From persuasion to coercion: on the problem of manipulative euphemization

This article explores the problem of manipulative euphemization in the mass media, based on material from English-language media sources. The concept of the manipulative euphemism is introduced and substantiated as a term for a specific type of euphemism deliberately used to shape the perception and interpretation of information. The problem of terminological precision in defining manipulative euphemisms is raised to identify their differences from traditional trends and directions of euphemization. The authors examine the main techniques of manipulative euphemization and their impact on the collective experiencer. Special attention is paid to the cognitive aspects of this phenomenon. It is shown that the systematic use of manipulatives reinforces distorted interpretations of events in the collective experiencer’s consciousness through pre-existing frames and scenarios, reducing cognitive criticality and creating a truth-like effect. This makes it possible to view manipulative euphemization as one of the key tools of manipulation in contemporary media discourse. Drawing on examples from modern media practice, the study examines how manipulative euphemisms distort the perception of events and serve as a tool for controlling public opinion.

1. Vasil’ev, A.D. (2010), “Manipulative euphemization”, Vestnik Krasnoyarskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta imeni V.P. Astaf’eva , no. 1, pp. 150–161.

2. Volodenkov, S.V. (2011), “Modern political communication as a tool for manipulating public consciousness”, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12: Politicheskie nauki , no. 5, pp. 89–103.

3. Zabotkina, V.I. and Boyarskaya, E.L. (2025), “Conceptual foundations of manipulative”, Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–38. https://doi.org/10.5922/22255346-2025-1-2

4. Franke, V. (1964), Manipuliruyemyy chelovek [Der manipulierte Mensch], Politizdat, Moscow, USSR.

5. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K.D. (2001), “Bad is stronger than good”, Review of General Psychology , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 323–370. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

6. Greene, J. and Haidt, J. (2002), “How (and where) does moral judgment work?”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 517–523.

7. Herman, E.S. (1992), Beyond hypocrisy: Decoding the news in an age of propaganda, including the doublespeak dictionary for the 1990s , Black Rose Books Ltd., Montreal, Canada.

8. Hughes, G. (2006), An encyclopedia of swearing: The social history of oaths, profanity, foul language, and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world, M.E. Sharpe, London, UK.

9. Hughes, G. (2010), Political correctness: a history of semantics and culture , WileyBlackwell, London, UK.

10. LeDoux, J. (2000), “Emotion circuits in the brain”, Annual Review of Neuroscience , vol. 23, pp. 155–184.

11. Lutz, W. (1988), “Fourteen years of doublespeak”, The English Journal , iss. 77, no. 3, pp. 40–42.

12. McGlone, M. S., Glucksberg, S. and Cacciari, C. (1994), “Semantic productivity and contextual influences on the comprehension”, Discourse Processes , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 167–190, https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544865

13. McGlone, M. S. and Batchelor, J. (2003), “Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face”, Journal of Communication , vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 251–264.

14. McGlone, M. S., Beck J., and Pfiester R. A. (2006), “Contamination and camouflage in euphemisms”, Communication Monograph , vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 261–282, https://doi. org/10.1080/03637750600794296

15. Rozin, P. and Royzman, E.B. (2001), “Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion”, Personality and Social Psychology Review , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 296–320.