Discursive polarization in the construction of contested statehood: positive self and negative other in the Kosovo–Serbia conflict

This article examines how political elites in Kosovo and Serbia employ rhetorical polarization to establish legitimacy amid disputed statehood. This study analyzes 180 quotes of political leaders published in international media spanning 2012–2020, using keyword frequency analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis within van Dijk’s socio-cognitive framework (text–cognition–society) to explore how positive self-representations and negative portrayals of others influence the conflict narrative. Serbian discourse often uses delegitimizing terms like “so-called state” and “illegal,” while Kosovo’s rhetoric emphasizes themes of recognition and sovereignty. Both sides advocate for peace and stability while accusing each other of fueling insecurity. Although justice and victimhood are important, they are less prominent, with Kosovo stressing accountability for war crimes and missing persons, and Serbia casting itself as a guardian of minorities. International alliances have further sharpened the division between the two countries; Kosovo supports the EU and NATO, while Serbia references the UN, Russia, and China. This research contributes theoretically by applying the ideological square to recognition conflicts; methodologically, by combining quantitative and qualitative discourse analysis; and empirically, by providing enriched insights by situating the Kosovo–Serbia dialogue within broader discussions of contested sovereignty. The corpus reveals cross-actor convergence and shared ideological grammar with findings showing a shift from procedural to moral–affective legitimation and a pattern of mirror polarization across Kosovo and Serbia. Given that ongoing discursive polarization hinders conflict resolution, the findings underscore the need for mediation efforts to focus on shared values rather than zero-sum claims.