Destructive Speech Tactics within Framework of Communicative Activity Analysis

O. S. Sytnik

doi:10.24224/2227-1295-2026-15-5-149-169

Destructive Speech Tactics within Framework of Communicative Activity Analysis

O. S. Sytnik

https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2026-15-5-149-169

Full Text:

PDF (Rus)

Generate QR code

Abstract

This study investigates destructive speech tactics that accompany interpersonal conflict and impede the attainment of communicative goals. The primary objective is to identify and classify communicative tactics that lead to a breakdown in constructive communication. The article refines the concepts of communicative constructiveness and destructiveness, and describes two specific speech tactics within the framework of communicative activity analysis. The empirical data for this research was collected via a remote online survey (March–April 2025) using the “Yandex Forms” platform. The survey instrument consisted of 25 questions featuring stimulus utterances constructed by the author, with a sample size of N=328. The paper provides definitions and develops a typology of tactics, specifically “attack” and “stimulus to action.” Statistical processing and qualitative interpretation of the results demonstrate that direct demands more frequently elicit irritation (38%) and resistance (21.3%); 63% of respondents expressed an unwillingness to comply with such demands, while 19.1% found them unacceptable. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these communicative moves is questioned by 36.4% of participants. Indirect prompts are more often interpreted as context-dependent (31.3%) and unpleasant (70.5%). The findings also include a comparative analysis of I-statements,” which are utilized by 80.5% of respondents, with 45% considering them acceptable. The author concludes that social proximity and status asymmetry exert a decisive influence on the dynamics of communicative interaction.

Keywords

communicative destructiveness, communicative constructiveness, speech conflict, speech tactics

About the Author

O. S. Sytnik

Empress Catherine II Saint Petersburg Mining University
Russian Federation

Olga S. Sytnik, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department Foreign Languages

St. Petersburg

References

1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 168 p.

2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Aesthetics of literary creativity. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ. 444 p. (In Russ.).

3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1996). The problem of speech genres, 5. Moscow: Russian Dictionaries. 159—206. (In Russ.).

4. Borisova, Yu. V., Mayevskaya, A. Y., Kiseleva, I. A., Zherebkina, O. S. (2024). The Use of Game Technologies in Teaching Professional Communication in English for Engineering Students International Journal of Media and Information Literatur. International Journal of Media and Information Literature, 9 (2): 305—315. DOI: 10.13187/ijmil.2024.2.305. (In Russ.).

5. Chernigov, T. V. (2022). T. Chernigov: “The main task of man is to generate meanings”. Psychological newspaper. Available at: https://psy.su/feed/10076/ (accessed 21.02.2026). (In Russ.).

6. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2020). Metapragmatics of communication: when the author brings his meaning and the addressee his context. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and literature, 17 (1): 135—147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2020.109. (In Russ.).

7. Dementyev, V. V. (2014). Actual problems of indirect communication and its genres: a view from 2013. Genres of speech, 1—2 (9—10): 22—49. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2014-1-2-9-10-22-49. (In Russ.).

8. Gagarina, O., Goncharova, M., Mikhaylova, M. (2022). Lexical innovations in social discourse. XLinguae, 15 (1): 319—332.

9. Goloshchapova, E. V. (2014). The speech genre “Insult”: a description of typological features. Philology and man, 3: 83—91. (In Russ.).

10. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts. 41—58.

11. Issers, O. S. (2024). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow: URSS. 320 p. (In Russ.).

12. Karasik, V. I. (2009). Language keys. Moscow: Gnosis. 520 p. ISBN 978-5-94244-030-5. (In Russ.).

13. Karasik, V. I. (2002). The linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena Publ. 477 p. (In Russ.).

14. Kiseleva, I. A., Borisova, Yu. V., Mayevskaya, A. A. Yu. (2025). Analysis of the possibility of using a neural network to generate English language assignments. Perspectives of science and education, 1: 319—335. DOI: doi.org/10.32744/pse.2025.1.21. (In Russ.).

15. Klimenko, O. K. (2005). Category of politeness and speech etiquette in the Russian language. In: Russian language in modern society: (Functional and status characteristics): Collection of reviews. Moscow: [b. i.]. 85—101. ISBN 5-248-00236-2. (In Russ.).

16. Koltsova, E. A. (2024). Rhetoric of modern technoscientific articles: linguistics to help “help” epistemology. Epistemology and philosophy of science, 61 (1): 11—22. DOI: 10.5840/eps20246112. (In Russ.).

