Table of contents

Introduction...............................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF INTERLANGUAGE
INFLUENCE ON AGGRESSIVE SPEECH IN THE MEDIA................................3
1.1. Methodological foundation for studying the phenomenon of “aggression”...3
1.2. Explanation of the importance of studying interlanguage transformation of
speech aggression in the context of media material..................................................9
1.3. Verbal explication of aggression in the media...............................................10

1
Introduction

2
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEMS OF
INTERLANGUAGE INFLUENCE ON AGGRESSIVE SPEECH IN THE
MEDIA

1.1. Methodological foundation for studying the phenomenon of

“aggression”

A whole series of natural and human sciences, the object of which is man, studies
the phenomenon of aggression. Such sciences rightly include philosophy,
psychology, medicine, human physiology, neurobiology, sociology, religion,
ethics, history, and cultural studies. This number also includes linguistics and
literary studies.

The destructive side of aggression is considered perhaps the most difficult aspect
of human behavior to control. Aggression manifests itself at all levels of human
life, from interpersonal conflicts in the family and at work to bloody wars between
states. In this regard, aggression as an object of research requires deep and detailed
study not only with the help of psychological and sociological methods that focus
on the negative attitudes of the subjects of the act of aggression, motives and types
of aggression, but also, undoubtedly, from the position of linguistics in relation to
the study of linguistic means of verbalization states of aggression and speech
characteristics indicating speech aggression, for the purpose of premature
diagnosis and prevention of physical aggression. Current domestic and foreign
research provides rich material on the basis of which it becomes possible to form a
systematic understanding of the phenomenon of “aggression”. Along with this,
linguistic research of various directions is still required to clarify the cognitive
mechanisms of verbalization. Formation of the emotional state of aggression in the
act of communication, verbal representation of aggressiveness as a personality trait
in the speech of communicants, verbal aggression as a special type of aggression,
in particular in relation to representatives of various linguistic cultures in
accordance with their ethnic specifics, individual personal characteristics, social
status, gender and age.

Unfortunately, it is impossible not to note that such forms of destructiveness as

aggressive speech behavior, the prevailing use of aggressive speech genres in
group communication among young people on social networks, a decrease in the
threshold for perceiving scenes of violence shown on TV and described in print
media, acts of violence and communicative conflicts characterize modern society

3
as a society of aggressors and victims of aggression. Leading researchers around
the world have been asking questions for many years about the possibility of
timely diagnosis of the motives of aggressive behavior in people, about the
mechanisms of regulation of aggressiveness and about measures to prevent
negative consequences and / or control destructive behavior. However, only in the
20th century did this problem become the subject of systematic scientific research.
Nevertheless, the study of the phenomenon of aggression raises more questions
than answers.

In this review, we tried to summarize the results of modern studies of the verbal
implementation of aggression obtained by domestic linguists. The main attention is
paid to the actualization of the phenomenon of aggression at two levels of
communication (at the level of mass and interpersonal communication) in two
planes (in the public and quasi-intimate spheres). The verbal implementation of
aggression in mass communication is examined using the example of the analysis
of fiction and media texts. Speech aggression in a group is analyzed in relation to
Internet discourse. The public implementation of aggression is studied using the
material of political discourse. The materials of quasi-intimate communication
include data obtained in the course of experimental studies, including bilingualism.

Interpretation of the concept of “aggression”

Almost every study of the phenomenon of aggression begins with the

differentiation of synonymous concepts and the development of an operational
definition of the concept of “aggression”.At one time, the famous American
psychologist L. Berkowitz [Berkowitz, 1981] drew attention to the difficulty of
unambiguously defining the concept of “aggression” due to the fact that in
language this concept implies a wide variety of actions.

In everyday life, the term “aggression” refers to “assertive, dominant, attacking

and harmful behavior, combining acts of behavior that are different in form and
results, such as cruel jokes, gossip, hostile fantasies, destructive forms of behavior,
even murder and suicide” [Enikolopov, Kuznetsova, Chudova, 2014, p. 7]. When
people characterize someone as aggressive, they may say that he habitually insults
others, or that he is often unfriendly, or that he tries to do things his own way, or
that he stands firm for his beliefs. Currently, many scientific special
interpretations of the concept of “aggression” have been proposed, but none of
them can be called universal. According to the definition proposed by A. Buss
[Buss, 1961], who was involved in experimental research on aggression,
aggression is any behavior that threatens or causes harm to others.

