Communicative sabotage, suicide and avoidance as evidences of communicative discomfort

Based on modern Ukrainian plays


  • Valeria Koroliova Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Olena Hurko Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Iryna Popova Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Nataliia Holikova Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine
  • Nataliia Maiboroda Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine


communication code, communicative situation, communicative tactics, cooperation principle, politeness principle


Purpose of the study: The purpose of the article is to compare and distinguish between the communication phenomena of sabotage, suicide, and avoidance displayed in the speech of characters of modern Ukrainian plays; to define them as communicative tactics that do not always violate communicative comfort and lead to conflict in communication; to characterize the main communicative goals and maxims affected by these communicative tactics. The key methods of the study, in addition to general scientific ones, were such dedicated linguistic methods as contextual and situational, speech and action analysis of communicative sabotage, suicide, and avoidance, as well as the method of structural and pragmatic analysis to provide characteristics of speech abnormal behavior of characters in modern Ukrainian plays, to identify of the consequences of communicative sabotage, suicide, and avoidance. The tactics violating the rules of the communication code are communicative sabotage, communicative suicide, and communicative avoidance. Communicative sabotage is mainly used by characters in a negative psychoemotional state as a way to express irritation and contempt, which causes changes in the focus of communication and hinders the achievement of the objective, informative and communicative goals of communication.


Download data is not yet available.


Abdi, R., Rizi, M. T., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: A framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of pragmatics, 42(6), 1669-1679.

Andreeva, V. (2009). Strategies and tactics of communicative sabotage: thesis of candidate of philology sciences. Kursk: Kursk State University

Benda, J., Longtin, A., & Maler, L. (2006). A synchronization-desynchronization code for natural communication signals. Neuron, 52(2), 347-358.

Bolokhontseva, N. M. (2010). The phenomenon of false communicative comfort and imaginary communicative conflict-free. Scientific Bulletin of the Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Series: Modern Linguistic and Methodological-Didactic Research, 14, 163–172.

Cherry, R. D. (1988). Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of pragmatics, 12(1), 63-81.

Cornelius, H., & Faire, S. (1992). Everyone Can Win: How to Resolve Conflict. East Roseville. NSW: Simon &Schuster.

D’Errico, F., Poggi, I., & Corriero, R. (2017). The leader’s voice and communicative aggression in social media. In Verbale Aggression (pp. 357-376). De Gruyter.

Doliak, N. (2012). astarbajterky [Migrant workers]. Kharkiv, Klub simejnoho dozvillia Publ.

Dotsenko, E. L. (1997). Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. Moscow: CheRo, Moscow State University.

Dzhunusalieva, GD, & Kovalskaya, NA (2011). Communicative deviations in the context of the theory of speech communication. Scientific journal of the National Pedagogical University named after MP Drahomanov. Series 9: Current trends in language development , (6), 68-71.

Fatikhova, D. R., & Ziiatdinova, E. M. (2021). Communicative model as an institutionalization factor for a local self-government in the Russian Federation: By the example of local self-government bodies in the Republic of Tatarstan. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S3), 697-703.

Felemban, F. H. (2012). Building up learners’ communicative competence: The politeness principle. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 70-76.

Fleishman, A. (1967). How to sabotage a meeting. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 341-344.

Forgas, J. P., & Cromer, M. (2004). On being sad and evasive: Affective influences on verbal communication strategies in conflict situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 511-518.

Goffman, E. (1972). On face work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction'1955. ders.: Interaction Ritual. Essays on face-to-face behaviour, London.

Grice, G. P. (1985). Logic and Speech Communication. New in Foreign Linguistics. Moscow: Progress, 1985. Issue. Xvi. Linguistic pragmatics, 217-237.

Holtgraves, T., & Perdew, A. (2016). Politeness and the communication of uncertainty. Cognition, 154, 1-10.

Ilie, C. (2021). Evasive answers vs. aggressive questions. Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures, 323, 35.

Jary, M. (1998). Relevance theory and the communication of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(1), 1-19.

KAJI, I. S., Arefi, M., AQAEI, J. A., ASLI, A. M., & Farhadi, T. (2017). Comparison of cognitive empathy in students with relational and explicit aggression.

Kharaman, V. (2011). War.

Khomenko, Y. (2014). Communicative sabotage is one of the reasons for an unsuccessful communal act. Philological Studios, 1, 118–122.

Kline, S. L., Simunich, B., & Weber, H. (2008). Understanding the effects of nonstraightforward communication in organizational discourse: The case of equivocal messages and corporate identity. Communication Research, 35(6), 770-791.