17. Koltsova, E. A., Mikeshin, M. I., Spiridonova, V. A. (2024). Scientific articles: objectivity and authorship in Russian and English research texts. Mining Journal, 8: 61—68. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2024.08.07. (In Russ.).

18. Krasnykh, V. V. (2003). “Our own” among “strangers”: myth or reality? Moscow: Gnosis. 375 p. ISBN 5-94244-004-2. (In Russ.).

19. Mayevsky, V. M. (2022). Implicit speech aggression in the texts of modern British media. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics, 21 (4): 111—122. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.4.8. (In Russ.).

20. Mikeshin, M. I. (2025). Strict language of a technoscientific article. Mining Journal, 12: 91— 97. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2025.12.11. (In Russ.).

21. Morris, Ch. U. (1983). Foundations of the theory of signs. Moscow: Raduga Publ. 37—90. (In Russ.).

22. Novoselova, O. V. (2022). Pre-election trends as regulatives of political discourse. The world of linguistics and communication: an electronic scientific journal, 3: 73—85. (In Russ.).

23. Ponomareva, I. V. (2021). Illocutionary compulsion as a sign of pseudocommunication. Bulletin of the People’s Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics, 12 (1): 61—70. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2021-12-1-61-70. (In Russ.).

24. Pushina, N. I., Makhankova, N. V., Shirokikh, E. A. (2025). Communicative failures and conflicts in the modern communication space: a monograph. Izhevsk: Udmurt University. 164 p. ISBN 978-5-4312-0470-8. (In Russ.).

25. Radchenko, V. V., Varlakova, E. A., Mayevskaya, A. Y., Borisova, Y. V. (2024). Effective multilingual communication based… business letters… XLinguae, 17 (2): 280—292. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2024.17.02.19.

26. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 203 p. Sedov, K. F. (2011). Discourse as suggestion: irrational impact in interpersonal communication. Moscow: Labyrinth Publ. 336 p. ISBN 978-5-87604-212-5. (In Russ.).

27. Semenets, O. P. (2021). Verbal aggression and methods of speech counteraction. Proceedings of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen, 199: 125— 134. DOI: 10.33910/1992-6464-2021-199-125-134. (In Russ.).

28. Shmeleva, T. V. (1997). Model of the speech genre. Genres of speech, 1: 88-98. (In Russ.).

29. Starostina, Yu. S., Leonovich, L. M. (2022). Linguoaxological foundations of communicative conflicts in English-language dramatic discourse. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University named after N. A. Dobrolyubov, 58: 63—75. DOI: 10.47388/2072-3490/lunn2022-58-2-63-75. (In Russ.).

30. Sytnik, O. S. (2026). On the problem of differences in decoding speech genres and communicative strategies by addressee and addressee. Siberian Philological Journal, 1: 210—221. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/94/15. (In Russ.).

31. Teneva, E. V. (2025). Emotionalization of the 2021—2022 Global Energy Crisis Coverage: Analyzing the Rhetorical Appeals as Manipulation Means in the Mainstream Media. Journalism and Media, 6 (1): P. 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia6010014.

32. Tishina, E. V., Zakharova, M. A., Kalinina, M. V. (2025). Attitudes Toward Ethical and Communicative Norms in Student Group Chats: Findings from a Sociolinguistic Survey. Nauchnyi dialog, 14 (3): 81—100. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-3-81-100. (In Russ.).

33. Tretyakova, V. S. (2009). Speech communication: harmony and conflict. In: State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Russian State Prof.-ped. un-t”, an institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ural Branch of Higher Education, Acad. prof. education. Yekaterinburg: Russian State Prof.-ped. Univ. 230 p. ISBN 978-5-8050-0348-7. (In Russ.).

34. Vezhbitskaya, A. (1997). Speech genres. Genres of speech, 1: 99-111. (In Russ.).

35. Vinokur, T. G. (1993). The speaker and the listener: Variants of speech behavior. In: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian. Moscow: Nauka. 171 p. (In Russ.).

36. Volkova, Ya. A. (2019). The communicative category of destructiveness: an interdiscursive aspect. Proceedings of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 1 (134): 166— 171. (In Russ.).

37. Wittgenstein, L. (1994). Philosophical research. In: Philosophical works, 1. Moscow: Gnosis. 82—83. (In Russ.).

Review

For citations:

Sytnik O.S. Destructive Speech Tactics within Framework of Communicative Activity Analysis. Nauchnyi dialog. 2026;15(5):149-169. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2026-15-5-149-169

JATS XML