The problem of speech aggression in modern Russian studies (theoretical review)
The Russian language is characterized today, as many researchers note, by a decline in the level of speech culture, invectiveization and vulgarization of speech, and propaganda of violence in the media. All this is the result of increasing aggressiveness of public consciousness.
Society neglects the fact that verbal aggression is no less dangerous than physical aggression: it has a destructive effect on the consciousness of participants in communication, complicates the full exchange of information, and reduces the possibility of mutual understanding between communicants. In this regard, every person, in our opinion, today needs to have an idea of what verbal aggression is in order to be able to fight it.
Definition of verbal aggression
There are several definitions of the term “speech (verbal, verbal) aggression.”
In the stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language, edited by M.N. Kozhina defines verbal aggression as “the use of linguistic means to express hostility; a manner of speech that offends someone’s pride or dignity.”
E.N. Basovskaya in her article “Creators of Black and White Reality: About Verbal Aggression in the Media” writes about the ambiguous interpretation of this term. Thus, with its narrow understanding as aggressive, she believes, a speech act is considered that replaces aggressive physical action" With a broad interpretation, this is “all types of offensive, dominant speech behavior.” [Basovskaya 2004: 257]
Another interpretation of this term is given by L. Enina in her article “ Speech aggression and speech tolerance in the media.” Here she writes that verbal aggression is an area of verbal behavior motivated by aggressive state speaker. [Enina 2003: 2]
E. Morozova understands verbal aggression as “violation of established speech communicative etiquette norms... (use of inappropriate expressions, representing an invasion of the personal sphere of the addressee, incorrect use or non-use of expected speech formulas).”
The authors of the article “Features of speech aggression” are V.V. Glebov. and O.M. Rodionova define this term as “conflict speech behavior, which is based on an attitude towards a negative impact on the addressee.” [Glebov, Rodionova 2006: 252]
And finally, in an article published on the website www.school.promiranet.ru, verbal aggression is defined as “rude, offensive, hurtful communication; verbal expression negative emotions, feelings or intentions in a form unacceptable in a given speech situation.”
In defining the concept we are studying, we adhere to the opinion of E. Basovskaya (see above).
Causes of verbal aggression
Speaking about the causes of verbal aggression, Yu.V. Shcherbinin in his book “ Verbal aggression” writes that one of the reasons is “the lack of awareness... of one’s own speech behavior in general and in particular the aggressive components in it.” [Shcherbinina 2006: 42]
Aggression can be caused by “linguistic incompetence (ignorance of a word and its meaning),” writes V. Tretyakova.
Another reason that V. Tretyakova notes in her article is “inadequate defensive actions taken due to misinterpretation of words.” [Tretyakova 2000: 135]
L. Enina, discussing this problem, writes that we all experience a feeling of aggression if we consciously or unconsciously feel a threat to ourselves, our loved ones, our comfort, “and the feeling of threat causes rejection, repulsion and an aggressive state.” [Enina 2003: 4]
We read about the reasons for aggression on the pages of newspapers in the article by L. Ratsiburgskaya: “In order to survive and remain competitive in the information arena, the media turn to the interests of the crowd and build their model in accordance with them... In lately The determining factor in the choice of linguistic means turned out to be the general tone of modern media - very often ironic, skeptical, mocking, and sometimes mocking... As a result, - sums up L. Ratsiburgskaya, - newspaper and magazine language has acquired the character of verbal aggression.” [Ratsiburgskaya 2006: 56]
It is also necessary to highlight the “purely professional, or rather personal-professional reason...” of verbal aggression in the media, which I Dzyaloshinsky writes about. And he clarifies what has been said: this is, firstly, low intelligence and, accordingly, low speech culture, when a journalist does not know how to express his thoughts and replaces the accuracy of his statements with the emotionality of speech; secondly, “...a journalist, infatuated with an idea,...seeks to use all possible speech resources so that the idea with which he is sick becomes a universal disease.” [Dzyaloshinsky 2008: 2]
Mechanisms of speech aggression. Speech aggression as a strategy to discredit
An adequate understanding of the mechanisms of speech aggression is impossible without recognizing the fact that speech aggression is one of the types of speech strategies.
Speech strategies are studied in detail by Oksana Sergeevna Issers in her book “ Communication strategies and tactics of Russian speech".
“For a person accustomed to reflecting on his own speech,” she writes, “strategic and tactical planning of speech actions is a completely conscious task.” [Issers 2006: 51]
A conversation or conversation, as the author of the book rightly notes, is not a chaotic, but an orderly phenomenon, when a person sets a certain goal and tries to achieve it with the help of his own speech actions.
A speech strategy, therefore, is “a set of speech actions aimed at achieving a communicative goal” (ibid., p. 54). Speech actions that contribute to the implementation of a particular strategy are called speech tactics. That is, speech strategy and tactics are correlated as genus and species.
There are different types of strategies: control over the topic, attracting attention, building an image, etc. But we are interested in this type of speech strategy as the strategy of discrediting, i.e. speech aggression strategy. The purpose of this strategy is to humiliate, insult, and laugh at the interlocutor. And the tactics will be insult, threat, ridicule, accusation, hostile remark, reproach, slander, etc.
How the speaker chooses certain speech actions depending on his communicative goals is explained in the article “Conflict through the eyes of a linguist” by V. Tretyakov.
The author of the article notes that speech is an individual phenomenon, depending on the author-performer, “it is a creative and unique process of using the resources of language.” [Tretyakova 2000: 127] Tretyakova further writes that right choice a means of language that meets the expectations of the communication partner and harmonizes communication. But both in language and in speech, there are such features that create various interferences and misunderstandings that lead the subjects of communication to conflict. But the linguistic sign itself is “virtual,” as the researcher writes; it actualizes its real meaning (including conflict-provoking properties) only in relation to the act of speech. “But a linguistic sign that has such properties does not always reveal them in an utterance,” notes V. Tretyakova. Updating or not updating properties language sign, which create the basis for a communicative conflict, depends, according to the author of the article, on the participants in the communication. It is their communicative experience, language competence, individual language habits, etc. allow you to eliminate communication obstacles or aggravate them and bring the situation to a conflict.
The type of communication (conflict - non-conflict) is judged by its result, says V. Tretyakova. O. Issers also writes about this in his book. And the result of communication is usually associated with the purpose of communication, we read further from V. Tretyakova, with the achievement/non-achievement of the speaker’s speech intention. But the goal can be achieved in different ways. “For example, the goal of inducing the interlocutor to some action desired by the speaker can be achieved through the speech act of a polite request or order, expressed using an imperative, invective vocabulary, insulting and humiliating the personality of the interlocutor.”
Setting up for conflict, i.e. The speaker’s choice of a strategy of verbal aggression is characterized, according to the author of the article:
choice of behavior with an active influence on the communication partner;
using negative vocabulary;
with dominance of the speaker's role,
with violation of communicative norms of behavior,
with labeling,
using direct and indirect insults, etc.