4
Another definition of aggression, proposed by several well-known researchers
[Berkowitz, 1975, 1981; Feshbach, 1970], contains the following provision: in
order for certain actions to be qualified as aggression, they must include the
intention of offense or insult, and not simply lead to such consequences.

The definition given by D. Zillmann [Zillmann, 1979] limits the use of the term
aggression to an attempt to cause bodily or physical harm to others. In the
researcher's understanding, aggression is any form of behavior aimed at insulting
or harming another living being who does not want such treatment. In the
explanatory dictionary of psychiatric terms, aggression is understood as one of the
mechanisms of psychological defense [Bleicher, 1995, p. 13]. K. Horney and G.
Sullivan understand aggression as an acquired personal quality as a result of
exposure to environmental conditions and also consider it as a type of
psychological defense aimed at overcoming feelings of anxiety [Horney, 1997].
According to S.N. Enikolopova, Yu.M. Kuznetsova and N.V. Chudova, “at
present, the idea of aggression as motivated external actions that violate the norms
and rules of existence, causing harm, pain and suffering to people is increasingly
being established” [Enikolopov, Kuznetsova, Chudova, 2014, p. eleven]. In this
regard, researchers propose the following definition: aggression is “purposeful
destructive and offensive behavior that violates the norms and rules of the
existence of people in society, harms the objects of attack (animate or inanimate),
causes physical harm to people or causes them psychological discomfort (negative
experiences, states of tension, fear, depression, etc.)” [ibid]. Having carried out a
component analysis of the semantic structure of the term unit “aggression” based
on five definitions, M.N. Cherkasova formulates the following working definition:
aggression is “a type of motivated subject-object antisocial behavior aimed at
causing physical, psychological harm or damage to animate or inanimate objects of
attack, represented in the image of an enemy, including their destruction”
[Cherkasova, 2011, p. 19]. The author emphasizes that if in the 19th century. the
word “aggression” had a clearly defined negative connotation, then in the 20th-
21st centuries. it takes on positive connotations. This is explained by the fact that
in modern research the object is not only the destructive aggression of the attacker,
but also the defensive aggression of the victim, who is forced to use aggressive
behavior for self-defense. Thus, the author notes, the very concept of “aggression”
is being generalized: “aggression is understood as “energy”, and “initiative”, and
“moving forward”, and “the ability to attack” along with the “ability to defend””
[ibid., With. 23]. Many scientists share the concepts of “aggression” as a specific
form of behavior and “aggressiveness” as a mental property of an individual.

5
Aggression in this case refers to the tendency to cause moral and physical harm to
others. Almost everyone has this tendency to one degree or another. Young
children due to involuntary behavior and unformed moral standards. “Under
conditions of “wrong” upbringing, this feature can become entrenched and, as a
result, develop into a stable behavioral trait. The aggressiveness of a small child
stems from the dissatisfaction of his needs <...>. As a result, the child experiences
irritation and anger, which are manifested first by screaming and then by direct
aggressive actions (even a one-year-old child, angry with his mother, can try to hit
her)” [Uzun, Bodanov, 2002, p. 9-10]. Often the concept of “aggressiveness” is
used to mean assertiveness, i.e. a form of behavior designed to convey a feeling of
superiority or self-confidence (for example, aggressive sales advertising).

In addition, psychology distinguishes between different types and forms of

aggression, for example [Cialdini, Kenrick, Neuberg, 2002, p. 54]:

• indirect aggression involves attempting to harm another person without

overt face-to-face conflict (eg, spreading malicious gossip);

• direct aggression - behavior whose purpose is to cause harm “face to face”;

it can be either physical (using weapons, punching or kicking, pushing,
pinching) or verbal - insulting, swearing or threatening another person;

• hostile aggression is expressed in causing suffering to other people;

• emotional aggression is behavior aimed at causing harm to another person,

giving vent to angry feelings that are out of control;

• instrumental aggression is causing harm to another person to achieve some

non-aggressive goal (for example, to increase one's status).

