Sergiy Kryvoruchko, Yevhen Chervinko, Iuliia Shamaieva


The present article focuses on studying metacommunication as a multi-dimensional self-reconfiguration endless symbolic process and its mechanisms of realising and optimising dynamic speech influence in German dialogue discourse within the anthropocentric framework of pragmalinguistics. Special emphasis has been laid on revealing the functional nature of metacommunication as phatic communication and as communication about communication, sustainably enhancing speech impact in a dialogue discourse environment. On the methodological basis of contextual, intentional, speech act and discursive implicature analyses the authors determine and define speech means that prove to be conducive to interlocutors’ succeeding in speech acts as perlocutionary optimisers. The research material is represented by fragments of the dialogue discourse containing such tools of perlocutionary optimisation, collected by continuous sampling from German works of literature, where characters’ speech is close to day-to-day conversational communication. The procedure of the given research comprised the analysis of discursive fragments in which the realisation of speech acts of various illocutionary types (potentially) results in communicative failures followed by studying metacommunicative utterances produced by the speaker to correct (or to prevent) the undesirable effects of his/her (potential) unsuccessful speech acts as perlocutionary optimisers. Realising the metacommunicative contactive speech act, they solve two blocks of tasks that contribute to the effective implementation of speech impact in the discourse: technically ensuring the uninterrupted flow of communication and additional intensifying the intended speech influence on the interlocutor, which is referred to as perlocutionary intensification. Based on this, the article offers a brief overview of the main technical tasks of perlocutionary optimisers, as well as a detailed analysis of the pragma-discursive features of perlocutionary intensifiers, namely: determining the way of their discursive realisation; distinguishing their pragmatic types depending on the object of influence; substantiating their position relative to other speech acts in verbal interaction, and describing the relevant situations of their functioning in the contemporary German dialogue discourse.



metacommunication; speech influence optimisation; perlocutionary intensification; speech act; contactive speech act; contemporary German dialogue discourse

Full Text:



Aijun, L. (2015). Encoding and decoding of emotional speech: a cross-cultural and multimodal study between Chinese and Japanese. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47691-8

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Benedikt, C. (2015). Die Feinde der Tuchhändlerin [The enemies of the cloth merchant]. München: Droemer Knaur GmbH & Co. KG.

Bezugla, L.R. (2009). Perlokutyvni indykatory implicytnogo smyslu u vyslovlennjah nimec'koi' movy. [Perlocutionary markers of implicit meaning in German utterances]. Visnyk KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 848, 58-62. Retrieved from

Bogomolova, N.N. (1990). Otnoshenie auditorii k kommunikatoru kak faktor effektivnosti kommunikativnogo vozdejstvija [The attitude of the audience to the speaker as a factor of communicative impact effectiveness]. In N. N. Bogomolova & O. T. Mel'nikova (Eds), Optimizacija rechevogo vozdejstvija [Speech influence optimisation] (pp. 100-113). Moscow: Nauka.

Branco, A.U. (2005). Peer interactions, language development and metacommunication. Culture & psychology, 11, 4, 415-429. DOI: 10.1177/1354067x05058580

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language use. NY: Doubleday. DOI:10.1017/cbo9780511813085

Business communication for success. (2015). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.

Chan, G., Foy, J., & Magliano, J. (2018). Factors that affect crossover between multiple worlds within a narrative. Discourse processes, 55 (8), 666-685. DOI:10.1080/0163853x.2017.1323540

Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions und Perlocutions. Foundations of language, 9, 492-503. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47691-8_6

Dem'jankov, V.Z. (1984). Kommunikativnoe vozdejstvie na strukturu soznanija [Communicative influence on the consciousness structure]. Rol' jazyka v strukturirovanii soznanija, 1, 138-161.

Devkin, V.D. (1981). Dialog: Nemeckaja razgovornaja rech' v sopostavlenii s russkoj [Dialogue: German and Russian colloquial speech contrasted]. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola.

Eadie, W.F. (Ed.). (2009). 21st century communication. A reference book. Los Angeles: SAGE. DOI: 10.4135/9781412964005

Ermolaev, B.A. (1990). Celeobrazovanie v kommunikacii [Purpose-formation in communication]. In B. A. Ermolaev, Optimizacija rechevogo vozdejstvija [Speech influence optimisation] (pp. 46-55). Moscow: Nauka.