Spheres of existence of verbal aggression
As V. Glebov and O. Rodionova write in their article, “verbal aggression can manifest itself within any type of communication (interpersonal, group, mass) and any discourse, regardless of its time and national factors.”
The most “favorable” areas for the manifestation of verbal aggression are the following areas of life:
·family;
· school and other educational institutions;
·army;
· sector of the economy in which low-skilled workers are employed and predominantly physical labor is used;
· contacts of sellers and buyers;
· parliamentary struggle;
·Media.
In particular, an article published on the website www.school.promiranet.ru - “Speech aggression at school and ways to overcome it” - is devoted to the problem of verbal aggression at school.
The author of the article notes the particular relevance of this problem for the children's speech environment and pedagogical communication. “Children can verbally humiliate, ... insult, intimidate, ridicule each other,” the author writes, “... but at the same time they do not evaluate their speech as aggressive, they are not capable of objective assessment own speech behavior, and therefore to its analysis and change.”
Further in his article, the author draws our attention to the fact that aggression is often characteristic of teachers’ speech, and it manifests itself in raising the tone, sharp exclamations, rude remarks, caustic ridicule, etc. (“Shut your mouth!”, “Get out of the classroom! I’m counting to three…”). The author talks about dangerous consequences aggression in the speech of teachers, since “schoolchildren learn an aggressive model of speech behavior and transfer it to communication with each other (ibid.).
Many articles are devoted to the problem of verbal aggression in the media, among them: “Creators of black and white reality: about verbal aggression in the media” by E. Basovskaya; “Speech aggression and speech tolerance with the media” by L. Enina; “Speech aggression in the media and crime” by E. Lopukhova; "Usage foreign words as a manifestation of verbal aggression. Statement of the problem" T.G. Kotova; “On verbal aggression in modern media” by L. Ratsiburgskaya.
Regarding this problem, L. Ratsiburgskaya writes that with liberalization public relations There was also a liberalization in the language, which was reflected in media texts. “...Media texts began to be distinguished by brightness, creative imagination and spontaneity of live speech, stiffness, constriction, and standardness disappeared...” On the other hand, this led to a clear “overkill” of expression, the manifestation of bad taste writing journalists. [Ratsiburgskaya 2006: 56]
If earlier journalists were one way or another guided by the written language fiction, then now their texts are closer to the style of everyday speech, notes L. Ratsiburgskaya. “This cannot pass without a trace for the language spoken by society - after all, in their everyday speech, people, as a rule, are guided not by examples of fiction, but by television and newspaper language...” (ibid.).
We read almost the same thing in E. Basovskaya’s article, where she writes that the emotional state of a modern person largely depends on the media: not only on the topics of newspapers, magazines, etc., but also on their style. Journalists, in order to make their publications as attractive, interesting and persuasive as possible, “often choose an aggressive speech strategy.” [Basovskaya 2004: 257]
E. Basovskaya argues that a person who is characterized by aggressive verbal behavior does not always act consciously. "In this sense, the texts printed media mass media not quite typical,” she writes (ibid.). Comparing verbal aggression in direct oral communication with verbal aggression in journalists’ remarks, the author of the article comes to the conclusion that the latter’s verbal aggression manifests itself “in accordance with a well-thought-out strategy” and not under the influence of an emotional impulse. For journalists, verbal aggression is “not a means of struggle, but a fashionable... rhetorical device” (ibid., 257-263). While verbal aggression in oral communication “serves as a crude voluntary means”, acts as an instrument of self-defense, and performs “compensatory functions, replacing physical aggression” (ibid., p. 263).
L. Enina in the article “Speech aggression and speech tolerance in the media” talks about two options for the manifestation of cases of speech aggression in texts:
Based on linguistic analysis texts, L. Enina identifies several images of the enemy in the modern press:
the enemy in the form of power, those in power. Included in the opposition “People - Power”;
an enemy among ethnic strangers;
external enemy. Opposition "Russia - West";
The author of the following article on verbal aggression in the media (E. Lopukhova “Speech aggression in the media and crime”) writes that “amplifiers of the aggressive flow of information” are often used in texts and messages, such as:
the use of words like: victim, murder, maniac, etc.;
a vivid description of aggression: brutal murder, torn body;
using words that insult certain representatives various structures: policeman - “cop”, “garbage”; seller - “huckster”, “huckster”.
About overcoming verbal aggression
According to scientists, aggressive speech demonstrates an authoritarian communication style, lack of professionalism and leads to alienation, hostility, and misunderstanding. Therefore, aggression is ethically unacceptable and ineffective from a communicative point of view. In this regard, it is necessary to learn to control, restrain, and overcome verbal aggression. Exists scientific literature with practical recommendations for overcoming verbal aggression. Thus, L. Enina in her article calls on journalists to reduce verbal aggression by abandoning direct evaluative oppositions, from crude evaluative expressions of images of “strangers,” “due to an analytical approach to this problem.” [Enina 2003: 5]
An article on our topic, published on the website www.school.promiranet.ru, provides a list of private techniques for controlling speech aggression in specific speech situations, which, as the author writes, every civilized person must use:
1.Ignoring verbal aggression (silence in response to an aggressive statement; refusal to continue communication, etc.).
2.Switching attention (you need to try to change the hostile mood of the interlocutor, transfer the conversation to another topic).
.“Tactical doubt”, or the “incitement” method (targeted verbal “provocation”).
.Positive evaluative statements.
.Open verbal reprimand (it must be expressed in the correct form, with the obligatory use of necessary formulas politeness).
Joke. Humor.
To prevent aggression, it is also proposed to use means of speech etiquette:
·apology;
· indirect expression of motivation (“Perhaps you...?”; “Won’t you do...?”);
· polite treatment;
· euphemisms (from the Greek eu - “good” and phemi - “I say”), i.e. more soft words or expressions instead of rude or abusive ones (“not true” instead of “lies”).
verbal aggression Russian studies
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Rough and harsh treatment closes all doors and all hearts in front of us.
S. Smiles
Objectives of studying the topic:
– reveal the causes and consequences of speech aggression in modern society in general and in specific communication conditions;
– learn to distinguish between similar, but not identical negative emotional states (for example, anger, hatred, rage) and determine the degree (strong - moderate - weak) of their manifestation in situations of verbal aggression;
– develop the ability to correctly understand and correctly select linguistic (lexical, phraseological) means to assess negative emotional states that cause verbal aggression.
* Is it possible to consider verbal aggression as a typical phenomenon for modern society? Give reasons for your answer. In what areas of life? modern society Is verbal aggression most common? Think about why this is happening.
The question of the causes and consequences of verbal aggression involves many aspects to consider. Therefore, within the framework of this textbook, we will only briefly list the most important reasons and outline the most obvious consequences of the wide spread of this negative phenomenon in modern society, in particular, in children's speech environment and in pedagogical communication.
