COMMUNICATIVE AND PRAGMATIC LEVEL OF VERBAL MANIPULATION

  • Lina Sorokina Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University
Keywords: dialogical manipulative situation, dialogical discourse, verbal manipulation, gender, communicative role, standard role, initiative role

Abstract

This article focuses on the study of communicative, pragmatic and gender aspects of verbal manipulation, throwing light on its manifestation in Modern English dialogical discourse. Dialogical manipulative situations have been revealed and classified on the basis of their discursive communicative and pragmatic characteristics. The analysis of differences in men’s and women’s manipulative utterances has been performed.

The article analyzes the discursive nature of the verbal manipulation, establishes the models of its implementation in English dialogical discourse taking into account the gender aspect. The basic structural model of the manipulative situation in the dialogical discourse consists of such components: an addresser, an addressee, a message, an addressee’s and addresser’s worlds, communicators’ visionary worlds, a social situation, each of which forms its own level.

The basic means of the “addresser-addressee” level are communicative roles, which are divided into standard and initiative. The latter is subdivided into active and passive roles. Women's manipulative speech is characterized by initiative roles of care, benevolence and interest. For men, such a communicative behavior is possible only in connection with the role of an expert or the standard communicative role (a son, a brother, a husband). Women also use the role of an expert, but in combination with the standard roles of their sister, girlfriend, and mother. The analysis of communicative roles allowed differentiating between cooperative and conflictive types of the manipulator.

References

Bykova, Olga. 1999. “Yazykovoie manipulirovaniie.” Teoreticheskie i prikladnyie aspektyi rechevogo vozdeystviya: Vestn. Rossiyskoy ritoricheskoy assotsiatsii 1 (8). Krasnoyarsk. Accessed July 27, 2012. http://library.krasu.ru/ ft/ft/_articles/ 0070503.pdf

Velychko, Elena. 2008. “Sposoby vyrazheniia kommunikativnoy initsiativy: gendernyi aspekt (na materiale sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka).” PhD diss.. University of Rostov-na-Donu.

Dementev, Valerij. 2006. Nepryamaya kommunikatsiya. Moscow: GNOZIS.

Dmytruk, Olga. 2006. “Manipuliatyvni stratehii v suchasnii anhlomovnii komunikatsii (na materiali tekstiv drukovanykh ta Internet-vydan 2000–2005 rr.).” PhD diss., Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

Kara-Murza, Sergey. 2009. Manipulyatsiya soznaniem. Moscow: EKSMO, Algoritm.

Karpchuk, Nataliia. 2006. Adresovanist v ofitsiinomu ta neofitsiinomu anhlomovnomu dyskursi. Lutsk: Vezha.

Mikhaleva, Olga. 2003. “Yazyikovyie sposoby manipulirovaniya soznaniem v politicheskom diskurse.” Aktualnyie problemyi rusistiki 2, ch. 2: 225–232. Edited by T. Demeshkina. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo un-ta. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://www.prbaikal.com/ about/group/mikhaleva/.

Nikolaeva, Zhanna. 2004. Osnovyi teorii kommunikatsii. Ulan-Ude: VSGTU.

Potapov, Vsevolod. 2002. “Mnogourovnevaya strategiya v lingvisticheskoy genderologii.” Voprosyi yazyikoznaniya 1: 103–130.

Sedov, Konstantin. 2003. “O manipulyatsii i aktualizatsii v rechevom vozdeystvii.” Problemyi rechevoy kommunikatsii 2: 20–27. Edited by M. Kormilitsinoy. Saratov: Izd-vo Saratov. un-ta.

Serazhym, Kateryna. 2002. Dyskurs yak sotsiolinhvalne yavyshche: metodolohiia, arkhitektonika, variatyvnist. Kyiv : Kyiv. nats. un-t imeni T. H. Shevchenka.

Stepanov, Yurii. 1995. “Alternativnyi mir, diskurs, fakt i printsip prichinnosti.” Yazyik i nauka kontsa 20 vek : 35–73. Moscow : Ros. gos. gum. un-t.

Sternin, Iosif. 2001. Vvedenie v rechevoe vozdeystvie. Voronezh: Izd-vo VGU.

Susov, Ivan. 1986. “Pragmaticheskaya struktura vyiskazyivaniya.” Yazyikovoe obschenie i ego edinitsyi : 7–11. Kalinin: KGU.

Formanovskaya, Nataliya. 2002. Rechevoe obshchenie: kommunikativno-pragmaticheskiy podhod. Moscow: Rus. yaz..

Hymes, Dell. 1975. “Etnografiya rechi.” Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike 7: 42–94. Moscow: Progress.

Chaly, Victor. 2008. “Problemyi issledovaniya rechevoy manipulyatsii v hudozhestvennoy proze.” Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo un-ta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. Seriya : Filologiya. Iskusstvovedenie 6: 234–239. Nizh. Novgorod: Izd-vo Nizhegorodskogo un-ta im. N. I. Lobachevkogo.

Shmidt, Z. 1978. “Tekst” i “istoriya” kak bazovyie kategorii.” Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike 8: 89–108. Moscow: Progress.

Yacobson, Roman. 1975. Lingvistika i poetika Strukturalizm “za” i “protiv”. Edited by M. Gasparova, 193–288. Moscow: Progress.

Coates, Jennifer. 1997. “Competing Discourses of femininity.” Communicating Gender in Context, edited by H. Kotthoff, R. Wodak, 285–314. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Holmes, Janet, and Meyerhoff, Miriam, edit.2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. NY: Morrow.

Vespa, Jonathan. 2009. “Gender Ideology Construction: A Life Course and Intersectional Approach” Gender & Society 23: 363 –388.

Scanlan, Patricia. 2000. City Lives. London: Bantam Books.

Sheldon, Sidney. 2005. Master of the Game (MG). London: HarperCollins Publishers.

—. 1995. Nothing Lasts Forever (NLF). London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Vincenzi, Penny. 2007. Almost a Crime (AC). London: Orion.

—. 2004. No Agel (NA). London: Orion.

Published
2018-11-22