ANTIPHRASIS IN WAR POETRY: TYPOLOGY, MARKERS, FUNCTIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2307-1222.2026-62-16Keywords:
antiphrasis, war poetry, semantic inversion, axiological inversion, contrast, counter-discourse, propaganda clichés, ironyAbstract
The article examines antiphrasis as a context-dependent stylistic and pragmatic mechanism of semantic and axiological inversion in contemporary Ukrainian war poetry. The relevance of the study is determined by the intensified use of antiphrasis in the poetic discourse of 2022–2026, where it functions not only as a trope but also as an instrument of linguistic resistance and counter-discursive deconstruction of the aggressor’s propagandistic ideologemes. The theoretical status of antiphrasis at the intersection of tropology and pragmatics is specified, and its relations with irony, sarcasm, oxymoron, euphemism, and parodic stylization of the other voice are outlined. A system of criteria for identifying antiphrasis is proposed, including the formal positivity or neutrality of nomination, contextual inversion of evaluation, a pragmatic intention of exposure, reliance on cliché formulas, quotation features, and graphic markers of distancing (quotation marks, stylization, imitation of чужий speech). Based on the analysis of war-period poetic texts (works by V. Areniev, O. Polozhynskyi, T. Borovok, P. Vyshebaba, O. Slonovska, Yu. Musakovska, and others), the study distinguishes typical models of antiphrasis: deconstruction of imperial ideologemes, anti-euphemistic inversion, parodic stylization of propagandistic discourse, moralevaluative inversion of positive axiological terms, and address-based antiphrastic invective. The main functions of antiphrasis in war poetry are defined as expositional, antieuphemistic, axiological, identificational, satirical, mobilizing, psychotherapeutic, and poetic-structural. Antiphrasis is interpreted as a universal device of artistic counterdiscourse that enables moral re-semanticization of propagandistic formulas and supports the value position of the linguistic community. Prospects for further research are seen in comparative analysis of antiphrasis across poetic, media, and song war discourses.
References
1. Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544916
2. Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3
3. Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1991). Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(6), 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90101-3
4. Jorgensen, J. (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(5), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4
5. Khomenko, H. Ye. (2014). Antyphrasis yak zasib ekspresyvizatsii suchasnykh informatsiinykh tekstiv [Antiphrasis as a means of expressivization of modern informational texts]. Filolohichni studii. Naukovyi visnyk Kryvorizkoho derzhavnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu [Philological Studies. Scientific Bulletin of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University], (11), 632–637 [In Ukrainian].
6. Yuldasheva, L. (2025). Bahatovektornist kontrastu u movnii systemi [Multivectorality of contrast in the language system]. Aktualni pytannia humanitarnykh nauk [Current Issues of the Humanities], 89(2), 291–296. https://doi.org/10.24919/2308-4863/89-2-42 245 [In Ukrainian].