Reasons for speech aggression can be combined into the following groups: social, psychological, sociocultural, and communicative.
Speaking about human aggression and especially about its verbal manifestations, it is necessary to recognize that the emergence and development of aggressiveness depends primarily on social conditions, which include social formation in general, and the immediate social environment, small group– family, school, group of friends, etc.
Among social The reasons for the widespread prevalence of verbal aggression can be identified as follows.
1. General (political, economic, cultural) instability of modern society, which determines a decrease in the standard of living with an increase in crime rates, cases of antisocial behavior, and, as a consequence, a tendency for the public consciousness to tacitly encourage verbal aggression as an integral part of the “modern” code of speech behavior, “strong”, “self-confident” personality.
2. Propaganda of violence in the media.
Mass media, and especially television, act as a source of verbal aggression.
The unique cultivation and inculcation of verbal aggression is also facilitated by the popularity of the action and thriller genres in modern literature and cinema with the corresponding models of speech behavior of characters and a set of verbal clichés, as well as computer games and aggressive music.
In addition, verbal aggression is peculiarly “stimulated” by a clearly unhealthy interest in the details of crimes and the form of their presentation in many modern printed publications. Let's give just one concrete example(italics – ours): “An hour and a half before the murder of my father son with a penknife he had already seriously wounded his drinking buddy with whom he was spending Christmas evening. Same with a knife They decided for my dear daddy"(“Killed... dad”, Chimes, 1993, No. 5).
It can also be noted that in the last seven to ten years, many media outlets have been cultivating the so-called. “invectiveization of speech” - the unjustified use of swear words and expressions with a clear decrease in censorship control.
3. Loss or weakening of mechanisms that traditionally restrained manifestations of verbal aggression.
In domestic speech culture of past centuries played such a role:
– religious ideas, in particular, the attitude towards the Word in Christian ethics (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...”, John I, 1–5);
- folk beliefs (for example, fearing the devil, they did not swear in the forest; among Russian peasants it was considered dangerous to scold children, because in the next world they would turn away from their parents; according to legend, demons penetrate into a house where people scold and swear;
– censorship control;
– strict adherence to the norms of speech etiquette;
Sociocultural The factors that determine the greater or lesser degree of manifestation of verbal aggression in society are the following:
1. Attitude to this form of aggression, the degree of its condemnation in a given logosphere, speech-thinking culture.
So, for example, a significant degree of social loyalty to verbal aggression in Russian society, obviously, allows us to agree that “this phenomenon occurs in our society much more often and is more diverse than, say, in Japanese culture, where verbal aggression is met with active public condemnation» .
2. Traditional form of suppression and warning for a given society physical aggression.
In almost any modern society, physical aggression is replaced by socially more acceptable ways of splashing out negative emotions: either in the form of invective - through the use of swear words and expressions in speech; or in the form of politeness - with the help of carefully developed rules of etiquette, various verbal rituals, etc. At the same time, paradoxically, “politeness is completely similar to invective, it allows one to regard itself as a kind of substitute for physical aggressiveness.”
If we consider the Russian speech tradition in this regard, then for it, as for European culture in general, invective and verbal aggression are certainly more typical.
Therefore, in modern European society there is practically no strict legal control over manifestations of verbal aggression - clearly thought out and realistically current system laws and regulations.
For example, in the United States, fines for blasphemy and foul language have been abolished in public places.
In Russian administrative legislation, “obscene language in public places, offensive harassment of citizens” is qualified as “petty hooliganism” and entails a fine in the amount of 5 to 15 times the minimum wage or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days (Article 20.1 “Petty hooliganism" of the "Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses" as of September 1, 2002). However, in reality, bringing people to justice under this article turns out to be quite difficult, primarily because many people prefer not to notice verbal aggression directed at them, not to respond to verbal attacks, or to solve this problem on their own - most often with the help of retaliatory aggression.
Among actually communicative reasons for the spread of verbal aggression in modern world it is necessary to highlight the following:
1. A number of stereotypical communication attitudes of parents who are afraid that their child will not easily adapt to a “cruel” world. These attitudes are expressed predominantly in the following verbal patterns: “always fight back”, “be the best”, “meet parental expectations at any cost”, etc. Moreover, most often this means verbal (as less condemned by social consciousness), and not physical aggression.
2. There is clearly insufficient attention to the child’s speech culture in the family and a lack of targeted training in communication skills at school.
3. Pathogenic communication environment in modern children's team, in which negative personal experience is formed verbal communication specific child (see social learning theory; topic 1).
The most general model of negative speech contact in a children's group is embodied in communicative intentions such as “argue”, “imitate”, “ridicule” and “hanging verbal labels” (for example, “sneak”, “liar”, “imagined”, etc. ).
Finally, speaking of psychological reasons for the occurrence of aggression in children’s speech, it is necessary to take into account the following psychological characteristics of children and adolescents:
1. Age-related psychological crises (1 year, 3 years, 7 years, crisis of adolescence, etc.), marked, as is known, by an increased manifestation of aggression in general, and verbal aggression especially.
2. Exacerbation in adolescence of psychological discomfort when faced with a situation of frustration and the more frequent creation of such situations (theme 1).
3. Temporary hyperfunction (increase) or hypofunction (decrease) of one of the levels of the emotional regulation system.
For example, with hyperfunction of the level stereotypes which is “responsible” for the emergence of standards of behavioral reactions, the coloring of emotional experiences with pleasure or displeasure, there is an “increase in activity in satisfying needs and, as a result, fixation on negative impressions, experiencing them too acutely.” It is clear that this can provoke verbal aggression.
At the level expansion the experience of success and defeat is created, the perception of anger and aggression as a threat to human existence occurs when “ aggressive manifestations are part of possible ways of affective adaptation to the environment” and take the form of more complex goal-directed behavior. In the case of hyperfunction of this level, the need to dramatize relations with the world increases and, consequently, the tendency to quarrels, conflicts, and aggressive statements.
Finally, with hypofunction of the level emotional control,“responsible for solving complex ethological problems of organizing an individual’s life in society,” establishing emotional interaction with other people, developing the ability to empathize with another person, there is a weakening of the influence of social acceptability and correct forms of behavior. This, in turn, also leads to verbal aggression, which begins to be perceived by the child as an adequate and acceptable response (for example, to a remark) or as a justified and appropriate speech tactic (for example, in a situation of argument, discussion).
Results general analysis We will present the causes of verbal aggression in the form of the following diagram (can be offered as an independent task).
When considering the causes of the emergence and manifestation of speech aggression, it is necessary to take into account the significant complexity and ambiguity of this problem, since the quantitative diversity and qualitative originality of speech situations marked by aggression determine specific aggressive motives and incentives characteristic of each individual situation.
* List the ones you know negative feelings and emotions. Which of them, in your opinion, can cause verbal aggression in specific communication situations? Illustrate your reasoning life examples speech situations.