Esser, F., Reinemann, C., & Fan, D. (2001). Spin doctors in the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. Metacommunication about media manipulation. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 6 (1), 16-45. DOI:10.1177/108118001129171982

Fallada, H. (1958). Kleiner Mann – was nun? [Little man - what now?]. Hamburg: Blüchert Verlag, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH.

Feng, Y. (2016). Teaching speech acts in EFL classroom: an implicit pedagogy. Sino-US English teaching, 13 (7), 515-520. DOI: 10.17265/1539-8072/2016.07.002

Fill, A., & Mühlhäusler, P. (Eds.). (2006). The ecolinguistics reader. Language, ecology and environment. NY: Continuum.

Gaspard, J. (2018). Toward a Peircean approach to perlocution. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 51 (2), 105-123. DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.51.2.0105

Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230299009_7

Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365. DOI: 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6

Hoppenbrouwers, S., & Weigand H. (2000). Meta-communication in the language action perspective. In M. Schoop, C. Quix (Eds.), Proc. of the Fifth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2000) (pp. 131-149), Germany, Sept. 14-16. Aachen: RWTH Aachen.

Issers, O.S. (2009). Rechevoe vozdejstvie [Speech influence]. Moscow: Flinta : Nauka.

Jensen, K.B. (2018). The double hermeneutics of communication research. Javnost-the Public, 25 (1-2), 177-183. DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418968

Kang, Q. (2013). On perlocutionary act. In Alvin Linden&Si Liu (Ed.), Studies in Literature and Language, 6 (1), 60-64. DOI:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320130601.1582

Kashkin, V.B., Knyazeva, D.S., & Rubtsov, S.S. (2008). Metakommunikacija perevodchika v primechanijah i kommentarijah. [Metacommunicating in interpreter’s footnotes and commentaries]. Jazyk, kommunikacija i social'naja sreda, 6, 110-119.

Kästner E. (1969). Drei Männer im Schnee [Three men in the snow]. Zürich: Droemer Knaur Verlag.

Kissine, M. (2008). Teaching and learning guide for: Locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2/6, 1189-1202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00093.x

Konsalik, H.G. (1975). Schlüsselspiele für drei Paare [Key plays for three couples]. Köln: Lingen Verlag GmbH.

Konsalik, H.G. (1976). Manöver im Herbst [Maneuver in the fall]. Bayreuth: Hestia-Verlag GmbH.

Konsalik, H.G. (1978). Das Haus der verlorenen Herzen [The house of the lost hearts]. München: Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH.

Konsalik, H.G. (1986). Begegnung in Tiflis [Meeting in Tbilisi]. Bayreuth: Hestia-Verlag GmbH.

Konsalik, H.G. (1986). Nächte am Nil [Nights at the Nile]. Bayreuth: Hestia-Verlag GmbH.

Kroetz, F.X. (1972). Gesammelte Stücke [Collected pieces]. Fr./M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Kryvoruchko, S.I. (2011). Lingvopragmatychni vlastyvosti perlokutyvnyh optymizatoriv u suchasnomu nimets'komovnomu dyskursi [Linguistic and pragmatic properties of perlocutionary optimizers in modern German discourse]. PhD thesis, Kharkiv. Retrieved from:

Kryvoruchko, S.I. (2016). Strategija perlokutivnoj mitigacii kak sposob optimizacii rechevogo vozdejstvija [Strategy of perlocutionary mitigation as the means of optimising speech influence]. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, IV(25), 105, 68-72. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from

Kulikov, V.N. (1983). Prikladnoe issledovanie social'no-psihologicheskogo vozdejstvija. [The applied research of social-psychological impact]. In Ye. V. Shorohova, V. P. Levkovich (Eds.), Prikladnye problemy social'noj psihologii (pp. 158-172). Moscow: Nauka.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2014). Metacommunication. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 25. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from

Mateus, S. (2017). Metacommunication as second order communication. KOME – An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 5 (1), 80-90. DOI: 10.17646/kome.2017.15

Matyukhina, Y.V. (2004). Rozvytok systemy fatychnoi' metakomunikacii' v anglijs'komu dyskursi XVI-XX st. [The Development of the Phatic Metacommunication System in the English Discourse of the 16th- 20th cc.]. PhD thesis, Kharkiv. Retrieved from:

Meyer-Hermann, R. (1976). Metakommunikation. LuD, 25, 83-86.

Miller, D.R., & Bayley, P. (Eds.) (2017). Hybridity in systemic functional linguistics: grammar, text and discursive context. Bristol: Equinox.

