Verbal & Nonverbal Communication Codes UDC 811.111 Original article

The Role of Extralingual Factors in Shaping Interpersonal Conflict in Modern English Fictional Discourse

How situational, sociocultural and communicative conditions turn the fictional conflict scene into a multimodal, polycode event — where gestures, silence and space speak louder than words.

Olha Chernenko

Kyiv National Linguistic University (Ukraine)

482fragments analysed

6extralingual factors

3levels of realization

6novels examined

Abstract

A polycode reading of fictional conflict

The article investigates the role of extralingual factors in shaping and developing interpersonal conflict in contemporary English fictional discourse. Particular attention is devoted to the analysis of conflict speech situations as multimodal formations in which verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal means interact at semiotic, cognitive, and pragmatic levels.

The material of the research consists of 482 fragments of contemporary English-language fiction representing interpersonal conflict interactions between characters. The analysis demonstrates that extralinguistic factors function as constitutive components of conflict communication, since they determine the conditions of conflict emergence, development, escalation, and resolution. The study proves that conflict in fictional discourse is constructed as a polycode phenomenon in which nonverbal signals, spatial parameters, prosodic features, gestures, silence, and physical actions frequently dominate verbal communication and alter its interpretation.

Quantitative analysis reveals the predominance of sociocultural (28.42%), communicative (21.99%), and circumstantial (21.16%) factors, confirming their central role in structuring conflict interaction. The findings indicate that conflicts are most often triggered by ineffective communication, concealment or distortion of information, cultural differences, competition for power or resources, as well as uncertainty and time pressure.

discursive interpretationspeech modelsmultimodal conflictive extralinguistic factorssituational contextpragmatic strategiessemiosis of conflict

Aim & Tasks

What the study sets out to do

The aim of the paper

To comprehensively identify and theoretically conceptualize the specific influence of extralingual factors on the dynamics of the unfolding and interpretative modelling of multimodal interpersonal conflictives within the semiotic space of the fictional text.

Identifying the specifics of situational context and its interaction with extralingual factors in interpersonal conflict speech in contemporary English-language fictional discourse.

Identifying and classifying the main extralingual factors and situational aspects that influence the semiosis of conflictives in modern English fictional discourse, both in the author's narrative and in character speech.

Conducting a quantitative content analysis, including a categorical classification of extralingual factors in the selected interpersonal conflictives.

Identifying models of speech situations and conducting their analysis at the semiotic, multimodal, and cognitive levels, with due consideration of each identified extralinguistic factor.

Methodology

An integrated, interdisciplinary framework

The contextual realization of extralinguistic factors in fictional discourse is examined through six complementary modes of analysis.

Contextual analysis

Explores the impact of situational and extralinguistic contexts on the emergence and interpretation of interpersonal conflicts.

Multimodal analysis (MDA)

Examines the interplay of verbal, non-verbal, and symbolic modes within conflict scenes.

Communicative–pragmatic analysis

Focuses on the pragmatic functions of utterances, communicative strategies, and the effectiveness of character interaction in conflict situations.

Semiotic analysis

Identifies and interprets the verbal, nonverbal, and symbolic signs that construct conflict and determines their role in the semiosis of conflictives.

Cognitive analysis

Examines the mental models, interpretative patterns, emotional reactions, and conceptual mechanisms underlying the perception and development of conflict.

Quantitative content analysis

Enables the identification and systematic classification of extralinguistic factors within the multimodal structure of conflict representations.

The Classification

Six extralingual situational factors

Parameters of the extralinguistic context that — although not linguistic units — shape the production, interpretation, and pragmatic effect of conflict. Each is grounded in an established theoretical tradition.

21.16%

Circumstantial

Pertains to abrupt changes in interpersonal interaction — stress, accidents, crises, attacks, natural disasters, or unexpected reorganizations. Within stressful contexts, tolerance declines and people act impulsively.

grounding · context of situation [Halliday, 1978]

15.15%

Resource

Emerges in contexts of scarcity — limits on financial, temporal, informational, or authoritative resources that act as semiotic and relational stressors. Competition for scarce resources raises susceptibility to aggression.

grounding · access & power [van Dijk, 2008]

28.42%

Socio-cultural

Concerns the social environment — status and roles, the nature of relationships, observers and witnesses — and the semiotic force of socially encoded norms, collective expectations, and prescriptive imperatives.

grounding · ethnography of communication [Hymes, 1974]

21.99%

Communicative

Arises from communication barriers — misunderstandings, ineffective communication, or distorted information. A poorly formulated message may be read as an insult; witnesses, channel, and formality all shape the semiosis.