In specific communication situations, verbal aggression occurs in cases where the speaker (the initiator of aggression) feels the need for emotional release– expressing negative emotions and feelings, relieving psychological stress, achieving catharsis (topic 1).
Scientists have found that such emotions include primarily anger, disgust And contempt, who received special name – « triad of hostility" .
However, the concept of “negative emotions”, of course, is not limited to the “hostile triad”. Offensive statements can appear in the speech of a person who is experiencing resentment, disappointment, indignation, despondency and other negative feelings and emotions.
Consider the "Triad of Hostility" diagram. Tell us about the private reasons for the manifestation of verbal aggression in specific communication situations. Complete the diagram with your own examples.
Consequences of verbal aggression
* Think about how verbal aggression can be dangerous? What does hurtful communication lead to? Can a harsh word sometimes have more serious consequences than a physical action, the use of force?
The formulation of this problem itself is possible and necessary in two aspects: general social(verbal aggression as social phenomenon) and actually communicative(verbal aggression as a phenomenon of speech).
As we have already established, in modern society verbal aggression is assessed as less destructive and only “fictitiously” dangerous than physical aggression. Meanwhile, swearing, rudeness, offensive statements, verbal pressure can often be perceived even more painfully than physical impact(push, hit).
In addition, verbal aggression creates a negative model of human behavior in general and thus is the basis for stronger and, accordingly, socially unacceptable behavior - physical aggression. In other words, “having become stronger in the acceptability of verbal aggression, a person can extend this model to other areas of life that, in his opinion, require physical aggression.”
Another problem is that very often in everyday life verbal aggression is not recognized by the public consciousness as absolutely unacceptable and truly dangerous. Due to this this concept is replaced by unjustifiably softened or completely distorted definitions: “speech incontinence”, “sharpness of expressions”, etc.
Well-known aggression researcher N.D. Levitov rightly notes that “in everyday life, including in school life Often there are forms of gross violent behavior that undoubtedly relate to aggression, although not usually called by this term. They talk about “cockiness”, “pugnaciousness”, “bitterness” when they see aggressive behavior...".
Thus, we observe a wide prevalence of verbal aggression with relative loyalty to this phenomenon on the part of modern society.
All of the above allows us to draw the following important conclusion:
! The main danger of verbal aggression in social terms lies in the underestimation of its danger by public consciousness.
The immediate area of distribution of specific forms of verbal aggression is everyday verbal communication. What are the consequences of verbal aggression in communicative aspect?
A. A. Leontyev identifies three features of verbal communication: intentionality (the presence of a specific motive and goal); effectiveness (coincidence of the achieved result with the intended goal); normativity ( social control over the course and results of the act of communication).
As our experimental data show, as well as theoretical research This problem, in communication marked by certain manifestations of aggression, these conditions are either violated or are not taken into account at all. Thus, in most cases of offensive communication there is a weakening or complete absence control of communicants over their own statements.
Evidence of this is the active use of invective; violation of intonation, timbre, tempo and other phonological features of speech; failure to take into account the “addressee factor” (constantly interrupting the interlocutor, touching upon “taboo” (forbidden) topics, etc.).
In addition, in a situation of verbal aggression, there is a rapid increase in emotional tension, which captures almost everyone (!), even participants in communication who do not have aggressive verbal intentions. This is described very accurately in the family chronicle “Gymnasium Students” by N.G. Garin-Mikhailovsky: “It used to be that Kornev would begin to scold someone without ceremony, and Kartashov would feel such humiliation as if he himself was being scolded.”
Do you agree with this statement? Have you ever found yourself in Kartashov’s position? Describe this situation, tell us about your feelings. Draw a conclusion about the consequences of verbal aggression in specific communication conditions.
The situation of offensive communication, a characteristic feature of which is the extreme inaccuracy of realizing the goals of communication, also makes it impossible to fulfill the first two conditions of effective verbal communication - intentionality and effectiveness.
Thus, in the case of verbal aggression, a kind of substitution or distortion of the original communicative intention of one or more participants in communication occurs. For example, a discussion that initially has a positive communicative orientation is evidence own point vision or a joint search for truth, easily develops into a quarrel, a verbal altercation, the purpose of which is to hurt the opponent. This happens as soon as the speech of at least one of the opponents shows signs of verbal aggression: increased tone, sharp categorical judgments, “getting personal,” etc. So, let’s summarize our reasoning:
! Speech aggression interferes with the implementation of the main tasks of effective communication:– makes it difficult to fully exchange information;– inhibits the perception and understanding of each other by interlocutors;– makes it impossible to produce overall strategy interactions.
Therefore, a comprehensive study of verbal aggression is a necessary condition, ensuring the communicative security of the individual and society as a whole.
After studying CHAPTER 13, the student should:
· know:
ü the main forms of existence of hate speech;
ü main types of verbal aggression;
ü basic quarrel tactics
· be able to:
ü recognize verbal aggression and resist it;
· own:
ü skills to overcome conflict in communication;
ü tactics of conflict-free behavior.
Speech aggression, extremely common today in various types communication is a serious obstacle to effective communication. The term “verbal aggression” in modern linguistic and psychological research is used in relation to a variety of speech acts, very heterogeneous in terms of the motivation of the participants in the communicative act, situations of manifestation, forms of verbal embodiment and goals pursued by the interlocutors.
In its most general form, verbal aggression is understood as (1) rude, offensive, hurtful communication and (2) verbal expression of negative emotions, feelings or intentions in a form that is unacceptable in a given speech situation. Speech aggression manifests itself in insult, threat, rude demand, rude refusal, accusation, ridicule. Aggressive intentions can be hidden or indirectly expressed in a variety of forms: from mockery and abuse to denunciations and gossip.
Yu.V. Shcherbinina, a specialist in the field of verbal aggression, identifies several ways to classify verbal aggression:
– by intensity: weak (“erased”, “blurred”) and strong (“maximum”, “ultimate”);
– according to the degree of awareness of the speaker’s actions and the purpose of the influence: conscious and unconscious;
– by the method of expression: expression of aggression in both form and content; the expression of aggression is exclusively formal; expression of aggression in content;
– by the number of participants: mass and socially closed (group, interpersonal).
If we're talking about about interpersonal communication, it is traditionally distinguished following types verbal aggression:
1. Insult is a deliberate humiliation of honor and dignity, expressed in an indecent form. The structural formula of the insult is extremely simple: “(You are) X", Where X– any emotional-evaluative word with negative value. Second part of the insult ( X) determines the semantic content of the offensive statement.
As the most common methods of insult, Professor V.I. Zhelvis identifies the following: a) comparison of the addressee’s name with obscene (obscene) names; b) metaphorical transfer of the name of the animal to the addressee ( goat); c) accusation of violating social norms ( thief); d) the use of a reduced word or expression to demonstrate a negative attitude towards the addressee ( ate his face).