Misnevs, B., & Demiray, U. (2017). The role of communication and meta-communication in software engineering with relation to human errors. In I. Kabashkin, I. Yatskiv (Jackiva), O. Prentkovskis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication (pp. 213-222). Riga, Latvia: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.100

Molina, R.G., & Jennings, F.G. (2018). The role of civility and metacommunication in Facebook discussions. Communication studies., 68 (1), 42-66. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2017.1397038

Napoli, M., & Ravetto, M. (Eds.). (2017). Exploring intensification: synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.189

Parker J. (2014). Meta-communication: what a skill! Jeff Parker MSW & Associates Inc. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from

Pochepcov, G.G. (1981). Faticheskaja metakommunikacija [Phatic metacommunication]. Semantika i pragmatika sintaksicheskih edinstv, 52-59.

Qianbo, L. (2016). Mitigating mechanism of discourse markers. Canadian Social Science, 12 (12), 74-78. DOI:10.3968/9033

Remarque, E.M. (1966). Die Nacht von Lissabon [The Night of Lisbon]. Stuttgart: Verlag: Deutscher Bücherbund GmbH.

Remarque, E.M. (1991). Liebe deinen Nächsten [Love your nearest]. Köln: Verlag: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.

Rosenberg, A. (2018). Taking apart structural change. The constitutive role of communication in relieving tensions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26 (2), 368-381. DOI: 10.1108/ijoa-04-2017-1156

Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: W.W. Norton.

Schaff, A. (1962). Introduction to semantics [Wstep do semantyki] (O. Wojtasiewicz, Trans.). Oxford/Warszawa: Pergamon Press.

Schätzing, F. (2006). Lautlos. München: Goldmann Verlag.

Schwitalla, J. (1979). Metakommunikation als Mittel der Dialogorganisation und der Beziehungsdefinition. Arbeiten zur Konversationsanalyse. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 111-143. DOI: 10.1515/9783111346007.111

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139173438

Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(1), 1–23. DOI: 10.1017/s0047404500006837

Shamaieva, Iu.Iu. (2014). Fractal semiotics of the language of emotions: a cognitive linguistics dimension. In K. S. Thomars & R. K. Deo (Eds), International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 3 (11), 169-172. Retrieved from:

Simmel, J. (1980). Wir heißen euch hoffen [We are calling upon you to hope]. Ascona, München: Droemer Knaur Verlag.

Sinicyna, A.N. (2005). Metakommunikativnyie edinitsyi i ih rol v organizatsii i regulyatsii angloyazyichnogo dialogicheskogo obscheniya. [Metacommunication units and their role in the organisation and regulation of English-speaking dialogic communication]. PhD thesis, Saint Petersburg. Retrieved from:

Slotta, J. (2015). The perlocutionary is political: listening as self-determination in a Papua New Guinean polity. Language in society, 44 (4), 525-552. DOI: 10.1017/s0047404515000421

Staffeldt, S. (2007). Perlokutionäre Kräfte. Lexikalisierte Wirkungen sprachlicher Äußerungen im Deutschen [Perlocutionary forces. Lexicalized effects of linguistic utterances in German]. Fr./M.: Peter Lang GmbH.

Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies, 11, 1, 117-128. DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2013.845789

Tarasov, E.F. (1983). Rechevoe vozdejstvie: dostizhenija i perspektivy issledovanija [Speech impact: achievements and research prospects]. In E. Tarasov (Ed.), Jazyk kak sredstvo ideologicheskogo vozdejstvija [Language as a means of ideological impact] (pp. 76-95). Moscow: Nauka.

Valsiner, J., & Branco, A.U. (2006). Communication and metacommunication in human development. Greenwich: IAP.

Weizman, E., & Fetzer, A. (Eds.). (2015). Follow-ups in political discourse: explorations across contexts and discourse domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/dapsac.60

Wierzbicka, A. (1971). Metatekst w tekscie. In M. R. Mayenowa (Ed.), O spójnośćitekstu (pp. 105-121). Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk: ZNiO Wydawnictwo PAN.

Wubbolding, R.E. (2013). Reality therapy for the 21st century. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203768457

Zeoli, R. (2008). The 7 principles of public speaking. Proven methods from a PR professional. NY: Skyhorse Publishing.

Copyright (c) 2019 Sergiy Kryvoruchko, Yevhen Chervinko, Iuliia Shamaieva

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)