Manipulation appears to analysis as an essentially multiform and heteroclite object. This work approaches manipulation from a conversational perspective that is capable of identifying the mechanisms that underlie an exchange that is socially qualified as "manipulative" . We postulate here that in any manipulation there is a displacement between two different questions: a question (Q2), which does not appear explicitly in the communicational exchange, is presented by the manipulating agent in terms of another question (Q1) which then triggers a response (R1) from the recipient that will be connected in a meaningful way with the answer the first question raises (R2). The relationship between both responses, which the manipulated agent should not be able to establish if the strategy wants to be successful, could be at least of three types: equivalence, inclusion/intersection or consecution. Some of the advantages that result from a definition of manipulation in terms of a conversational exchange, are that it avoids placing as defining features of the manipulation, among others, the intentionality of the manipulating agent and the damage suffered by the manipulated subject, the lie of one and the interpretative error of the other, traits that are neither necessary nor sufficient for it to be said that an act of manipulation has taken place.Este trabajo aborda la manipulación desde una perspectiva conversacional capaz de identificar los mecanismos subyacentes a un intercambio calificado socialmente como "manipulativo" . En toda manipulación tiene lugar un desplazamiento entre dos cuestiones diferentes: una cuestión (Q2), no explicitada en el intercambio comunicacional, es presentada por el agente manipulador como otra cuestión (Q1) que, sin embargo, es capaz de convocar una respuesta (R1) del destinatario, que estará conectada de manerasignificativa con la respuesta que suscitarí­a la primera cuestión (R2). La relación entre ambas respuestas podrá ser de: equivalencia, inclusión/intersección o consecución. Algunas de las ventajas de esta definición de manipulación son que así­ se evita colocar como rasgos definitorios de la manipulación, entre otros, a la intencionalidad del agente manipulador y al perjuicio sufrido por el sujeto manipulado, a la mentira de uno y al error interpretativo del otro, rasgos no necesarios ni suficientes para decir que ha tenido lugar un acto de manipulación.