2. Threat- this is a promise to cause harm or evil to the addressee if he does not perform or, conversely, performs any action. The structural formula of a threat is as follows: “If you (don’t) do X, then I will do something bad to you.”
The threat has various linguistic forms: a) an incentive sentence with a subordinate clause (“ If you..., then I...!"); b) a complex sentence, one of the parts of which contains an imperative mood (“ Do it... or else..."); c) a complex sentence with a subordinate clause (“ Once again..., (then)...!"); d) statement of a future fact (“ You'll dance with me!"). Hidden or indirect threats are also possible, which are embodied in the form of statements based on the technique of silence or with the help of a hint.
3. Rough requirement- This is a rude order expressed in a decisive, categorical form. A structurally crude demand is almost always formalized as a sentence that is motivating in purpose and exclamatory in intonation, the semantic core of which contains the imperative form of the verb (“ Get out of here!»; « Come on eat!") or form indicative mood in the sense of imperative (“ She started answering quickly!»; « He shut up and sat down!», « Let's go quickly!»).
4. Rough refusal is a negative response to a request or demand expressed in an inappropriate form. Usually this form of verbal aggression does not contain the necessary politeness formulas ( Sorry, Please), is accompanied by a raised tone and does not contain an explanation of the reason for the refusal. The linguistic embodiment of a rude refusal can be different: from simple non-widespread (“ You'll get by!»; « Run away!»; « Leave me alone!") to complex sentence (« You need it - do it!»).
5. Hostile remark- this is a remark that comes down to expressing a negative position towards the addressee or others (“ I can't stand you!»; « Your presence disgusts me!»; « You're pissing me off", etc.). Distinctive feature a hostile remark should be recognized as its clichéd (frozen, unchangeable) linguistic form. Thus, according to the observations of teachers, for communication in the domestic high school The following hostile remarks are typical: “ You don't know anything!»; « Why is he bothering me?! I'm tired of it!»; « You got me!»; « You're talking nonsense!».
A type of hostile remark is curse: « Damn you!»,« May you die!», « May you fall through the ground!».
6. Censure- This is an expression of disapproval, condemnation. According to the apt remark of the famous linguist E.M. Vereshchagin, we can distinguish different types of censure depending on the degree of their impact on the addressee: “small is reproaches, commensurately intense – denunciation, overly intense – roasting».
Structurally, censure consists of addressing the addressee (usually “you”, less often “you”) or naming him in the third person and an evaluative verb or syntactically integral phrase (“ You were rude to me!», « You are being rude!"). Sometimes censure takes the form of rhetorical question-exclamation (« Are you completely crazy?!»).
7. Mockery(causticism) – this is offensive joke, expressed towards someone with the aim of saying something unpleasant to the interlocutor, subjecting him to ridicule. Ridicule presupposes special verbal sophistication and is very often based on subtext or an ironic discrepancy between what was said and what was actually said. An example of a barb would be the suggestion to seek advice from a person who is considered a fool: “ Let's listen to what the smartest among us has to say!»
Speech aggression in ridicule can manifest itself not only in the content of the statement, but also in its form - for example, in ironic, caustic intonation or a special tempo of speech (with a deliberate, exaggerated stretching of words, with artificial pauses, etc.).
8. Argument is a complex speech genre of interpersonal communication in which to the greatest extent verbal aggression manifests itself.
Structurally, a quarrel is framed as a dialogue in which the roles of speaker and listener periodically change. If one of the participants in such a dialogue claims to have a dominant role (most often - the “accuser”), then the quarrel takes on a monological character. It is important to note that quarrels do not arise on empty space: one of the communication participants already has some complaints against the second participant from the very beginning of the conversation and is ready in advance to realize his aggressive intentions.
The linguistic embodiment of a quarrel is diverse: it is no coincidence that dictionaries of synonyms in the Russian language provide an extensive series of words with similar meanings: quarrel, disagreement, discord, discord, spat, strife, discord.
Psycholinguists I.N. Gorelov and K.F. Sedov identifies the following tactics for developing a quarrel:
1. Indignation tactics - used, as a rule, at the beginning of a quarrel as a negative emotional reaction on the actions of the interlocutor.
2. Tactics of ridicule - most often based on the use of irony and can arise at any time during a quarrel.
3. Tactics of barbs - based on an indirect expression of the speaker’s intentions (hint, subtext).
4. Tactics of reproach - takes place at any stage of development of a quarrel.
5. Tactics of demonstrating resentment - the speaker’s dissatisfaction is expressed not about any action of the addressee, but about his speech behavior, which is considered offensive.
6. Insult tactics - usually arises at the climax of a quarrel and involves the use of offensive language.
7. Threat tactics - arises most often in the highest stages of a quarrel.
K.F. Sedov connects verbal aggression with personality type and identifies the so-called conflict aggressors(they are prone to quarrels, scandals, showdowns) and conflict manipulators(they prefer to use the speech genres of reprimand, moral teaching, etc.)
It must be remembered that verbal aggression creates a negative model of human behavior and can serve as the basis for stronger and socially unacceptable behavior - physical aggression. As V.I. writes Zhelvis, “having become stronger in the acceptability of verbal aggression, a person can extend this model to other areas of life that, in his opinion, require physical aggression.”
In addition to the types of verbal aggression considered, which primarily characterize private, interpersonal communication, there is also mass verbal aggression. Thus, the famous expert in the field of rhetoric A.K. Michalskaya especially highlights situations of verbal aggression in which “mass of people participate under the leadership of a leader,” where “all participants unite in an act of verbal aggression against a certain common “enemy” represented / not represented in the situation by a specific person / persons”: “the leader is directed and deliberately influences a special instinct ... “inspiration,” “inspiring fighting impulse.” Examples of such situations include mass events (political rally, football match, rock concert, etc.).
A special manifestation of verbal aggression is becoming a phenomenon characteristic of a number of media and some politicians, such as hate speech(from the English hate speech), which includes the designation of any public “linguistic act” that directly or indirectly contributes to the incitement of national, religious, social and/or other hostility.
It should be noted that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe defines “hate speech” as all forms of expression that involve the dissemination, provocation, stimulation or justification of racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other types of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance in the form of aggressive nationalism or ethnocentrism, discrimination or hostility towards minorities, migrants and people with immigrant roots.
In Russia (as in most civilized countries of the world) there are quite strict administrative and criminal prohibitions on actions that incite racial, national and religious hatred, but from time to time direct or camouflaged manifestations of hate speech arise in the public space, which you need to be able to see and deal with. which, of course, should be fought.