A. Buss developed the most comprehensive classification of aggression [Buss,

1961], which is actively used by humanities scholars today. Based on three
parameters that characterize aggressive behavior: a) physical - verbal aggression,
b) active - passive aggression; c) direct - indirect aggression - the researcher
identified eight types of aggressive behavior:

1. Physical aggression (attack) - the use of physical force against another person.
Only the destruction of inanimate objects is excluded.

2. Verbal aggression - the expression of negative feelings both through the form
(quarrel, screaming, screeching, etc.) and through the content of verbal responses
(threat, curses, swearing, etc.).

6
3. Indirect aggression - aggression that is directed in a roundabout way at another
person (malicious gossip, jokes), and aggression without direction (disordered
explosions of rage, manifested in screaming, beating the table with fists, stomping
feet, etc., which are characterized by disorder ).

4. Negativism is an oppositional form of behavior, usually directed against

authorities or leadership. This behavior ranges from passive resistance to active
struggle, against established traditions against requirements, rules or laws.

5. Tendency to irritation - readiness to express negative feelings at the slightest

excitement (hot temper, rudeness, grumbling, touchiness, harshness).

6. Suspicion - a tendency to mistrust and caution towards people, based on the

belief that others intend to cause harm.

7. Resentment is a manifestation of envy and hatred towards others, caused by a

feeling of bitterness, anger, dissatisfaction with someone specific or with the whole
world for real or imaginary suffering.

8. Feelings of guilt or auto-aggression - the individual’s conviction that he is a bad

person, acts badly, harmfully, maliciously or unscrupulously (he has remorse).

The limitation of psychological definitions of the concept of “aggression” lies in

the general nature of the interpretations. Behavior in general is considered, without
taking into account the individual personal characteristics of the subjects;
environmental parameters (both situational and cultural-historical) are not taken
into account.In linguistic research we deal with speech behavior and speech
reactions to external stimuli. In this regard, we should talk about the verbalization
of interoceptive processes (cognitive, mental) and about verbal aggression as a
specific type of aggressive human behavior.

In the first case, the verbalization of aggression is a process and/or method of

verbal expression by a person of aggressive emotions, which is a kind of
“translation” of primary weakly conscious or unconscious reactions into secondary
ones, represented mainly by oral speech [Zhmurov, 2005].

In the second case, verbal aggression is “an intentional authorial action directed at
an object, embedded in the cultural and national specifics of communication and
constructed in a certain way by selected linguistic means (vocabulary, intonation,
way of organizing utterances, etc.). The purpose of this action is the
communicative subordination of the addressee, the implementation of
communicative pressure on him, stabilization or correction of the situation in favor

7
of the addresser with a demonstration of the superiority of the addressee”
[Cherkasova, 2011, p. 33-34].

Also S.A. Kolosov proposes to distinguish between “aggression in language,

which should be understood as the presence of certain lexical and grammatical
means for expressing aggression, i.e. everything that can cause any harm to the
addressee or have a negative impact on him, and in discourse (speech aggression
itself), i.e. the direct use of these means, as well as special cognitive-speech
mechanisms and strategies to achieve this goal” [ Kolosov, 2008].

8
1.2. Explanation of the importance of studying interlanguage
transformation of speech aggression in the context of media material

9
 1.3. Verbal explication of aggression in the media

In accordance with the relationships established between the participants in a

communicative event, several types of manifestation of verbal aggression in media
texts One cannot but agree that the media are a source of active formation of ideas
about what a person’s aggressive behavior can/should be. Thus, within the
framework of the enabling model, the media “help children determine their attitude
towards other people, contribute to their formation of ideas about the probable
behavior of other people” [Enikolopov, Kuznetsova, Chudova, 2014, p. 15]. In the
process of visual and auditory perception of media messages, “adolescents form
ideas about how best to solve problems between people” [ibid.]. In this case, the
recipient, thanks to media reports, develops an attitude according to which
aggression allows you to achieve what you want, i.e. aggressive behavior is
beneficial; heroes show aggression, therefore such behavior is approved by society;
heroes are rarely punished, which means that aggressive behavior is safe; and the
suffering of the victim often remains “behind the scenes”; therefore, aggression is
harmless.

