Constructive Ambiguity and Conceptual Metaphor in Diplomatic Discourse: A Linguistic Analysis of the Armenia–Azerbaijan Peace Agreement

This article investigates constructive ambiguity as a functional linguistic resource in diplomatic discourse, focusing on how semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic mechanisms enable political actors to reach agreement despite unresolved tensions. The study examines the 2025 Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Inter-State Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan to identify how ambiguity operates through modal expressions, semantic abstraction, referential indeterminacy, procedural silence, and metaphorical structuring. The research objective is to demonstrate that ambiguity in institutional texts is not a communicative defi ciency but a deliberate strategy that facilitates consensus, preserves interpretive fl exibility, and manages political sensitivities. Methodologically, the study employs qualitative linguistic analysis grounded in semantic theory, discourse analysis, pragmatics, and Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Through close reading of the Agreement, the analysis identifi es systematic patterns of strategic indeterminacy and interprets their diplomatic function. The results show that constructive ambiguity is realized through weak modal commitments, abstract legal terminology, generalized references to actors and institutions, omission of procedural details, and entrenched conceptual metaphors such as STATE AS PERSON, TERRITORY AS BODY, and PEACE AS CONSTRUCTION. These mechanisms collectively frame the Agreement as a fl exible, negotiable framework rather than a rigid legal instrument, enabling both parties to endorse shared principles while postponing contentious specifics.