Sociologists and linguists identify various forms of existence of hate speech, of which it is important to know the most common ones:
1) Calls for violence (for example, declaring violence as an acceptable means, including in the form of abstract calls like “ All AIDS patients - on desert island! »);
2) Calls for discrimination, including in the form of general slogans (for example, “ Down with migrant workers! Jobs only for locals!»);
3) Veiled calls for violence and discrimination (propaganda of “positive”, historical or modern, examples of violence or discrimination, often framed as expressions like “ It would be nice to do such and such with those», « It's high time...", etc.);
4) Creating a negative image of ethnic, religious, age, gender, professional, etc. group (not associated with specific accusations, but rather conveyed by the tone of the text " It is known that blondes are no different high level intelligence»);
5) Justification of historical cases of violence and discrimination (expressions like “ Turks massacred Armenians in 1915 in self-defense»);
6) Publications and statements questioning generally accepted historical facts violence and discrimination (for example, the presence or extent of the Holocaust);
7) Statements about different types inferiority (lack of culture, intellectual abilities, inability to do creative work, etc.) of one or another social or ethnic group as such (ideas like “ blacks are stupid», « villagers are rude»);
8) Allegations about historical crimes of a particular ethnic or religious group as such (like " Poles have always prepared provocations against the Russians»);
9) Statements about the criminality of a particular ethnic or religious group (for example, “ all Italians are mafiosi»);
10) Statements about the moral shortcomings of a particular ethnic or religious group (“ gypsies are deceivers»);
12) Reasoning about the disproportionate superiority of one or another social group in material wealth, representation in government structures, the press, etc.;
13) Accusations of the negative influence of a particular ethnic or religious group on society and/or the state (“ blurring national identity », « Mormons undermine Orthodox foundations Russian society »);
14) Mentioning an ethnic or religious group or its representatives as such in a humiliating or offensive context (for example, in a criminal chronicle);
15) Quoting xenophobic statements and texts without commentary that defines the demarcation of the positions of the interviewee and the journalist.
Thus, it should be remembered that freedom of the media should not conflict with such a fundamental value of a democratic society as equal rights of citizens. Any media outlet in its activities can accidentally cross this line, but a purposeful imbalance, especially one of a massive nature, may indicate an impending social conflict, about the painful state of society.
According to Yu.V. Shcherbinina, verbal aggression prevents the implementation of the main tasks of effective verbal communication: it complicates the full exchange of information, inhibits the perception and understanding of each other by interlocutors, and makes it impossible to develop a common interaction strategy.
It should be remembered that there are rules of conflict-free behavior. For example, Professor I.A. Sternin identifies as the most important the “principle of tolerance towards your interlocutor,” which includes the following advice:
· do not try to change the interlocutor during a conversation;
· try to overcome a negative attitude towards the interlocutor; during communication, be distracted from the shortcomings of the interlocutor;
· adapt to the interlocutor (take into account his mood, level of speech preparedness, etc.).
There are many ways to overcome verbal aggression in specific communicative acts.
Ignoring. A very productive course of defense against aggression can be the absence of a reaction to tactlessness addressed to oneself. Very often, the winning tactic in a situation of aggression is to “not notice” the hostility on the part of the interlocutor and not to respond to rudeness with rudeness. This could be silence in response to an aggressive statement or refusal to continue communication. Experienced and seasoned interlocutors can continue communication in a calm tone. In most cases, such tactics do not allow the conversation to continue in a militant manner.
Ignoring is a method that, due to the effect of surprise, has a psychological impact on the aggressive interlocutor and destroys his negative scenario of action. However, it should be remembered that this method of combating aggression is effective in the case when the situation has not become acute and has not turned into openly offensive, unacceptable communication. Otherwise, such tactics can only aggravate the conflict.
Switching attention. It is useful in a situation of a quarrel or showdown to distract the interlocutor from his aggressive intentions or change his negative emotional state, for example, by moving the conversation to another topic. Possible ways to shift attention include the following: unexpected question (« Listen, how long have we been arguing?"); distracting sentence (" Let's try to find the answer to this question on the Internet.», « Let's ask mutual friends about this"); appeal to past experience (“ On this occasion I remember an incident..."), joke (" It's just like in a joke..."), etc.
Projecting positive qualities"aggressor". In a certain situation, when good knowledge“strengths” and positive traits of the interlocutor, you can remember these qualities (hint at them) using statements that emphasize the randomness of the offense or aggressive speech behavior, for example: reminder (“ You are an adult, reasonable person!"); astonishment (" Could you really say that?!"); disappointment (" I thought you would act differently...»).
Positive evaluative statements. Purposeful demonstration of approval, a friendly attitude towards the interlocutor, praise of his qualities and actions prevent verbal aggression. It is important that the expression of approval be varied in form. Expression positive assessment there can be not only traditional " Well done!” And " smart girl!”, but also an appeal to past successes (“Last time you did a great job, let’s do it even better this time!”); agreement, gratitude, support for the interlocutor’s opinion (“ I like the way you completed this task»; « I completely share your opinion»; « Thanks for the interesting question»).
Humor. A well-timed joke can relieve tension. However, it must be remembered that jokes with hostile content are no longer humor, but sarcasm (sarcastic, evil, caustic ridicule). Such jokes, on the contrary, can provoke increased aggression (see paragraph 8.4).
Belief. There are requirements, the violation of which makes persuasion ineffective and can irritate the interlocutor. For example, in order to avoid retaliatory aggression, the following techniques should not be used: explaining obvious things to your interlocutor (for example, saying why you should not insult another person), moralizing (“ Interlocutors must listen to each other carefully"); convince of something unacceptable in a given situation (“ It is always necessary to be the first to come to terms"); raise the tone (speak irritably or overly pretentiously).
It is always better to start with a description of the merits of the interlocutor, his achievements, successes. This allows you to remove emotional stress, set to positive communication, reduce the possibility of protest. In the process of persuasion, an effective technique for changing roles is modeling a situation in which the “aggressor” finds himself in the place of the “victim.” In this way, one can achieve awareness of the wrong behavior through empathy (empathy): “ Would you yourself be pleased to hear what you told me?», « Imagine being in my situation...»; « Think about what you would do in his place».
Thus, verbal aggression as negative way communication has various forms of existence - from ridicule and rude refusal to political slogans and extremist calls - however, long history existence, humanity has also developed a weapon to counter verbal aggression, the use of which can and should be learned.
Speech aggression, extremely common today in various types of communication, is a serious obstacle to effective communication. The term “speech aggression” in modern linguistic and psychological research is used in relation to a variety of speech actions, very heterogeneous in the motivation of the participants in the communicative act, situations of manifestation, forms of verbal embodiment and goals pursued by the interlocutors.
In the most general form, verbal aggression is understood as: 1) rude, offensive, offensive communication and 2) verbal expression of negative emotions, feelings or intentions in a form that is unacceptable in a given speech situation. Speech aggression manifests itself in insult, threat, rude demand, rude refusal, accusation, ridicule. Aggressive intentions can be hidden or indirectly expressed in a variety of forms: from mockery and abuse to denunciations and gossip.