Among other things, media texts implement a “national language model”, which
presents an emotional speech component, including models of speech aggression.
Media discourse (print media texts, television, radio and film products, Internet
materials), in general, is replete with aggressive scenes of violence, cruelty,
descriptions of murders, abuses, humiliations, demonstrations of force, military
operations, and various types of conflicts. Against this background, as noted by
I.P. Lysakova, “In the domestic media today, aggression and intolerance are often
advertised; in the mass consciousness, protest and intolerance are absolutized as
the only ways to achieve justice (destroying to the core the values of cooperation
and coexistence of friends and foes)” [Lysakova, 2007, p. 5].

In accordance with the relationship established between the participants in a

communicative event, several types of manifestation of verbal aggression in media
texts are distinguished [Speech aggression.., 1997, p. 10]:

• the author, with his material, directly calls on the addressee to take aggressive
actions against the subject of speech;

• the author, by his presentation of the subject of speech, causes or maintains an

aggressive state in the addressee;

10
• the author aggressively describes the subject of speech and encourages him to
perform a non-aggressive, but directly or indirectly beneficial action for the
addressee.

Linguistic analysis of verbal aggression in mass media texts shows that when
creating these texts, a wide repertoire of stylistic means is used at all linguistic
levels, but reality in the text is reflected in different forms [Cherkasova, 2011, p.
34, op. from: Simonov, Gorbanevsky, 2004], namely:

1) open verbal form of expression of aggression (verbal form);

2) hidden verbal form, when information is expressed verbally, but is not

noticeable, but is presented as something already known;

3) presuppositional (beyond-text) form, when information about some aspects of

events in the text is not directly expressed and it is implied that the participants in
the speech act have this information;

4) subtextual form, when information is not contained in the text itself, but is easily
“extracted” from it by the reader or listener.

The effect of influence is also enhanced due to the fact that “the Russian reader
does not have a reflection on mass media products, which leaves ample
opportunities for manipulation” [Cherkasova, 2011, p. 61, op. from: Klushina,
2008, p. 10]. E.V. Basovskaya [Basovskaya, 2004], based on a study of verbal
aggression based on interviews from Russian opposition newspapers and
magazines, argues that the described phenomenon “can be considered as a fairly
effective, although not always correct, journalistic technique” [ibid., p. 262].
According to the researcher, it is verbal aggression on the pages of print media that
can be classified as offensive aggression as such, i.e. is intentional. Since “print
media texts are not characterized by spontaneity, verbal (speech - L.R.) aggression
is manifested in journalists’ remarks not under the influence of an emotional
impulse, but in accordance with a well-thought-out strategy” [ibid., p. 257].
According to the author, this phenomenon is most clearly manifested in the
interview texts.

It is interesting that the researcher discovers verbal aggression on the pages of

high-quality magazines, the style of which can generally be characterized as
intelligent and restrained (the norms of literary language are practically not
violated; a neutral style predominates; book language means are widely used).
Against this background, individual manifestations of verbal aggression stand out
as clearly as possible. In addition, at this level, “the aggressive speech behavior of
11
journalists is not spontaneous and is not caused by basic illiteracy, ignorance of the
norms of literary language and speech etiquette. On the contrary, the offensive
strategy is chosen consciously, the harmony of communicants is deliberately
sacrificed to journalistic expressiveness” [ibid., p. 257]. In turn, the interview is
divided into replicas of “us” and “strangers”, and, therefore, the idea of
confrontation is inherent in its very nature. “A meticulously demanding or sardonic
tone is often chosen for a conversation with a person whose image is centrally the
scrap is fed positively. Speech aggression turns out to be, first of all, not a means
of struggle, but a fashionable and almost universal rhetorical device” [Basovskaya,
2004, p. 258-259].

