Suggestion as a Method of Linguistic Manipulation in Religious Discourse
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-4-1086-1094
Abstract
The research featured suggestive potential of religious discourse. The authors interpret suggestion as an effective tool that allows its users to plant an idea or attitude into the mind of the recipient, the latter being unaware of the object of suggestion. The paper focuses on the problem of interaction between rational and emotional-subjective sides of communication. Suggestion is defined as a way of linguistic manipulation based on the sensory-associative sides of consciousness. The authors study the means and methods of linguistic manipulation of personal attitudes using religious texts as specific examples. The suggestion makes the recipient adopt and include new information in the existing system of views, thus leading to a certain transformation of the worldview, which changes the motivational basis of behavior and may trigger hostile intentions and extremist actions. Suggestive techniques make it possible to avoid legal punishment by disguising facts that can be used to prove the presence of conflict-generating elements in the discourse. Such texts are used to create a certain emotional state, thus facilitating motivation, further contacts, and formation of opinion.
About the Authors
T. F. Grishenkova
Surgut State University
Russian Federation
1, Lenin Ave., Surgut, 628412
Russian Federation
1, Lenin Ave., Surgut, 628412
E. V. Variyasova
Surgut State University
Russian Federation
1, Lenin Ave., Surgut, 628412
Russian Federation
1, Lenin Ave., Surgut, 628412
References
1. Chernyavskaya V. E., Molodychenko E. N. Speech impact in political, advertising, and online discourses. Moscow: Lenand, 2017, 160. (In Russ.)
2. Salikhova E. A. Examination of conflictogenic text: on individual linguistic and linguosemiotic signs of extremist text. Evrazijskaya advokatura, 2016, (3): 58–63. (In Russ.)
3. Bobyreva E. V. Religious discourse: values, genres, strategies in Orthodox Christianity. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Volgograd, 2007, 45. (In Russ.)
4. Sergeeva E. V. Russian religious-philosophical discourse of the school of all-unity" (lexical aspect). Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. St. Petersburg, 2002, 469. (In Russ.)
5. Burtsev V. A. Discourse of Russian Orthodox Sermon: methods of producing statements. Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Yelets, 2012, 48. (In Russ.)
6. Gadomski A. K. On the gaps in the system of linguistic science: the problem of the interaction of language and religion. Kultura narodov Prichernomoria, 2004, 1(49): 164–167. (In Russ.)
7. Postovalova V. I. Theolinguistics in modern humanities knowledge: origins, main ideas, and approaches. Modern philology: problems and prospects: Proc. Intern. Conf., Simferopol, November 14, 2013. Simferopol, 2013, 23–24. (In Russ.)
8. Galieva M. R. Religious consciousness in the language world picture. Vestn. Mosk. gos. lingvist. un-ta, 2015, (5): 36–46. (In Russ.)
9. Stepanenko V. A. Word / Logos / Name – names – concept – words: comparative-typological analysis of the concept "Soul. Seele. Soul". Irkutsk: Irkut. gos. lingvist. un-t, 2006, 312. (In Russ.)
10. Gritskova A. V., Kulinich M. A. Discourse characteristics of speech genres of the Russian Orthodox sermon delivered in English. Izv. Samar. NTs RAN, 2014, 16(2-1): 160–165. (In Russ.)
11. Krysin L. P. Religious-preaching style and its place in the functional-stylistic paradigm of the modern Russian literary language. Poetics. The style. Language and Culture. Moscow: Nauka, 1996, 135–138. (In Russ.)
12. Bugaeva I. V. Stylistic features and genres of the religious sphere. Text style, ed. Plisov. E. V. Nizhny Novgorod: NGLU im. N. A. Dobroliubova, 2005, 3–11. (In Russ.)
13. Orekhova D. V. Church-religious and political types of discourse through the prism of dialogism (on the basis of the message genre). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2015, 22. (In Russ.)
14. Borissova A. S., Kurguzenkova Zh. V., Nikishin V. D. Translation of religious and extremist texts: forensic-linguistic expert examination. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2018, 22(2): 448–473. (In Russ.)
15. Sedov K. F. Discourse as suggestion. Moscow: Labirint, 2011, 332. (In Russ.)
16. Dotsenko E. L. Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms, and protection. Moscow: CheRo Izd-vo MGU, 1996, 342. (In Russ.)
17. Dementev V. V. Indirect communication. Moscow: Gnozis, 2006, 374. (In Russ.)
18. Sternin I. A. Introduction to speech exposure. Voronezh: Istoki, 2001. 252. (In Russ.)
19. Issers O. S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow: Lenand, 2017, 308. (In Russ.)
20. Ermakov Iu. A. Manipulation of personality: meaning, methods, consequences. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. un-ta, 1995. 203. (In Russ.)
21. Kara-Murza S. G. Manipulation of consciousness. Moscow: EKSMO, 2001, 830. (In Russ.)
22. Grachev G. V., Melnik I. K. Manipulation of personality: organization, methods, and technologies of information-psychological impact. Moscow: Algoritm, 2002, 288. (In Russ.)
23. Grachev M. A. Forensic linguistic expertise. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2016, 356. (In Russ.)
24. Melnik G. S. Psychological effects of the media. Advertising: suggestion and manipulation. Media oriented approach, ed. and comp. Raigorodskii D. Ia. Samara: Bakhrakh-M, 2001, 3–34. (In Russ.)
25. Porshnev B. F. On the beginning of human history: problems of paleopsychology. St. Petersberg: Aleteiia, 2007, 713. (In Russ.)
26. Parygin B. D. Social Psychology. Problems of methodology, history, and theory. St. Petersberg: SPbGUP, 1999, 592. (In Russ.)
27. Cherepanova I. Yu. Verbal suggestion: theory, methodology, and socio-linguistic experiment. Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 1996, 50. (In Russ.)
28. Dobrovich A. B. Educator about the psychology and hygiene of communication. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1987, 205. (In Russ.)
29. Brinev K. I. Forensic linguistic expertise handbook. Moscow: Lenand, 2019, 200. (In Russ.)
30. Van Dijk T. A. Language. Cognition. Communication, tr., ed. Gerasimov V. I., comp. Petrov V. V. Moscow: URSS; Lenand, 2015, 308. (In Russ.)
31. Volkova A. G. The methodology of discursive analysis in the linguistic examination of religious texts: specifics of application. Language and law: actual problems of interaction: Proc. VI All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf., Rostov-on-Don, November 15, 2016. Rostov-on-Don: Donskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 2016, 26–30. (In Russ.)
32. Belokoneva A. S. Constructing the image of external enemy: Soviet media and official documents of the early Cold War period. Dr. Sociol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2004, 28. (In Russ.)
33. Brinev K. I. Forensic linguistic expertise. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2017, 297. (In Russ.)
34. Issers O. S. Linguistic manipulation. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2017, 240. (In Russ.)
35. Baranov A. N. Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach). Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 1990, 46. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Grishenkova T.F., Variyasova E.V. Suggestion as a Method of Linguistic Manipulation in Religious Discourse. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019;21(4):1086-1094. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-4-1086-1094
Views:
670
Email this article 