Liberal Arts in Russia EN-rus logo
russian flagRussian
ISSN 2305-8420 (Print)
ISSN 2312-6442 (Online)
Current Issue

Manipulativeness Degree as a Function of the Dichotomy “Oral Speech – Written Speech”

Liberal Arts in Russia. 2013. Vol. 2. No. 4. Pp. 342-348.
Get the full text (Bulgarian)
Getsov A.
St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Turnovo
2 T. Turnovski Street, 5003, Veliko Turnovo, Republic of Bulgaria


The article discusses mechanisms of manipulative influence on a theoretical basis of suggestion and on the actual material of Bulgarian press. The author supposes that adequate research requires integrated approach with symbiosis of techniques of cognitive science, linguistic pragmatics, psycholinguistics and the theory of speech activity. Manipulative action takes place not only through language (explicit and implicit), but also non-verbal instruments that have different range, different pragmatic potential, etc. The necessity of a comprehensive analysis of the hidden manipulative influence on psyche which is implemented through a flexible system of complex-integrated manipulative pragmatic acts is stated. This system is projected to complete, hierarchically organized and fast changing communication technology which has the following form: cognitive and psychological basis of audience → intention of the adresser → communication strategy → verbal tactics → instruments → perlocutionary effect. Herewith the form of speech is one of the pragmatic factors having great value for actualizing manipulative potential. Communication in form of direct dialog, typical only for oral speech, has a significant resources to counter planned suggestion. Furthermore the author compares the usage of the same suggestive influence patterns in oral and written speech. So the monologue tactic is supposed to be optimal for planning and control of communicative intention, which may include the use of instruments and mechanisms with manipulative potential. Addresser has sufficient time for careful selection of communication strategies and tactics of speech, as well as for creative combination and skillful concealing of manipulativeness manifestations. The author concludes that the regularity, according to which one monologue makes manipulativeness “tolerant” and dialogue “discredit” it, reflects differently in different monologue and dialogue tactics that are relevant to different types of communicative interaction.


  • • manipulation
  • • suggestion
  • • pragmatics
  • • addresser
  • • addressee
  • • oral speech
  • • written speech
  • • monologue
  • • dialogue
  • • communication strategy
  • • verbal tactics


  1. Blakar R. M. Yazyk i modelirovanie sotsial'nogo vzaimodeistviya. Moscow: Progress, 1987. Pp. 88–125.
  2. Getsov A. Po sledite na skritiya smisal. Predpostavki i instrumenti za skrito manipulativno vazdeistvie v diskursa na balgarskata populyarna presa [On the Trail of Hidden Meanings. Prerequisites and Tools of Hidden Manipulative Influence in the Discourse of Bulgarian Popular Press]. V. Tarnovo: Sv. sv. Kiril i Metodii, 2009.
  3. Getsov A. Komunikativni strategii i manipulatsiya [Communication Strategies and Manipulation]. V. Tarnovo: Faber, 2011.
  4. Kibrik A. E. Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta. No. 621. Mekhanizmy vyvoda i obrabotki znanii v sistemakh poni-maniya teksta. Trudy po iskusstvennomu intellektu. Tartu, 1983. Pp. 24–39.