Yu. V. Shcherbinina, a specialist in the field of verbal aggression, identifies several ways to classify verbal aggression:
By intensity: weak (“erased”, “blurred”) and strong (“maximum”, “ultimate”);
According to the degree of awareness of the speaker’s actions and the purpose of the influence: conscious and unconscious;
But the way of expression: expression of aggression in both form and content; the expression of aggression is exclusively formal; expression of aggression in content;
By the number of participants: mass and socially closed (group, interpersonal).
If we are talking about interpersonal communication, then traditionally the following types of verbal aggression are distinguished.
1. Insult - This is a deliberate humiliation of honor and dignity, expressed in an indecent form. The structural formula of the insult is extremely simple: “(You are) X”, where X- any emotionally evaluative word with a negative meaning. Second part of the insult (X) determines the semantic content of the offensive statement.
As the most common methods of insult, Professor V.I. Zhelvis identifies the following: a) comparing the addressee’s name with lunch (obscene) names; b) metaphorical transfer of the name of the animal to the addressee (goat); c) accusation of violating social norms (thief); d) using a reduced word or expression to demonstrate a negative attitude towards the addressee (he ate his face).
2. Threat - This is a promise to cause harm or harm to the addressee if he does not perform or, conversely, performs any action. The structural formula of a threat is as follows: “If you (don’t) do X, then I will do something bad to you.”
The threat has various linguistic forms: a) an incentive sentence with a subordinate condition (“If you..., then I...!”); b) a complex sentence, one of the parts of which contains an imperative mood ("Do..., otherwise..."); c) a complex sentence with a subordinate clause ("Once again..., (then)...!"); d) statement of a future fact (“You will dance with me!”). Hidden or indirect threats are also possible, which are embodied in the form of statements based on the technique of silence or with the help of a hint.
3. Rough requirement - This is a rude order expressed in a decisive, categorical form. A structurally crude demand is almost always formalized as a sentence that is motivating in purpose and exclamatory in intonation, the semantic core of which contains the imperative form of the verb (“Get out of here!”;
“Come on!”) or the form of the indicative mood in the sense of imperative (“Quickly began to answer!”; “He fell silent and sat down!”, “Let’s go quickly!”).
4. Rough refusal - This is a negative response to a request or demand expressed in an inappropriate form. Typically, this form of verbal aggression does not contain the necessary politeness formulas (sorry, please), is accompanied by a raised stomp and does not contain an explanation of the reason for the refusal. The linguistic embodiment of rude refusal can be different: from a simple non-common (“You’ll get by!”; “Run away!”; “Leave me alone!”) to a complex sentence (“You need it - you do it!”).
5. Hostile remark - this is a remark that comes down to expressing a negative position towards the addressee or others (“I can’t stand you!”; “Your presence disgusts me!”; “You piss me off,” etc.). A distinctive feature of a hostile remark should be its clichéd (frozen, unchangeable) linguistic form. Thus, according to the observations of teachers, communication in Russian secondary schools is characterized by the following hostile remarks: “You don’t know anything!”; "Why is he bothering me?! I'm tired of it!"; "You got me!"; "You're talking nonsense!"
A type of hostile remark is curse:“Damn you!”, “May you die!”, “May you sink into the ground!”
6. Condemnation - This is an expression of disapproval, condemnation. According to the apt remark of the famous linguist E.M. Vereshchagin, different types of censure can be distinguished depending on the degree of their impact on the addressee: “minor is reproaches, proportionately intense - reproof, overly intense - roasting."
Structurally, censure consists of addressing the addressee (usually “you”, less often “you”) or calling him in the third person and an evaluative verb or syntactically integral phrase (“You were rude to me!”, “You are rude!”). Sometimes censure is framed in the form of a rhetorical question-exclamation (“Are you completely crazy?!”).
7. Mockery(causticity) is an offensive joke made at someone’s address with the aim of saying something unpleasant to the interlocutor, subjecting him to ridicule. Ridicule presupposes special verbal sophistication and is very often based on subtext or an ironic discrepancy between what was said and what was actually said. An example of a barb would be a proposal to seek advice from a person who is considered a fool: “Let’s listen to what the smartest among us has to say!”
Speech aggression in ridicule can manifest itself not only in the content of the statement, but also in its form, for example, in ironic, caustic intonation or a special tempo of speech (with a deliberate, exaggerated stretching of words, with artificial pauses, etc.).
8. Argument - This is a complex speech genre of interpersonal communication in which verbal aggression is most manifested.
Structurally, a quarrel is framed as a dialogue in which the roles of speaker and listener periodically change. If one of the participants in such a dialogue claims to have a dominant role (most often - the “accuser”), then the quarrel takes on a monological character. It is important to note that quarrels do not arise out of nowhere: one of the participants in communication, from the very beginning of the conversation, already has some complaints against the second participant and is ready in advance to realize his aggressive intentions.
The linguistic embodiment of a quarrel is diverse: it is no coincidence that dictionaries of synonyms in the Russian language provide an extensive series of words with similar meanings: quarrel, disagreement, discord, discord, disagreement, strife, discord.
Psycholinguists I. N. Gorelov and K. F. Sedov identify the following tactics for developing a quarrel.
1. Indignation tactics - used, as a rule, at the beginning of a quarrel as a negative emotional reaction to the action of the interlocutor.
2. Tactics of ridicule - most often based on the use of irony and can arise at any moment of a quarrel.
3. Tactics of barbs - based on an indirect expression of the speaker’s intentions (hint, subtext).
4. Tactics of reproach - takes place at any stage of development of a quarrel.
5. Tactics of demonstrating resentment - the speaker’s dissatisfaction is expressed not about any action of the addressee, but about his speech behavior, which is considered offensive.
6. Insult tactics - usually arises at the culmination of a quarrel and involves the use of offensive language.
7. Threat tactics - arises most often in the highest stages of a quarrel.
K. F. Sedov connects verbal aggression with personality type and identifies the so-called conflict aggressors(they are prone to quarrels, scandals, showdowns) and conflict manipulators(they prefer to use the speech genres of reprimand, moral teaching, etc.).
It must be remembered that verbal aggression creates a negative model of human behavior and can serve as the basis for stronger and socially unacceptable behavior - physical aggression. As V.I. Zhelvis writes, “having become stronger in the acceptability of verbal aggression, a person can extend this model to other areas of life that, in his opinion, require physical aggression.”
In addition to the types of verbal aggression considered, which primarily characterize private, interpersonal communication, there is also mass verbal aggression. Thus, a well-known specialist in the field of rhetoric, A. K. Mikhalskaya, especially highlights situations of verbal aggression in which “mass of people participate under the leadership of a leader,” where “all participants unite in an act of verbal aggression against some common “enemy” represented/not represented in situations by a specific person/persons": "the leader purposefully and intentionally influences a special instinct... of "inspiration", "inspiring fighting impulse"". Examples of such situations include mass events (political rally, football match, rock concert, etc.).
A special manifestation of verbal aggression is becoming a phenomenon characteristic of a number of media and some politicians, such as hate speech(from English hate speech), which includes the designation of any public “linguistic act” that directly or indirectly contributes to the incitement of national, religious, social and/or other hostility.
