiguity. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology, 1(31), 369–389. DOI: 10.32342/anuJPh.2026.31.21 · Submitted 17.10.2025 · Accepted 03.02.2026 · Published 04.06.2026
In an era of global conflict, rapid information flows, and hybrid information warfare, political translation is not only a linguistic task but an ideological act — where each choice of wording can reshape interpretations of political reality.
Translating political texts requires both linguistic competence and a nuanced understanding of cultural, historical, and political contexts. This article explores the balance between linguistic precision and stylistic flexibility in rendering political messages, examining how shifts in connotation and association reconfigure the cognitive frameworks through which audiences interpret political events. A special focus falls on politically significant collocations and their stylistic adaptation across contexts — examined in relation to the ongoing war in Ukraine, reflecting both their international perception and their role in shaping internal political narratives.
To identify the main types of stylistic transformations in political translation and to examine their impact on the reconfiguration of cognitive models for the representation and interpretation of political reality within the source and target linguocultures.
Online news outlets, social-media accounts of high-profile political figures (Facebook and Instagram), and official governmental and non-governmental websites — an effective basis for studying how translation shapes meaning in both official and unofficial political communication.
① Identify the denotative and connotative features of the selected figurative expressions.
② Compare the English expressions with their Ukrainian equivalents in relevant contexts.
③ Analyse translation transformations at linguistic and cognitive levels that lead to semantic or ideological shifts and potential errors.
④ Propose translation variants based on the analytical findings of the study.
The study adopts an agency-based perspective: translators are active decision-makers whose lexical, stylistic, and cognitive choices impact political narratives. As Álvarez observes, the translator can become a true author — determining the implicit meanings of both the final version and the original. They do more than convey information; they can reinforce, weaken, or reshape political messages.
Building on cognitive stylistics, the authors introduce three interrelated patterns of stylistic shift in translation that may result in conceptual remapping — a process that alters the conceptual structures of a message through translation.
Arises when the source expression contains inherent stylistic potential, which translation can restore in a contextually appropriate way — enabling it to evoke emotional resonance for the target audience.
Occurs when the expression lacks stylistic charge in the source language. The translator may — intentionally or not — imbue it with rhetorical or expressive force in the target text, generating stylistic significance absent in the original.
The translation reconfigures the emphasis of reference, thereby reshaping the underlying political narrative along with its ideological and persuasive impact within the target culture.
How much expressive or evaluative weight each phrase carries before translation
Schematic visualisation of the authors' qualitative characterisation in the source language — not an empirical measurement. “Coalition of the willing” is largely neutral with latent potential; “boots on the ground” is a conventional metonymy / cliché; “the shield of Europe” carries an explicit stylistic charge.
Conventional political metaphors and metonymies are easier to process than novel ones, yet they retain stylistic potential in cross-cultural rendering. Adhering to the source imagery may evoke divergent connotations and unintended associations in the target language — potentially transforming a conventional figure into a novel one and altering its interpretation.
A translation-oriented methodology integrating an agency-focused approach with tools from discourse analysis and cognitive stylistics — combining lexical, stylistic, cognitive, and discourse analyses.
The key expressions are examined comparatively in English and Ukrainian public discourse. Their denotative and connotative meanings and associative links are analysed using dictionaries, monographs, and studies on English political discourse.
Translated expressions are analysed against the source discourse, attending to whether the translation preserves the original stylistic value, reconfigures its potential, or turns a conventional expression into a more novel one — and how shifts in tone, register, and intensity reframe ideological meaning.
Each expression is set within its broader social, political, and media context to assess its ideological function, pragmatic role, and cognitive effect — and how translation choices are shaped by political agendas, cultural norms, and power relations.
The final stage examines how translations reconstruct the cognitive models activated by political catchphrases — showing how participants, actions, relationships, and evaluative stances are represented and potentially transformed across source and target contexts.
The term regained visibility in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War, invoked to describe international alignments and voluntary support extended to Ukraine. It first entered wide use in the early 1990s during U.S.-led interventions — the Gulf War (1990–1991) and later the Iraq War (2003–2011) — describing groups of countries joining voluntarily without formal endorsement from institutions such as the United Nations.
Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, credited with introducing the term, defined such a coalition as fragments of a community who share basic values and premises on a certain issue and are willing to forego a degree of freedom of action thereon — highlighting three semantic features: a foundation of shared values, a voluntary sacrifice of autonomy, and a demonstrated capacity to act.
coalition of the willing
Emphasises voluntary participation and readiness based on consent. Consistently employed by official Ukrainian state institutions and government-affiliated channels — the standardised term in formal discourse.
coalition of the determined
Foregrounds decisiveness and active commitment, stressing resolve over mere willingness. Used predominantly in media outlets and journalistic commentary, where its emphatic, rhetorically charged connotations suit public debate.
Президент України Володимир Зеленський узяв участь у засіданні Коаліції охочих, яке відбулося у форматі відеозв'язку
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in a video conference meeting of the Coalition of the Willing.
Official Website of the President of Ukraine, 2025
Британія та Франція створили «коаліцію рішучих», взявши на себе провідну роль у просуванні мирних зусиль щодо України
Great Britain and France have formed a “coalition of the determined,” taking a leading role in advancing peace efforts regarding Ukraine.
Ulianenko, 2025
Conceptual profile of «охочих» (willing) vs «рішучих» (determined)
Schematic profile of the authors' semantic and cognitive analysis. In English, “willing” denotes readiness or voluntary agreement without implying resoluteness; the Ukrainian «рішучий» foregrounds being brave, resolute, persistent, strong, energetic, and determined — a high-agency action-readiness schema absent from the original low-intensity construal.
