Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2. Языкознание1998-99112409-197910.15688/jvolsu2.2026.3.7OtherНАМЕК И ЕГО ПЕРСУАЗИВНОСТЬ В ДИПЛОМАТИЧЕСКОМ ДИСКУРСЕTHE HINT AND ITS PERSUASIVENESS IN DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSEГоИндунGuoYingdonggo.in@dvfu.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0006-1235-5783Far Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussiaДальневосточный федеральный университетг. ВладивостокРоссия2909202625382942710202502022026https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/CC BY 4.0https://l.jvolsu.com/index.php/ru/archive-ru/1034-science-journal-of-volsu-linguistics-2026-vol-25-no-3/mezhkulturnaya-kommunikatsiya-i-sopostavitelnoe-izuchenie-yazykov/3113-go-indun-namek-i-ego-persuazivnost-v-diplomaticheskom-diskurse-na-angl-yaz

Положение о том, что различные типы намека обладают неодинаковой степенью персуазивного воздействия, эмпирически подтверждено. Однако влияние этих типов намека на восприятие со стороны носителей и неносителей языка остается недостаточно изученным. Поэтому в настоящем исследовании на материале китайского дипломатического дискурса рассматриваются характеристики логического, текстового и контекстуального намеков и проверяется их персуазивный потенциал, а также специфика их определения носителями и неносителями языка. Для выявления персуазивного потенциала намека и способов его установления был проведен эксперимент. На основе показателей правильных ответов испытуемых (90 участников – по 30 носителей китайского, русского и английского языков) был проведен сравнительный анализ с использованием модели обобщенных линейных смешанных эффектов (GLMM). Результаты показали, что персуазивность разных типов намека не постоянна. В целом логический намек демонстрирует более высокую персуазивность благодаря большей логической связности и меньшей зависимости от контекстуальных и культурных факторов. Сопоставление полученных данных демонстрирует, что для носителей китайского языка наиболее персуазивным оказывается контекстуальный намек, поскольку у носителей языка более высокая степень имплицитности связана с усилением персуазивности; для носителей русского языка – логический намек, что может объясняться их чувствительностью к логической структуре языка; для носителей английского языка – текстовый намек, что согласуется со свойственной английскому языку как языку низкоконтекстной культуры опорой на эксплицитные семантические маркеры в самом тексте.

The assertion that different types of hints exert varying degrees of persuasive effect has been empirically confirmed. However, how these different types of hints influence native and non-native audiences remains largely unknown. Therefore, this study, considering the characteristics of logical, textual and contextual hints in the Chinese diplomatic discourse, tests their persuasive potential and specificity when identified by native and non-native audiences. To achieve this goal an experiment was held: we recruited 90 participants, including 30 native speakers each of Chinese, Russian, and English, and conducted a comparative analysis using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) based on participants' accuracy rates. The results indicate that the persuasiveness of different types of hint is not fixed. Overall, logical hint tends to demonstrate stronger persuasiveness due to their higher logical consistency and lower dependence on contextual and cultural factors. A comparison of Chinese, Russian, and English participants shows that contextual hint is the most persuasive for Chinese participants because, for native speakers, greater implicitness is associated with stronger persuasiveness. Logical hint is the most persuasive for Russian participants, which may stem from their sensitivity to the logical structure of language. Textual hint is the most persuasive for English participants, which is consistent with the tendency of English, as a low-context language, to rely on explicit semantic markers within the text itself.