Based on the results of the analysis of interviews with E.V. Basovskaya identifies
the following markers of verbal aggression [ibid., p. 260-262]:

• at the lexical level of the language, expressive, often rude and slang words with a
predominance of negative evaluation are used, both when the journalist agrees with
the interlocutor and when he objects to him; in the first case, a “hard” word makes
the interviewee’s position more categorical, in the second, it makes the reader
doubt his rightness;

• at the syntactic level, a clarifying question is used, which in fact significantly

modifies the original statement; such questions do not contradict what the
interviewee says, but sound somewhat harsher than his own statements; if the
reasoning of the interviewee himself is kept in a calm, objective tone, then
“clarifying” remarks with the conjunction i.e. each time they aggravate the picture
and, most importantly, make the presentation of the material much more
emotional;

• with the help of stylistic means, there is a demonstration of aggressive

familiarity, convicting the interlocutor of either insincerity or ambition; also, for
these purposes, a question containing a discrediting analogy is used;

• at the graphic level, there is a frequent use of quotation marks, which allows the
journalist to partially distance himself from harsh language, shifting responsibility
to the interlocutor; at the same time, the confidentiality of the conversation is
emphasized, the reader is tuned in to a familiar, rude tone;

• at the textual level, the interviewer uses tactics of thickening colors and
exacerbating contradictions, tactics of clashing positions, reference to an
impersonal source of information, tactics of obvious hyperbolization of real-life
problems.

12
The means of verbal aggression used by the journalist provide the correspondent
with a dominant position in the dialogue, call the interlocutor into a direct,
emotional, often harsh conversation, attract and hold the reader’s attention, activate
the audience, forcing everyone to mentally identify with one of the “irreconcilable
opponents” [ibid., p. 263]. A more detailed description of the lexico-semantic
means of explicating verbal aggression in Russian printed messages. We find
media in the work of E.A. Repina. The researcher claims that “by analyzing the
vocabulary used in a text, it is possible to diagnose the level of its aggressiveness,
as well as predict the degree of aggressiveness that a particular text can cause in a
listener or reader” [Repina, 2000].

As is known, aggression refers to certain stable destructive characterological

characteristics of a person, and not his behavior as such. Therefore, the author
rightly notes that verbal aggression is not always direct evidence of the
aggressiveness of a given individual. However, an aggressive individual tends to
react most actively to stimuli, for example, provocative texts with aggressively
colored vocabulary and calls for aggression and violence in its various forms,
which is confirmed by experimental data (see, for example: [Berkowitz, 2001;
Baron, Richardson, 2001]).

Testing this hypothesis, the author reveals that the texts of Russian-language
opposition print media of political parties have a certain emotional impact on the
recipient. In the process of reading these texts, respondents note the emergence of
such strong negative emotional states as anxiety, unreasonable worry, fear, hatred,
contempt, embitterment, melancholy, as well as an urge to action, sometimes even
violence and revenge, a feeling of helplessness and inferiority (in mild).

As a result of the analysis, the researcher classifies journalistic texts of the

opposition press as an aggressive type of texts and asserts that “in general, texts of
an aggressive type put people into an anxious state. A person, without realizing the
specific reason, becomes irritable and embittered. <...> All aspects of life in
aggressive texts are considered only in relation to shortcomings. <...> They make
you feel offended, humiliated and insulted, but not helpless and defective. On the
contrary, they call for active action and revenge” [Repina, 2000].

According to E.A. Repina, the diagnostic markers of text aggressiveness include

the following [ibid.]:

• the use of negatively colored vocabulary related to the semantic categories

“bottom” (for example, decline, degradation, below, drop, fell, mouth, decadent,
13
go down, roll down, etc.), “melancholy” (for example, bitter, hopeless, vicious
power, hostile world, troubles and etc.);

Based on the experience of the conducted research, R.K. Potapova and L.R.
Komalova note that such structuring can also be traced in written texts of foreign
language print media (in English, Spanish and Tatar), which allows us to put
forward a hypothesis about the universal nature of the structure of texts, the
content of which contains multi-level semantic indicators of the emotional state of
aggression.

14