Linguistic Strategies of Manipulative Language in Child Grooming: A Discourse Analysis of TV Series Cruel Summer

Ericka Lasiko; Elisna Huan; Ida Nyoman Tri Darma Putra

doi:10.55681/armada.v4i9.3788

Authors

Ericka Lasiko English Departement , Nusa Cendana University, Kupang, Indonesia
Elisna Huan English Departement , Nusa Cendana University, Kupang, Indonesia
Ida Nyoman Tri Darma Putra English Departement , Nusa Cendana University, Kupang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55681/armada.v4i9.3788

Keywords:

Child Grooming, Critical Discourse Analysis, Fairclough, Linguistic Strategies, Manipulative Language, Cruel Summer

Abstract

This study examines the linguistic strategies of manipulative language in child grooming as represented in the television series Cruel Summer. It aims to identify the manipulative strategies used by the perpetrator, explain their functions in the grooming process, and analyse their representation of power relations. This research employs a qualitative descriptive method using Fairclough’s three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis framework, including textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice. Data were collected through documentary analysis of selected dialogues from Episodes 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 of Cruel Summer Season 1, which depict grooming interactions between Martin Harris and Kate Wallis. The findings reveal six strategies: affection escalation, emotional validation, pseudo-romantic bonding, reciprocity framing, secret-keeping normalisation, and threat-based silence reinforcement. These strategies develop from trust-building into psychological control, with emotional validation as the dominant strategy. The study demonstrates that grooming discourse constructs emotional dependence, secrecy, and compliance, reflecting unequal power relations between adults and adolescents.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Caballero Mengibar, A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis in the study of representation, identity politics and power relations: A multi-method approach. Communication & Society, 28(2), 39–54. https://www.communication-society.com

Craven, S., Brown, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600601069414

Evans, C., & Lorenzo-Dus, N. (2025). A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of children's and groomers' talk in online grooming interactions. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 5, Article 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100147

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Fathoni, A., Rahman, F., & Hidayat, R. (2024). Discourse analysis of socio-political criticism in the documentary film Dirty Vote. Journal on Education, 6(1), 112–125. https://journaloneducation.org

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.

Hasmawati, Yusri, Fitriana, & Anwar, M. (2025). Strategi komunikasi berbasis bahasa manipulatif dalam grooming anak di ruang digital: Suatu kajian literatur sistematis. HUMAN: South Asean Journal of Social Studies, 5(2), 277–286.

Hastings, A. (1999). Analysing power relations in partnerships: Is there a role for discourse analysis? Urban Studies, 36(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993777

Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., & Reeves, S. (2008). Discourse analysis. BMJ, 337, a879. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a879

Legowo, M. B., Efendi, A., & Hartono, R. (2023). Critical discourse analysis: Social inequality in the film Turah. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 10(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i3.4510

Lipskytė, E. (2023). Manipulative discourse in TV series Better Call Saul (Bachelor's thesis, Vilnius University). http://talpykla.elaba.lt/elaba-fedora/objects/elaba:192840287/datastreams/MAIN/content

McElvaney, R. (2019). Grooming: A case study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(5), 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1554612

Morgan, D. L. (2025). A failure to converge? The use of convergent designs in mixed methods research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 23(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2025.2605485

Naidoo, L., & Van Hout, M. C. (2021). Child sex offender mind-set and grooming strategies: A discourse analysis of sex offender narratives from South Africa. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 30(5), 616–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2021.1890296

O’Connell, R. (2003). A typology of cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Cyberspace Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire. https://calio.dspacedirect.org/items/de6efbc6-1fad-4767

Pienczykowski, B., & Madella, P. (2026). “I was so afraid all you wanted from me was sex”: A corpus-assisted study in the pragmatics of manipulation in online child sexual groomers’ discourse. Corpus Pragmatics, 10, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-025-00218-0

Sarasti, I. G. A. P., & Adnyani, N. L. P. S. (2025). Language, identity, and power in media discourse. Journal of Language and Culture, 14(2), 98–110. https://journal.unud.ac.id

Setyaningsih, R., & Rakhmawati, F. (2025). The hidden meaning of manipulative language in love bombing: A study of illocutionary acts in narcissistic relationships. Lire Journal (Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 9(2), 369–377. https://lirejournal.ubb.ac.id/index.php/LRJ/index

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265060602

Whittle, H., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Beech, A., & Collings, G. (2013). A review of online grooming: Characteristics and concerns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.09.003