LINGUOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF MANIPULATION IN THE FAMILY DISCOURSE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2307-1222.2026-62-4Keywords:
communicative strategy, family discourse, hidden control, linguopragmatics, manipulation, power asymmetryAbstract
The article examines the linguistic and pragmatic features and mechanisms of manipulation in the family discourse. Communication within the family is multifaceted from the point of view of studying human interaction, as it reflects all the ramifications of interpersonal relationships, emotional ties and the dynamics of their development. Family discourse is characterised by a fairly high degree of closeness and prolonged interaction between participants, i.e. interaction within the family is less dependent on formal norms and rules and more dependent on the personal relationships of family members. The presented study examines the nature of family communication, its intimacy, asymmetry of power, and emotional context. A family is not only a group of people, but also a space in which communication constantly takes place, which shapes its structure and identity. The work identifies the key concepts of family discourse and manipulation as a communicative strategy, as well as typical situations in which manipulation occurs: requests, arguments, and the exchange of emotional support. In the context of understanding family discourse as a long-term interaction, manipulation is considered the most typical communicative strategy with the intentional or unintentional usage of linguistic and pragmatic means of influencing the thoughts, feelings, actions, and behavior of another interactant. The study identifies and classifies manipulative mechanisms, which contribute to a better understanding of the role of family communication in the formation of relationships and the establishment of control. Particular attention is paid to linguopragmatic mechanisms by which manipulation is implemented, lexical and pragmatic means are studied, including specific word choice, evaluative language, euphemisms and infantilizing expressions used to achieve goals through manipulation. The main lexical means of influence are the usage of euphemisms and dysphemisms, as well as vocabulary that serves to attach labels. The results of the work have significant theoretical and practical value. The research, funded and carried out under the results of the grant of the National Research Foundation of Ukraine “Innovative Technologies of the Mass Consciousness Manipulation: A Polyparadigmatic Linguistic Dimension”. State registration number: 0124U004832, aims to raise awareness of the importance of critical perception of information within the interaction of members of a family discourse.
References
1. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
2. Petryk, V. M., Prysyazhnyuk, M. M., Kompantseva, L. F., Skulish, Ye. D., Boiko, O. D., & Ostroukhov, V. V. (2011). Suhestyvni tekhnolohii manipulyatyvnoho vplyvu [Suggestive technologies of manipulative influence] (Ye. D. Skulish, Ed.; 2nd ed.). VIPOL. [in Ukrainian].
3. Brovkina, O. V. (2021). Stratehiia prymyrennia ta zasoby yii vtilennia v anhlomovnomu rodynnomu dyskursi [Reconciliation strategy and means of its implementation in English family discourse]. Zakarpatski Filolohichni Studii, 1(19), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.32782/tps2663-4880/2021.19.1.18 [in Ukrainian].
4. Batsevych, F. (2004). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky [Fundamentals of communicative linguistics]. Akademiia. [in Ukrainian].
5. Kuts, M. O. (2021). Porivnialna leksykolohiia anhliiskoi ta ukrainskoi mov [Comparative lexicology of English and Ukrainian languages]. DonNUET. [in Ukrainian].
6. Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge University Press.
7. Kocherhan, M. P. (2002). Vstup do movoznavstva [Introduction to linguistics]. Akademiia. [in Ukrainian].
8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
9. Keizer, E. (2020). The problem of non-truth-conditional, lower-level modifiers: A functional discourse grammar solution. English Language and Linguistics, 24(2), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431900011X
10. Tkhor, O. V. (2018). Funktsii evfemizmiv u riznykh typakh dyskursu [Functions of euphemisms in different types of discourse]. Naukovyi Visnyk Khersonskoho Derzhavnoho Universytetu. Seriia: Linhvistyka, (34), 202–206. [in Ukrainian].
11. Huot, C. R. (2013). Language as a social reality: The effects of the infantilization of women [Master’s thesis, University of Northern Iowa]. UNI ScholarWorks. [in Ukrainian].
12. Chabanenko, V. A. (1984). Osnovy movnoi ekspresii [Fundamentals of linguistic expression]. Vyshcha Shkola. [in Ukrainian].








