COMMUNICATIVE TACTICS OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION IN EDUCATIONAL DISCOURSE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction. Language unites the addresser and the addressee, ensures the construction of a shared reality, and facilitates mutually beneficial decision-making. Therefore, it is directly related to the persuasive function, implemented through manipulation and argumentation, which involves the interaction of various linguistic and discursive means.
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of communicative tactics aimed at implementing persuasive influence in educational discourse. The research material consists of speech acts containing communicative influence, selected by continuous sampling from Ukrainian language video lessons published on the digital and blended learning platform “All-Ukrainian School Online”.
Results. In implementing a persuasive strategy in educational discourse, educators employ five main tactics: 1) the formation of a positive emotional atmosphere, aimed at encouraging students’ active engagement through speech acts that create a favourable emotional background, enhancing confidence and enthusiasm; 2) neutral inducement, which involves indirect appeals and argumentation, contributing to the efficiency and speed of achieving results; 3) solidarization, which creates a sense of unity and involvement; 4) intimization, focused on building close and trusting relationships; 5) appeal to authority, which strengthens influence by referring to the opinions of well-known individuals and authoritative sources. Persuasive educational discourse presupposes compliance with requirements and achievement of results; it is aimed at uniting participants and creating a motivational field that facilitates the development of a shared vision and a common solution.
Originality. Educational discourse is defined as institutionally regulated and socially standardized situations of communicative interaction between knowledge transmitters (lecturers, teachers, educational texts) and their recipients (students, pupils), which have informational, regulatory, and educational purposes. This interaction is oriented toward the co-creation of participants and is pragmatically directed at learners to achieve success in social life. Persuasiveness is interpreted as an optional textual-discursive category aimed at changing behaviour, evaluations, and views.
Conclusion. In fact any use of language is associated with influence. Since it is extremely difficult to change existing beliefs or form new ones, persuasive communication in educational discourse should primarily aim to strengthen students’ positive attitudes toward acquiring knowledge, modify prejudiced perceptions, and stimulate interest. Language in the learning process is a powerful tool that contributes to the transformation of worldview orientations and influences the system of beliefs and values.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Bezuhla, L. R. (2007). Verbalizatsiya implitsytnykh smysliv u nimetskomovnomu dialohichnomu dyskursi [Verbalization of implicit meanings in German-language dialogical discourse]. Kharkiv: KHNU im. V. N. Karazina, 332 (in Ukr.).
Vintoniv, M. O., Vintoniv, T. M., & Mala, Yu. V. (2018). Syntaksychni zasoby ekspresyvizatsiyi v ukrayinskomu politychnomu dyskursi [Syntactic means of expressivity in Ukrainian political discourse]. Vinnytsya : TOV «TVORY», 336 (in Ukr.).
Vithenshtayn, L. (1995). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; Filosofski doslidzhennya [Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus; Philosophical Studies]. Kyiv : Osnovy, 311 (in Ukr.).
Habidullina, A. R. (2009). Navchalno-pedahohichnyy dyskurs yak linhvistychnyy fenomen [Educational and pedagogical discourse as a linguistic phenomenon]. In: Movoznavstvo [Linguistics], (6), 70−78 (in Ukr.).
Zahnitko, A. P. (2008). Osnovy dyskursolohiyi [Fundamentals of Discourseology]. Donetsk: DonNU, 194 (in Ukr.).
Kosmeda, T. A., Mykytyuk, O. R (2025). Termin dyskursyvno-tekstovyy prostir u metamovi politychnoyi linhvistyky i linhvopersonolohiyi: teoretychne obgruntuvannya ta praktyka zastosuvannya [The term «discursive-textual space» in the metalanguage of political linguistics and linguistic personology: theoretical justification and practical]. In: Terminolohichnyy visnyk [Terminological вulletin], (8), 379–392 (in Ukr.).
Lytvynenko, N. P. (2009). Avtokomunikatsiya v medychnomu dyskursi (na materiali dialohiv likarpatsiyent) [Autocommunication in medical discourse (based on doctor-patient dialogues)]. In: Ukrayinska mova [Ukrainian language], (3), 83–96 (in Ukr.).
Shyrokov, V. A. (ed.) ta in. (2018). Slovnyk ukrayinskoyi movy: u 20 tomakh [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language: in 20 volumes]. Kyiv: Naukova dumkа, (9), 912 (in Ukr.).
Shabat-Savka, S. T. (2014). Katehoriya komunikatyvnoyi intentsiyi v ukrayinskiy movi [Category of communicative intention in the Ukrainian language]. Chernivtsi: «Bukrek», 412 (in Ukr.).
Shkitska I. Yu. (2011). Pryyomy posylennya vplyvovoyi funktsiyi zvertan [Techniques for strengthening the influential function of appeals]. In: Linhvistychni doslidzhennya [Linguistic research], (31), 104–110 (in Ukr.).
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. In: Academy of Management Journal, (33), 692–724 (in Eng.).
Kristeva, J. (1981). Le language, cet inconnu. Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 334 (in Fr.).
Lakoff, R. T. (1982). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation, with examples from advertising. In: D. Tannen (ed.). Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Washington : Georgetown University Press, 25–42 (in Eng.).
Leech, G. (1972). English in advertising. London: Longman, 210 (in Eng.).
Leech, G. (2016). Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman, 250 (in Eng.).
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press, 171 (in Eng.).
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. In: Strategic Communication Management, (9), (3), 26–29 (in Eng.).
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell, 272 (in Eng.).