намекперсуазивностькитайский дипломатический дискурстекстовый намеклогический намекконтекстуальный намекмодель GLMMhintpersuasivenessChinese diplomatic discoursetextual hintlogical hintcontextual hintGLMMAntoshina D.V., 2019. Using the Concept of Implication to Denote Logico-Semantic Relations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Vestnik of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, vol. 1, pp. 83-90.Averina E.V., 2011. Logical Editing of Evaluative Judgements. Vestnik of Moscow University. Series 10: Journalism, vol. 2, pp. 38-44.Bach K., 2006. The Top 10 Misconceptions About Implicature. Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, pp. 21-30.Belyakov M.V., 2011. Semantic and Semiotic Aspects of Diplomatic Discourse. Vestnik Rossijskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov. Series: Theory of Language, Semiotics, Semantics, vol. 1, pp. 59-66.Brown P., Levinson S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Brysbaert M., 2019. How Many Words Do We Read Per Minute? A Review and Meta-Analysis of Reading Rate. Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 109, p. 104047.Carston R., 2006. Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction. The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 633-656.Cominetti F., Lombardi Vallauri E., Masia V., 2023. Manipulative Impact of Implicit Communication: A Comparative Analysis of French, Italian and German Political Speeches. Linguistik Online, vol. 120 (2), pp. 41-64.Davis W., 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 74 p.Del Pinal G., Bassi I., Sauerland U., 2024. Free Choice and Presuppositional Exhaustification. Semantics & Pragmatics, vol. 17 (3).Dementiev V.V., 2006. Indirect Communication. Moscow, Gnosis Publ. 376 p.Dotdaeva F.I., 2011. Self-Representation of US Presidents (On the Material of American Presidential Discourse). Political Linguistics, vol. 4, pp. 87-96.Fenner A., 1989. Lingua Anglica: The Emergence of International Business English. Language International, vol. 2 (1), pp. 14-17.Gazdar G., 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York, Academic Press.Gavrilenko O.V., 2014. Russia Between West and East: Organisation, Culture, Management Practices and Relations of Inequality. Vestnik of Moscow University. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science, vol. 3, pp. 56-70.Gauker C., 2001. Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Nous, vol. 35, pp. 163-189.Grice H.P., 1975. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, pp. 43-58.Grice H.P., 1991. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 406 p.Gudykunst W.B., Nishida T., 1986. Attributional Confidence in Low- and High-Context Cultures. Human Communication Research, vol. 12, pp. 525-549.Gudykunst W.B., Nishida T., 1993. Closeness in Interpersonal Relationships in Japan and the United States. Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 8 (2), pp. 85-97.Gudykunst W.B. et al., 1996. The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures. Human Communication Research, vol. 22 (4), pp. 510-543.Hall E.T., 1976. Beyond Culture. New York, Anchor Press.Horn L., 2005. Current Issues in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics. Pragmatics Today, pp. 191-204.Ifantidou E., 1994. Evidentials and Relevance. PhD Thesis. University of London.Jiang M., 2024. A Study on Edward Hall’s Cultural Theory. Dr. philol. sci. diss. Heilongjiang University. 83 p.Krysko V.G., 2004. Slovar-spravochnik po sotsialnoy psikhologii [Dictionary-Reference Book on Social Psychology]. Moscow, Vlados-press. 123 p.Leech G.N., 2016. Principles of Pragmatics. London, Routledge.Levinson S.C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Li C.N., Thompson S.A., 1976. Development of the Causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of Diachronic Processes in Syntax. The Grammar of Causative Constructions, pp. 477-492.Loftus E.F., 1975. Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Cognitive Psychology, vol. 7 (4), pp. 560-572.Lombardi Vallauri E., Masia V., 2014. Implicitness Impact: Measuring Texts. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 61, pp. 161-184.Lombardi Vallauri E., 2016. The “Exaptation” of Linguistic Implicit Strategies. Springer Plus, vol. 5 (1). 1106 p.Lombardi Vallauri E., 2019. La lingua disonesta. Contenuti impliciti e strategie di persuasione (The Dishonest Language: Implicit Contents and Persuasion Strategies). Il Mulino. 285 p.Lombardi Vallauri E., Masia V., Cominetti F., 2020. Implicit Argumentation and Persuasion: A Measuring Model. Journal of Argumentation in Context, vol. 9 (1), pp. 95-123.Lopukhina R.V., 2012. Semantic Basis of Inferences in Russian. Uchenye Zapiski. Electronic Scientific Journal of Kursk State University, vol. 3 (23), pp. 56-62.Lu Shuxiang, 1984. Collected Papers on Chinese Grammar. Beijing, The Commercial Press. 616 p.Lu Tingting, 2018. Theory and Methods of Political Linguistics. Shanghai, Shanghai People’s Publishing House. 172 p.McCallen B., 1989. English: A World Commodity – The International Market for Training in English as a Foreign Language. Language International, vol. 2 (1).Polyakova T.V., 2018. Inductive and Deductive Inference as Ways of Expressing Agreement. Vestnik of Adygeya State University. Series 2: Philology and Art History, vol. 3 (222), pp. 81-85.Reboul A., 2011. A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication. Studies in Pragmatics, vol. 13 (1), pp. 1-19.Revilla M., Hцhne J. K., 2020. How Long do Respondents Think Online Surveys Should Be? New Evidence from Two Online Panels in Germany. International Journal of Market Research, vol. 62 (5), pp. 538-545.Russell B., 1923. Vagueness. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, vol. 1 (2), pp. 84-92.Saul J.M., 2002. What Is Said and Psychological Reality: Grice’s Project and Relevance Theorists’ Criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy, pp. 347-372.Sergeeva E.V., 2006. Priemy manipuliativnogo vozdeistviia v politicheskom diskurse (na materiale oratorskikh proizvedenii V.I. Lenina i I.V. Stalina) [Techniques of Manipulative Influence in Political Discourse (Based on the Oratorical Works of V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin)]. Political Linguistics, vol. 19, pp. 196-209.Shu D., 1989. On Several Issues Concerning Presupposition Theory. Foreign Language Research, vol. 3, 8-13 p.Sitdikova F.B., Sabirova R.N., 2015. Implicature Inference as a Condition for a Successful Act of Communication. Vestnik of Vyatka State University, vol. 10, pp. 72-77.Sperber D., 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford, Blackwell.Sperber D. et al., 2010. Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, vol. 25 (4), pp. 359-393.Stalnaker R., 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. Munitz M., Unger P., eds. Semantics and Philosophy. New York, New York University Press.Stepanov Y.S., 1995. Alternative World, Discourse, Fact and the Principle of Reason. Language and Science at the End of the 20th Century: Collection of Articles. Moscow, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, pp. 35-73.Stepanova M.A., 2012. Manipulative Techniques as a Means of Creating Images of Political Figures (On the Material of Public Speeches of Barack H. Obama and David W.D. Cameron). Vestnik MGOU. Series: Linguistics, pp. 107-115.Stephen M.D., 2015. “Can You Pass the Salt?” The Legitimacy of International Institutions and Indirect Speech. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 21 (4), pp. 768-792.Thomson J.E., 1996. Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Wilson D., Carston R., 2007. A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and ad hoc Concepts. Burton-Roberts N., ed. Pragmatics. London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 230-259.Zeng Bihao, 2012. A Study of Presupposition in Chinese and English Advertising Discourse. Shanghai International Studies University.Zhang Miao, 2020. A Study on Pragmatic Presupposition and Communicative Context Adaptation in TED Talks. Master’s Thesis. Northeast Forestry University.Zolotukhina V.G., 2016. Logical Problems of the Russian Language. Problems of Modern Science and Education, vol. 21 (63), pp. 11-13.