grounding · speech act theory & pragmatics [Brown, Levinson, 1987]

6.85%

Ambivalent

A semiotically and cognitively charged dimension marked by uncertainty and indeterminacy. When the “rules of the game” are ambiguous or in flux, tension escalates and interpretive schemas are destabilized.

grounding · role conflict theory [Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Kahn et al., 1964]

6.43%

Temporal

Time-pressure imposed on participants, or conditions unfavourable for dialogue. Temporal constraints compel rapid decisions, often precluding careful analysis — and time itself acts as a catalyst for conflict.

grounding · chronotope & narrative pragmatics [Bakhtin, 1981]

Conflict in Action

Six scenes, six factors

Each analysed fragment models a distinct conflict speech situation. The analyst's markup separates what is said from the nonverbal & paraverbal signs that frequently carry the real meaning.

verbal text — dialogue & speech acts nonverbal / paraverbal — gesture, prosody, silence, action

Circumstantial Hotel Arthur Hailey

A businessman, Curtis O'Keefe, learns a profitable deal has collapsed. Unable to cope with the expectation–reality gap, he provokes a conflict and loses face — an asymmetrical escalation in a triangular structure (Warren Trent — O'Keefe — Dodo).

“Get out!” — directive; indexical sign of lost rational regulation.

“This is my house still.” — declarative asserting ownership & status.

a slight, courteous bow — iconic ritual masking aggression.

voice high, hysterical · a second of silence — paraverbal turning point.

“I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that.” — post-conflictive regret.

Conflictive types

statusemotionalintrapersonalasymmetrical

Controlled escalation to a point of no return: the affective utterance crosses a threshold, and the apology signals — but cannot repair — the damaged face.

Resource Rouge Richard Kirshenbaum

Two directors of rival New York cosmetics houses, Josephine and Constance, clash over influence, money and power — an open, symmetrical confrontation in a semi-institutional backstage setting, with a fur garment as the contested status object.

“You're short and fat. And that fur is mine.” — symbolic insult & claim.

ripped the mink shrug — iconic/indexical act of forced dispossession.

hissed · laughed out loud · raised her voice — paralinguistic hostility.

her hand on her hip · wagged her finger — kinesic dominance.

Conflictive types

interpersonalstatusemotionalidentitysymmetrical

Within the resource factor, “power/authority” accounts for more than 46% and the “money” resource for 35% — a struggle over a scarce, status-laden object.

Socio-cultural Pachinko Min Jin Lee

A son, Noa, discovers his father is not Japanese but Korean — and a yakuza. Asymmetrical confrontation with a pronounced intrapersonal dimension, as internalized social stereotypes collapse his self-image.

“wash this dirt from my name” — the clean/dirty metaphor as moral framework.

“my blood is yakuza blood” — “blood” as a sign of immutable identity.

he said quietly — indexical sign of restraint against severe content.

took a deep breath · felt so dizzy — somatic markers of shock.

Conflictive types

interpersonalidentityaxiologicalintrapersonal

An acoustic paradox — reduced vocal intensity with heightened semantic aggression — drives a trajectory toward self-destructive cognition rather than overt aggression.

Communicative It Ends with Us Colleen Hoover

Ryle finds a hidden phone number and misinterprets it as betrayal. A distorted reading of information triggers escalating aggression in a private domestic setting — asymmetrical, with latent threat.

a number hidden in the back of it — symbolic sign of secrecy, framed as betrayal.

“Lily doesn't hide things from me.” — normative expectation, immediately violated.

crumbles the number · tightens his fist — indexical escalation.

crashes against the wall, shattering — iconic sign of relational rupture.

Conflictive types

interpersonalemotionaltrust-basedpower & control

Confirmation bias converts ambiguous evidence into certainty; communicative cognition collapses as meaning shifts from negotiation to imposed action.

Ambivalent The Return Nicholas Sparks

A narrator gently questions a guarded young woman (“Callie”) about his late grandfather. Without any explicit accusation, she reads the inquiry as a threat — a latent, asymmetrical conflict in a semi-public setting.

“I didn't do anything wrong” · “I didn't steal anything” — perceived accusation.

color rising like a stain — iconic/indexical sign of emotional disturbance.

a flash of actual fear · an angry shake of her head — involuntary signs.

lifted her chin defiantly — kinesic closure & withdrawal.

Conflictive types

interpersonalepistemicemotionallatent suspicionintrapersonal

Cognitive misalignment: a defensive, threat-oriented schema meets an information-seeking one, so neutral inquiry becomes perceived confrontation — and ends in withdrawal.