The strategy of reviving stylistic potential activates the latent expressive power of the source phrase. Yet «рішучих» is not a precise equivalent — it goes beyond the meaning of “willing,” foregrounding agency and volition only subtly implied in English. Reversing the flow of languages can produce errors: a Ukrainian “coalition of the determined” may be back-translated into English as coalition of the determined, losing the original phrase and demonstrating the risk of semantic drift.
«Коаліція доброї волі» suits international relations and official, legal, or diplomatic contexts — it preserves the rhetorical potential of the original while adding a value-oriented layer, and is attested in the authorised translation of the Agreement on the Multinational Peace Force South-Eastern Europe.
Rooted in military discourse, the phrase is regarded in English as a “bog-standard cliché,” denoting soldiers present somewhere taking — or prepared to take — military action. It conveys direct engagement and tangible involvement in a conflict, underscoring urgency, accountability, and the concrete realities of warfare. It can still gain rhetorical weight in salient contexts, as in “Missiles in the sea, drones in the air, but no boots on the ground.”
Translation is challenging because “boot” carries strong culture-bound associations. In Ukrainian, the lexeme «чобіт» (boot) has a rich polysemy that extends far beyond footwear — a network of figurative extensions entrenched in Ukrainian cultural frameworks.
The associations are ignorance, servility, oppression, intrusiveness, and poverty — rather than the abstract notion of deterrence through the presence of soldiers.
І немає ніяких перемовних столів до того часу, поки чобіт окупанта на нашій землі
And there are no negotiation tables until the boot of the occupier is on our land.
Solomko, 2023
До того, як брудний чобіт російського окупанта ступив на запорізьку землю, Мелітополь був спокійним, затишним і таким рідним для своїх мешканців українським містом
Before the dirty boot of the Russian occupier stepped on Zaporizhzhia land, Melitopol was a calm, cosy, and so familiar Ukrainian city for its residents.
Sender, 2025
Connotation of the metonymy in English vs a literal Ukrainian calque
Schematic visualisation of the authors' cognitive analysis. What is intended in English as reassurance — the presence of an army as a guarantor of security — can be read in Ukrainian as a symbol of coercion, rooted in the historical experience of foreign military domination.
A literal rendering such as «чоботи на землі» sounds coarse or ironic and can transfer additional, unintended meanings — the translator effectively ascribing additional stylistic value absent from the original. To avoid this, the authors favour functional equivalents based on explicitation, which specify the nature, composition, and function of the deployed forces.
The metaphor is salient in communication about EU–Ukraine relations. As an institutional metaphor it conveys symbolic meaning and reflects tangible policy priorities — yet although it circulates widely in both Ukrainian and European narratives, its interpretation differs markedly, generating distinct associations and entailments in each context.
The metaphor represents Ukraine internationally as a bulwark safeguarding Europe (protection, endurance, sacrifice), and domestically raises morale and articulates alignment with the European project (belonging, resilience, shared values). Ukraine is the active agent; Europe is a passive recipient of protection or a supervisory actor assessing readiness for integration. Strong associations: self-sacrifice, heroism, endurance.
EU institutions use the shield for official policies — the European Democracy Shield, the European Sky Shield Initiative, and framings like “from shield to sword.” Here it is impersonal and formalised, foregrounding determination, EU values, and institutional unity. Europe is the proactive, self-reliant actor; the role of external forces, including Ukraine, is relegated to the background.
Україна – щит Європи та шлях до миру і нової системи безпеки
Ukraine is the Shield of Europe and the Path to Peace and a New Security System.
Skrypnyk, 2024
Якщо Україна є щитом для мирної Європи, чи мають право європейці вимагати, щоб цей щит був відполірований до дзеркального блиску?
If Ukraine is a shield for a peaceful Europe, do Europeans have the right to demand that this shield be polished to perfection?
Dubynianskyi, 2025
Where agency is attributed — in Ukrainian vs European discourse
Schematic visualisation of the authors' discourse analysis. The same metaphor entails divergent interpretations: in Ukrainian discourse it foregrounds Ukraine as a heroic defender, while in European narratives the referent shifts toward Europe as a self-reliant guardian of its own security.
Political translation emerges not as a mechanical transfer of meaning but as the active modification of political discourse — shaping mental models, audience perception, and narrative framing, and underscoring the translator's role as both mediator and co-creator of political meaning.
Largely neutral in English, yet it can acquire evaluative or persuasive overtones. In Ukraine the choice of equivalent is often strictly dependent on the political agenda, reflecting the translator's or publisher's attitude.
Technically neutral in English, but «чоботи» evokes ignorance, servitude, intrusion, and poverty. Functional equivalents preserve the referential meaning of troop deployment; the idiomatic calque «чоботи на землі» shows how translators can ascribe stylistic value.
Reveals divergent conceptualisations: in Ukrainian narratives Ukraine is an active, frontline defender, while European sources foreground continental collective security, often marginalising Ukraine's agency. Translation must weigh referential shifts.
Even ostensibly transparent expressions are sites of subtle interpretive work, where lexical choice, stylistic strategy, and cultural awareness converge to influence interpretation and translation.
① Ideological mediation. Translation serves as a form of ideological mediation, especially during conflicts, with translators actively shaping how political discourse represents the conflicting parties.
② Culturally specific frameworks. Because political figurative expressions are embedded in culturally specific conceptual frameworks, efficient translation requires sensitivity to these contexts to prevent misrepresentation or unintended connotations.
③ A threefold balance. Translators must balance semantic fidelity, stylistic effect, and discursive appropriateness — reviving latent stylistic potential, attributing additional stylistic value, and shifting reference to adapt meaning while preserving cultural and ideological coherence.
Selected scholarly sources underpinning the study. The full reference list appears in the published article (pp. 384–389).