It should be noted that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe defines hate speech as all forms of expression that include the dissemination, provocation, stimulation or justification of racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other types of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance in the form of aggressive nationalism or ethnocentrism, discrimination or hostility ií regarding minorities, migrants and people with emigrant roots.
In Russia (as in most civilized countries of the world) there are quite strict administrative and criminal prohibitions on actions that incite racial, national and religious hatred, but from time to time direct or camouflaged manifestations of hate speech arise in the public space, which you need to be able to see and deal with. which, of course, should be fought.
Sociologists and linguists identify various forms of hate speech; it is important to know the most common of them.
1. Calls for violence (for example, declaring violence as an acceptable means, including in the form of abstract calls like “All AIDS patients - go to a desert island!”).
2. Calls for discrimination, including in the form of general slogans (for example, “Down with guest workers! Jobs only for locals!”).
3. Veiled calls for violence and discrimination (propaganda of “positive”, historical or modern examples violence or discrimination, often framed as expressions such as “It would be nice to do such and such with such and such”, “It’s high time...”, etc.).
4. Creating a negative image of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, professional, etc. group (not associated with specific accusations, but rather conveyed by the tone of the text: “It is known that blondes do not have a high level of intelligence”).
5. Justification of historical cases of violence and discrimination (expressions such as “The Turks slaughtered the Armenians in 1915 in self-defense”).
6. Publications and statements that question generally accepted historical facts of violence and discrimination (for example, the existence or scale of the Holocaust).
7. Statements about various types of inferiority (lack of culture, intellectual abilities, inability to do creative work, etc.) of a particular social or ethnic group as such (ideas such as “blacks are stupid”, “villages are ill-mannered”).
8. Statements about historical crimes of a particular ethnic or religious group as such (such as “the Poles have always prepared provocations against the Russians”).
9. Statements about the criminality of a particular ethnic or religious group (for example, “all Italians are mafiosi”).
10. Statements about the moral shortcomings of a particular ethnic or religious group (“Gypsies are deceivers”).
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3
1. The concept of verbal aggression…………………………………………………………..4
2. Causes of speech aggression…………………………….5
3. Identifying the presence of verbal aggression in communication…………………7
4. Specific forms of speech behavior in subcultures………….9
5. Approaches to the study of aggression………………………………………….11
5.1. Psychoanalytic concept of aggression, or drive theory..11
5.2. Ethological concept of aggression……………………………..12
5.3. Frustrapion concept of aggression……………………………...13
5.4. Behavioral concept of aggression, or social learning theory………………………………………………………………...13
5.5. Psycholinguistic approach to determining the essence of speech aggression…………………………………………………………………………………15
6. Strategies for preventing and mitigating verbal aggression…………..17
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..19
List of references………………………………………………………20
Introduction
The problem of aggression, verbal and non-verbal, is increasingly becoming the subject of analysis and discussion in linguistic science. Aggression, including verbal aggression, is one of the components of the opposition between good and evil, tolerance (tolerance) and intolerance (intolerance). The need to study this problem is due to its inclusion in the social context, since it is society that performs the function of regulating the various manifestations of this phenomenon.
The purpose of this work is to study verbal aggression. To achieve the goal, the following tasks were set:
· Define the concept of verbal aggression
· Identify approaches to the study of aggression
· Identify the causes, strategies for preventing and mitigating speech aggression
The concept of verbal aggression
Speech (verbal) aggression in its most general form can be defined as offensive communication; verbal expression of negative emotions, feelings or intentions in an offensive, rude, unacceptable form in a given speech situation.
According to the Dictionary of Foreign Words: current vocabulary, interpretation, etymology, the word “aggression” in the Russian language was recorded in the second half of the 18th century with the meaning “armed attack on a state with the aim of seizing its territory and forcibly subjugating it.” Since the second half of the 20th century, the word has a new meaning: “the actively hostile behavior of one person towards others.”
Dictionary S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova give the following definition: 1. Illegal from the point of view international law application armed forces one state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state. 2. Open hostility causing hostility.
According to L. Enina, “speech aggression is an area of speech behavior that is motivated by the aggressive state of the speaker.
From a psychological perspective, aggression can be thought of as any form of behavior that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to someone. This interpretation of aggression is more harsh and categorical than definitions from linguistic dictionaries, since the word “damage” itself (loss, loss, damage) carries a clearly negative connotation, leaving no hope for a quick or possible replenishment of what was lost.
Causes of speech aggression
Speech aggression arises under the influence of various motives and acquires different ways of expression.
On the one hand, verbal aggression serves as an expression of negative emotions (reactions to external and internal environmental stimuli) and feelings ( special type emotional experiences, characterized by comparative stability and arising on the basis of higher social needs person). Emotions and feelings that cause verbal aggression include anger, irritation, resentment, dissatisfaction, disgust, contempt, etc.
Such aggression most often occurs as a response to an external stimulus. For example, a person was rude in a store, stepped on his foot on a bus, denied some request, objected in a dispute - the response to this physical or psychological discomfort can often be swearing, swearing, verbal attacks on the interlocutor, the main function of which is psychological release, withdrawal nervous tension, getting rid of negative emotions.
On the other hand, verbal aggression can also arise as a special intention - the speaker’s purposeful desire to cause communicative damage to the addressee (to humiliate, insult, ridicule, etc.) or to realize in such a “forbidden” way some of his needs (self-affirmation, self-defense, self-realization etc.).
For example, schoolchildren may deliberately make fun of a classmate in order to increase own self-esteem, demonstrate “power”, a dominant position, strengthen your authority in the children's team.
Verbal aggression at the level of negative emotions and feelings acts as aggressive verbal behavior - little conscious activity, manifested in patterns and stereotypes of actions learned by a person either on the basis of imitation of other people's patterns and stereotypes, or on the basis own experience. A deliberate, targeted, proactive verbal attack is an aggressive speech activity and is defined as a consciously motivated, purposeful human activity.
It is the last type of verbal aggression (“per se” - Latin “in itself”, aggression “in its pure form”) that is most dangerous in communicative terms, since it is a thoughtful, planned, prepared speech act, the purpose of which is to cause communicative harm to the addressee, destruction of the harmony of communication.
In addition, there are special situations in relation to which we can talk about imitation of aggression - a kind of word game. For example, the speaker is joking or wants to demonstrate his potential tendency to engage in offensive communication.
Similar communication often turns into a situation of real verbal aggression, since it occurs in an atmosphere of significant emotional tension and can lead to mutual misunderstanding, disunity, alienation of its participants. What if he is not joking, but is really angry?”).
Another case of imitation aggression is aggro, which means special ritual actions before or instead of real aggression. These actions can be both verbal (for example, chants of football “fans”) and non-verbal (for example, priestly tribal dances, gestures and movements of listeners of a rock concert, etc.).