Temporal The Great Alone Kristin Hannah

An unstable father, Ernt, turns a verbal accusation into physical violence against his wife. Daughter Leni intervenes and Matthew enters as an external force — an extreme asymmetrical confrontation escalating into violence.

“You're lying to me.” — symbolic act of accusation triggering escalation.

violence of his breathing · fingers spasmed — pre-verbal indexical overload.

hit her so hard she slammed into the wall — iconic sign of domination.

“We need to go. Now.” — shift to crisis-management mode.

Conflictive types

interpersonalpower & controldomesticemotionalprotective

A dense field of indexical and iconic signs; kinesic and proxemic modes dominate as bodily movement and compressed space replace verbal negotiation.

Three Levels of Realization

How the same scene means on three planes

Every conflict speech situation is read across three interlocking levels — the sign, the mode, and the mind.

LEVEL 01

Semiotic

Nonverbal cues — facial expressions, gestures, spatial positioning, prosodic features, and physiological reactions — operate as indexical and iconic signs that reveal emotional states, intentions, and hidden meanings often absent or suppressed in verbal discourse, frequently contradicting or reinterpreting the words.

LEVEL 02

Multimodal

Conflict is a polycode phenomenon in which verbal communication interacts with paralinguistic, kinesic, and proxemic modes. Nonverbal behavior often dominates or even replaces speech — gestures, tone, silence, interruption, and physical action regulate turn-taking, signal dominance, and shape escalation.

LEVEL 03

Cognitive

Extralinguistic and nonverbal means are external manifestations of internal mental processes — perception, interpretation, emotional evaluation, and decision-making. They give access to schemas of suspicion, fear, defensiveness, or aggression and act as catalysts of cognitive conflict.

Quantitative Findings

The distribution of extralinguistic factors

A categorical content analysis of 482 functionally coherent conflictive units. Sociocultural, communicative and circumstantial conditions dominate the shaping of conflict.

Share of conflict semiosis

Relative frequency of each factor across the corpus (% of 482 units)

Conflictive units by factor

Absolute counts (N) — total = 482

Inside each factor — situational aspects

Select a factor to see how its conflictives break down (% within the factor). Table 1.

79.25%of communicative conflicts stem from ineffective communication, silence, concealment, or distorted information.

47.45%of sociocultural conflicts arise from cultural differences — the single largest sub-aspect overall.

46.58%of resource conflicts are struggles over power and authority, above money and time.

Conceptual Model · Fig. 1

Discursive–Analytical Model of Conflict Semiosis

Discursive–Analytical Model of Interpersonal Conflict Semiosis

Context

Social environment

Sociocultural Norms

Cultural practices

Temporal Conditions

Time & situation

Verbal Text

Dialogue & speech acts

Nonverbal Signs

Gestures & expressions

Paraverbal Cues

Intonation & voice

Multimodal Discursive Construct

Language · Body language · Voice & space

Verbal Kinesic Paraverbal cues

Semiotic Integration · Conflict Dynamics · Meaning Formation

The conceptual diagram was visually designed with the assistance of generative AI [OpenAI, 2026], based on an author-created theoretical framework. The author verified and finalized the structure.

Conclusions

What the analysis establishes

Signs over words

At the semiotic level, nonverbal signs index emotional states and implicit intentions, frequently revealing contradictions between overt verbal claims and the participants' underlying cognitive or affective realities.

A polycode event

At the multimodal level, gestures, prosody, silence, and physical actions regulate dominance, resistance, and progression — especially in high-intensity, asymmetrical conflicts where nonverbal codes can override speech entirely.

Mental models

At the cognitive level, extralinguistic cues reflect and shape participants' mental models, activating schemas of suspicion, fear, authority, or aggression and thereby determining how conflict is perceived and processed.

Empirically confirmed

The quantitative distribution substantiates the qualitative reading: conflict speech situations are inherently extralinguistic-driven and multimodal constructs — nonverbal and contextual factors are not peripheral but core determinants of emergence, escalation, and resolution.

Extralinguistic factors do not accompany conflict — they constitute it.

Across all analyzed models, from latent asymmetrical confrontation to conflict escalating into physical violence, extralinguistic and nonverbal means emerge as decisive factors that not only complement but often override verbal communication, determining the intensity, direction, and outcome of conflict in modern English fictional discourse.

References

Works cited

Bakhtin, M. (1981). Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel: Notes toward a historical poetics. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (pp. 84–258). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L.A., Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.

Bekaryan, L.A., Paronyan, Sh.A. (2014). Verbalization of interpersonal conflict in fiction. Philological Studies, 2, 60-66.

Bobin, J. (2012). An overview of contextual variables in the analysis of conflict with an example of their operation in literary discourse. Annales Neophilologiarum, 6, 87-105.

Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chernenko, O.V. (2022). Semiozys interpersonalnykh konfliktiv v anhliiskomovnomu khudozhnomu dyskursi [Semiosis of the interpersonal conflicts in English fiction discourse]. Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology, 25 (1), 134-141. DOI: 10.32589/2311-0821.1.2022.263129 (In Ukrainian).

Chernenko, O.V. (2024). Intrapersonal and interpersonal conflictives in modern English fictional discourse: communicative aspect. Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology, 27 (2), 154-164. DOI: 10.32589/2311-0821.2.2024.324167

Chiluwa, I. (Ed.). (2021). Discourse and Conflict: Analysing Text and Talk of Conflict, Hate and Peace-building. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Coleman, P.T., Deutsch, M., Marcus, E.C. (Eds.). (2014). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, no. 28, pp. 280–292.

Evans, M., Jeffries, L., O'Driscoll, J. (Eds). (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict. London & New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London & New York: Longman.

Frolova, I.Ye. (2013). Confrontation Strategy in Discourse and Communities of Practice. The Advanced Science, 10, 29-32.

Frolova, I.Ye., Ometsynska, O.V. (2018). Specifics Features of Literature Discourse and Its Aspects. The Journal of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Foreign Philology, 87, 52-61. DOI: 10.26565/2227-8877-2018-87-06 (In Ukrainian).

Hailey, A. (2017). Hotel. New York: Bantam Books.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Hannah, K. (2022). The Great Alone. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Hoffmann, M.H.G. (2005). Problems of understanding in conflicts and a semiotic solution. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.758345

Hoover, C. (2016). It Ends with Us. New York: Atria Books, Simon & Schuster.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, NY: MIT Press.

Janicki, K. (2015). Language and Conflict: Selected Issues. Bergen: Palgrave.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. Hoboken: Wiley.

Kirshenbaum, R. (2019). Rouge. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Krueger, K.L., Diabes, M.A., Weingart, L.R. (2022). The psychological experience of intragroup conflict. Research in Organizational Behavior, 42, 100-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2022.100165

Lee, M.J. (2020). Pachinko. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Leech, G.N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Jericho: Oxford University Press.

Martínez-López, J.Á., Molina Cano, J., Munuera Gómez, P., Costa e Silva, A.M. (2022). Analysis of the perception of conflict and its positive resolution in university students. Social Sciences, 11 (11): 529, 1-14. DOI: 10.3390/socsci11110529

Nasie, M. (2025). Intergroup meta-respect perceptions in a context of conflict. Behavioral Sciences, 15 (11), 14-74. DOI: 10.3390/bs15111474

OpenAI (2026). Conceptual model of conflict dynamics. ChatGPT. Retrieved from https://chat.openai.com/

Otych, O.M., Orlov, V.F., Fursa, O.O. (2008). Psykholohiia konfliktu: Navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk dlia pidhotovky mahistriv usikh form navchannia [Conflict Psychology: A Teaching and Methodological Guide for Master's Degrees in All Forms of Study]. Kyiv: DETUT Publ. (In Ukrainian).

Rohach, O., Lipych, O. (2024). Concept Hatred and its verbalization in the Ukrainian and English literary discourse. Research Trends in Modern Linguistics and Literatutre, 7, pp. 33-47. DOI: 10.29038/2617-6696.2024.7.33.47

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696-735. DOI: 10.2307/412243

Sherwan, K.A., Harchegani, M.K. (2022). The impact of multimodal discourse analysis on the improvement of Iraqi EFL learners' reading comprehension skill. Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities, 29 (12), 1-19. DOI: 10.25130/jtuh.29.12.2.2022.22

Sparks, N. (2020). The Return. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Thomas, W.I. (1951). Social Behavior and Personality: Contributions of W.I. Thomas to Theory and Social Research (Edmund H. Volkart, Ed.). New York: Social Science Research Council.

Ukaegbu, E.K. (2018). The Role of Language in Human Conflict: The Pragmatic Implication of Statements. LWATI: A Journal of Contemporary Research, 15 (2), 119-133. DOI: 10.4314/LWATI.V15I2

Van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Power. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3

Voitsekhivska, N.K. (2018). Konfliktnyi dyskurs v ukrainskii khudozhnii literaturi: strukturnyi, semantychnyi, komunikatyvnyi i linhvokohnityvnyi aspekty. Dys. dokt. filol. nauk [Conflict Discourse in Ukrainian Fiction: Structural, Semantic, Communicative, and Linguocognitive Aspects. DSc Thesis]. Kyiv: Potebnia Institute of Linguistics (In Ukrainian).

Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.