Baltic accent

2020 Vol. 11 №4

Back to the list Download an article

Emotional and receptive-axiological aspects of the speech act of threat in everyday conflict communication in Russian



The article analyses the emotive aspect of the production and perception of the speech act of threat and the specificity of the perception of this act by a modern native speaker of Rus­sian. The act of threat is an instrument of influence exerted on the listener. Its effectiveness depends on the strength of the negative emotions of anxiety, fear, etc. initiated in the listener. At the same time, the production of threatening statements is often associated with the speak­er's emotional state, which in some cases can serve as a catalyst for imperative influence. The speech act of threat, being an element of conflict discourse, contradicts the traditional princi­ples of productive communication and the legal norms of any developed state. In everyday communication, a verbal threat can be regarded as a way of implementing communicative intentions that are completely justified from the socio-ethical point of view. For a modern Russian speaker, threat is not a communicative taboo and can be deliberately used in conflict situations related to the protection of human dignity, life, social values, etc.


  1. Antsupov, A. J. and Shipilov, A. I., 2000. Konfliktologiya [Conflictology]. Moscow (in Russ.).

  2. Baranov, A. N., 2014. The phenomenon of threat in linguistic theory and expert practice. Teoriya i praktika sudebnoj ekspertizy [Theory and practice of forensic science], 4 (36), pp. 139—147 (in Russ.).

  3. Sukharev, A. Ya., ed., n. d. Bol'shoj yuridicheskij slovar' [Big Law Dictionary]. Available at: nsf/lower/18992 [Accessed 15 March 2020] (in Russ.).

  4. Borodina, Yu. E., 2019. Threat speech act in the light of linguistic expertise (on the example of works of the fantasy genre). In: A. B. Cheremisin, ed. Dostizheniya i per­spektivy razvitiya molodezhnoi nauki: sb. st. Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. [Achieve­ments and prospects for the development of youth science: Proceedings of the Inter­national Scientific and Practical Conference]. Petrozavodsk. pp. 354—360 (in Russ.).

  5. Issers, O. S., 2008. Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi [Communication strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Moscow (in Russ.).

  6. Zhuchkov, D. O., 2009. On the question of the definition and classification of the threat speech act. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikatsiya [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication], 2, pp. 69—71 (in Russ.).

  7. Zhuchkov, D. O., 2010. Rechevoi akt ugrozy kak ob"ekt pragmalingvisticheskogo anali­za [Threat speech act as an object of pragmalinguistic analysis]. Ph. D. Voronezh State University (in Russ.).

  8. Karaziya, N. A., 2006. Linguistic Pragmatic Study of Conflict Discourse. Vestnik Kamchatskoj regional'noj assotsiatsii "Uchebno- nauchnyj tsentr". Gumanitarnyye nauki [Bulletin of the Kamchatka Regional Association "Educational and Scientific Center" Series "Humanities"], 2(8), pp. 72—88 (in Russ.).

  9. Martynova, I. A., 2006. Funktsional'no-pragmaticheskoe pole menasivnykh rechevykh aktov: Na materiale sovremennoi angloyazychnoi khudozhestvennoi literatury [The func­tional-pragmatic field of changeable speech acts: Based on the material of modern English-language fiction]. Ph. D. Samara State Pedagogical University (in Russ.).

  10. Novozhenova, Z. L. and Probst, N. A., 2019. On the question of the speech act na­ture of the verbal threat. Vestnik Baltiiskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta. Ser.: Filologiya, pedagogika, psikhologiya [Bulletin of the Baltic Federal University I. Kant. Ser.: Philology, pedagogy, psychology], 4, pp. 31—36 (in Russ.).

  11. Plotnikova, A. M., 2017. Linguocreative mechanisms for constructing a speech act "threat". Ural'skii filologicheskii vestnik. Ser.: Yazyk. Sistema. Lichnost': Lingvistika krea­tiva [Ural philological bulletin. Ser.: Language. System. Personality: Linguistics of creativity], 2, pp. 81—88 (in Russ.).

  12. Fedorova, L. L., 1991. Typology of speech impact and its place in the structure of com­munication. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the study of language], 6, pp. 46—50 (in Russ.).

  13. Chesnokov, I. I., 2015. Discursive threat tactics: indirect forms of objectification (war­ning). Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Iv­zes­tia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University], 2(97), pp. 132—138 (in Russ.).

  14. Shahmatova, T. S., 2015. Speech act of indirect threat in the practice of forensic linguistic examination. Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye nauki [Scientific notes of Kazan University. Ser.: Humanities], 157(5), pp. 286—294 (in Russ.).

  15. Epshtein, O. V., 2008. Communicative speech strategies and techniques for im­plementing the threat in political discourse. Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Orenburg State Pedagogical University], 1 (51), pp. 27—33 (in Russ.).

  16. Leech, G. N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London.

  17. Levine, T. R. and Wheeless, L. R., 1997. Situational. intimacy as a predictor of compliance-gaining tactic selection. Communication Research Reports, 1, pp. 132—144.

  18. Niсoloff, F., 1989. Threats and Illocutions. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(4), pp. 501—522.

  19. Parsons, T., 1963. On the concept of influence. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, pp. 37—62.

  20. Probst, N., Shkapenko, T., Tkachenko, A. and Chernyakov, A., 2018. Speech act of threat in everyday conflict discourse: production and perception. Lege Artis, 3 (2), pp. 204—250.

  21. Searle, J. R., 1979. Expression and Meaning. London, New York, Melbourne.

  22. Wunderlich, D., 1976. Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt a/M.