Manipulation in the direct and indirect speech

Tyumen State University Herald. Humanities Research. Humanitates


Vesntik TSU. Philology. 2014

Manipulation in the direct and indirect speech

About the author:

Ekaterina V. Averyanova,
Cand. Philol. Sci., Cand. Cult. Sci., Professor of French Philology Department, Institute for Humanities, Tyumen State University


This article discusses the role of direct and indirect speech in manipulation in the hagiographic texts of Old Church Slavonic and Latin mid XV-XVII centuries. As a rule, the manipulation is presented in the form of direct speech in the Orthodox hagiographic discourse, while in the Catholic hagiographic discourse it is both direct and indirect speech. This suggests that the Orthodox hagiographic discourse is dominated by explicit statements of heterogeneity in its labeled form, and the Catholic hagiographic discourse — in an unmarked form. Moreover, the Orthodox hagiographic discourse is characterised by the representational communication strategy, while the Catholic hagiographic discourse — by narrative communication strategy. The presence of shifters in the Orthodox hagiographic discourse has a manipulative effect on the reader, whereas their absence in the Catholic hagiographic discourse highlights the awareness of the reader. If the Orthodox hagiographic discourse uses the authority of someone else’s words, the Catholic hagiographic discourse is based on the “internally persuasive word”.


1. Greimas, A.-J., Courtés, J. Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette Supérieur, 1993. 454 p.

2. Dimitry Rostovsky. Lives of the Saints in four books. Book II. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 1764 // Svjatootecheskoe nasledie. Vyp. 2. Svjatitel' Dimitrij Rostovskij (1651-1709)[Patristic legacy. Series 2. Saint Demetrius of Rostov (1651-1709)]. St.-Petersburg, 2009. (in Russian).

3. Aver'janova, E.V. Archetypal structure of temptation and intimidation in the Old Russian. Vestnik Tjumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tyumen State University Herald. 2009. № 1. Series «Philology. History». Pp. 165-170. (in Russian).

4. Aver'janova, E.V. Figure provocation of the religious discourse. Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2011. Issue 60. № 33 (248). P. 17-19. (in Russian).

5. Aver'janova, E.V. Prescriptions and proscriptions as manipulative categories // Vestnik Tjumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tyumen State University Herald. 2012. № 1. Series «Philology». P. 60-63. (in Russian).

6. Acta Sanctorum martii [Reprod. en fac.-sim.]. T. I. Societé des Bollandistes. 1668. 1016 p. URL:

7. Autier-Revue, J. Explicit and constitutive heterogeneity: the problem of the other in the discourse // Kvadratura smysla: Francuzskaja shkola analiza diskursa [Area sense: French school of discourse analysis] / Transl. from French; Ed. by P. Serio. Moscow, 2002. С. 54-94.

8. Sedov, K.F. Diskurs i lichnost': jevoljucija kommunikativnoj kompetenci [Discourse and identity: the evolution of communicative competence]. Moscow, 2004. 320 с. (in Russian).

9. Jakobson, R. Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit, 1963. 321 p.

10. Charaudeau, P., Maingueneau, D. Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 2002. 662 p.