Klyuev, E. V. (2002). Verbal communication. Moscow: RIPOL Classic.

Kovalenko, O. V., Yepyk, L. I., Yeromenko, A. Y., Kashynska, O. Y., & Bezruchenkov, Y. V. (2021). Training of the future tourist guides for intercultural communicative interaction within professional activity. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 729-746.

Lakoff, G. (1982). Categories and cognitive models. Cognitive Science Program, Institute of Cognitive Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

Lamour, C. (2021). Interviewing a right-wing populist leader during the 2019 EU elections: Conflictual situations and equivocation beyond borders. Discourse & Communication, 15(1), 59-73.

Leech, G. (2016). Principles of pragmatics. Routledge.

Lindblom, K. (2001). Cooperating with Grice: A cross-disciplinary metaperspective on uses of Grice's cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10), 1601-1623.

Liutenko, N. (2014). Panda. Dnipro, 9-12, 124-139.

M. (2013). Who framed Grace Kelly?

Masrul, .-. (2018). Communications interaction of mining company to community in corporate social responsibility program implementation. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 6(1), 42-54.

Minibas-Poussard, J. (2018). Mobbing in higher education: Descriptive and inductive case narrative analyses of mobber behavior, mobbee responses, and witness support. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(2).

Nieto, B., Portela, I., López, E., & Domínguez, V. (2018). Verbal violence in students of compulsory secondary education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 8(1), 5-14.

Nikitiuk, M. (2011). Dachas.

Nikolaeva, T. M. (1990). On the principle of non-cooperation and/or categories of sociolinguistic impact. Logicheskii?analiz yazyka. Protivorechivost'i anomal'nost'teksta.

Palarivattom, S., & Kochunni, K. (2015). Real-time, interposable communication for web services. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 2(5), 26-32. Retrieved from

Pavlyk, N., & Vusyk, H. (2021). Strategies And Tactics Of Communicative Sabotage And Lingual Means Of Their Representation In Political Discourse. Publishing House “Baltija Publishing”.

Pogrebinska, A. (2004). The ninth lunar day.

Ponomarenko, O. V. (2004). Linguistic pragmatic ways of turning the skill in the bitter Italian political discourse: thesis of candidate of philology sciences. Kyiv: Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

Ra, L. (2012). Witches’ time.

Radovanovi?, ?. (2020). Vasion in serbian parliamentary questions evasion in serbian parliamentary questions. TEME: Jornal for Social Sciences, 44(2), 637–654.

Rinartha, K., Suryasa, W., & Kartika, L. G. S. (2018). Comparative Analysis of String Similarity on Dynamic Query Suggestions. In 2018 Electrical Power, Electronics, Communications, Controls and Informatics Seminar (EECCIS) (pp. 399-404). IEEE.

Rohr, L., & Rahman, R. A. (2015). Affective responses to emotional words are boosted in communicative situations. Neuroimage, 109, 273-282.

Rosenthal, L. J., Byerly, A., Taylor, A. D., & Martinovich, Z. (2018). Impact and prevalence of physical and verbal violence toward healthcare workers. Psychosomatics, 59(6), 584-590.

Ryabova, M. (2015). Politeness Strategy in Everyday Communication. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 90-95.

Shostak, G. I., & Gillespie, D. (2014). Communicative tactics of creating headlines in British newspapers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 276-279.

Sternin, I. A. (2015). Modeli opisaniya kommunikativnogo povedeniya [Models for describing communicative behavior]/Iosif Abramovich Sternin. Voronezh:“Garant.

Suima, IP (2017). Main types of the responsive sentences in the question-answer system. Bulletin of Dnipropetrovsk University. Series: Linguistics , (25, issue 23 (1)), 178-185.

Taniuk, O. (2007). Avva and Death.

Tarasenko, V. (2011). Buy a moon track.

Vereshchak, Y. (2014). The beggar detective.

Wright, S. (2018). When dialogue means refusal. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8(2), 128-132.

Yarenchuk, E. (2013). The cognitive nature of communicative sabotage. Language Theory and Intercultural Communication, 1(13), 34–42.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zu, Z. (2021). The right contextual information determining the success of communication on translation. Applied Translation, 15(1), 39–43. Retrieved from



How to Cite

Koroliova, V., Hurko, O., Popova, I., Holikova, N., & Maiboroda, N. (2021). Communicative sabotage, suicide and avoidance as evidences of communicative discomfort: Based on modern Ukrainian plays. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1187-1201.



Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)