The Main Types of Linguistic and Speech Aggression in English and Uzbek languages

Abstract

This ?rti?le dis?usses the m?in ?h?r??teristi?s ?f verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n, ?s well ?s its types, whi?h ??n be presented in the f?rm ?f ? t?ble th?t summ?rizes the views ?f rese?r?hers ?n this issue. The ?ggressiveness ?f ??mmuni??ti?n is ??nsidered, whi?h is determined, first ?f ?ll, by the m?tives ?nd g??ls ?f the ?ggress?rs, ?s well ?s their psy?h?l?gi??l ?nd s??i?l r?les, whi?h ?re refle?ted in the ??rresp?nding ??ti?ns ?f the spe?kers t? ??hieve ? ?ert?in neg?tive result. The ?rti?le ?n?lyzes the ?h?r??teristi?s ?f ?n ?ggressive pers?n?lity fr?m ? s??i?-psy?h?p?th?l?gi??l p?int ?f view, gives ? definiti?n t? this phen?men?n, whi?h ??n be tr??ed in ?nt?genesis t? identify the m?in ?h?r??ter?l?gi??l pr?perties ?nd qu?lities.

Introduction

I. INTR?DU?TI?N

It sh?uld be highlighted th?t there ?re spe?ifi? ?h?r??teristi?s th?t ??n be f?und when ?n?lyzing spe?kers' l?ngu?ge ?nd spee?h th?t ??n be used t? identify l?ngu?ge ?nd spee?h expressi?ns ?f vi?len?e in ??mmuni??ti?n. It is p?ssible t? differenti?te between different s?rts ?f ?ggressive m?nifest?ti?ns b?sed ?n the distin?tive tr?its ?f h?stile re??ti?ns th?t ?re dire?tly influen?ed by the ?ggressive inter??ti?n's p?rti?ip?nts.

Thus, in Y.V. Sh?herbinin?'s mind, the terms "verb?l vi?len?e" ?nd "spe?king ?ggressi?n" ?re inter?h?nge?ble. She dr?ws ? ??nne?ti?n between the tw? n?mes' ??nsider?ti?n ?nd the f??t th?t, in her perspe?tive, they ??tu?lly signify the s?me ??n?ept despite h?ving distin?t s?ur?e l?ngu?ges. She re?lizes th?t the terms "verb?l" ?nd "spe?king" vi?len?e exist ?nd ?re just different n?mes f?r the s?me ???urren?e [2;10]. H?wever, ?s spee?h ?ggressi?n en??mp?sses b?th verb?l (linguisti? ?nd spee?h) ?nd n?n-verb?l (physi??l ??ts, f??i?l expressi?ns, gestures, et?.) h?stile m?nifest?ti?ns, in ?ur ?pini?n, these ??teg?ries ??nn?t be per?eived ?s being the s?me. ?s ? result, when we t?lk ?b?ut spee?h ?ggressi?n, we me?n vi?lent feelings th?t sh?w up in spee?h ?nd h?ve b?th verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?h?r??teristi?s.

II. M?T?RI?LS ?ND M?TH?DS

This ??n?ept le?ds us t? the ??n?lusi?n th?t spee?h ?ggressi?n h?s tw? distin?t ?h?r??teristi?s: intern?l/subst?ntive ?nd extern?l/f?rm?l. The ?utw?rd m?nifest?ti?n ?f h?stility is refle?ted in lexi??l ?nd sem?nti? expressi?n, int?n?ti?n, timbre, ?nd v?lume ?f spee?h. The dis??urse, the ??ntent, ?nd the intenti?n behind the st?tement ?ll f?ll under the intern?l ?spe?t.  

F?r inst?n?e:

“He’s m?de ? d?nkey ?f himself!”

“?h! It’s t?? distressin’!” [4;334].

First ?f ?ll, we sh?uld p?int ?ut th?t this text fr?gment ??nt?ins ?n existenti?l dis??urse. The st?tement m?de by the ?ddressee ??ndemns the t?rget ?f ?ggressi?n, ?nd the her?'s ex??t repr?du?ti?n t?rgets the ?utw?rd expressi?n ?f ? neg?tive ?ttitude t?w?rd the t?rget.

The d?nkey met?nymy, whi?h is used t? des?ribe the se??nd her?, is ? ?le?r ex?mple ?f h?w the her? ??ndemns the despised item. ?s ? result, ????rding t? the [3;1437], ? d?nkey is "? dumb pers?n, dem?nstr?ting ? l??k ?f g??d sense ?r g??d judgment". Theref?re, the expl?n?ti?n f?r the em?ti?n ?f s??rn is the her?'s beh?vi?r, whi?h is irr?ti?n?l. “He's m?de ? d?nkey ?ut ?f himself!” is ?n ex?l?m?ti?n p?int th?t expresses h?w the neg?tive lexi??l fe?ture is ?mplified int?n?ti?n?lly. The ex?l?m?ti?n m?rk in this inst?n?e den?tes ? str?ng level ?f intensity in the spe?ker's st?tement, es??l?ting his ?riti?ism ?f the her?.

Keep in mind th?t the ?ddressee's spee?h is ?ls? very em?ti?n?l, whi?h we m?y infer fr?m its gr?mm?ti??l stru?ture (the use ?f sever?l ex?l?m?ti?n p?ints) - ?h! The spe?ker's expressi?n, ?s well ?s the lexi??l subst?n?e, ?re b?th ex?essively distressing. The tr?ubling lexeme "m?king y?u feel re?lly unh?ppy ?nd nerv?us" [3;392] expresses the ?ddressee's feelings ?f s?dness ?nd exhil?r?ti?n in resp?nse t? the ?ddressee's rem?rk.

The ?dverb "m?re th?n is re?s?n?ble, p?ssible, ?r essenti?l" is ?ls? used t? spe?ify the highly em?tive w?rd "distressing" [3;1523], whi?h heightens the her?ine's feelings ?f ex?sper?ti?n ?nd w?rry. ?dditi?n?lly, the ex?l?m?ti?n indi??ted by the her?ine's further rem?rk interje?ti?n in this inst?n?e ?mplifies the ?ddressee's unf?v?r?ble em?ti?ns with?ut identifying her em?ti?n?l ??mp?nent.

B?sed ?n the ?b?ve, we ??n ??n?lude th?t h?w verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressi?n ??n be ?h?r??terized by p?siti?ns ?f su?h fe?tures ?s ?bje?t ??tivity, intensity, degree ?f ?w?reness ?nd purp?sefulness, ?ttitude t?w?rds the ?bje?t, number p?rti?ip?nts, ?n the b?sis ?f whi?h types ?f verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n. Spe?ified fe?tures ?f ?ggressive m?nifest?ti?ns pe?ple find their emb?diment in the pr??ess ?f ??mmuni??ti?n between spe?kers ?nd sh?uld be t?ken int? ????unt when ?n?lyzing ?ggressive re??ti?ns. ??mmuni??ti?n ?s ? w?y ?f s??i?l inter??ti?n ?f individu?ls ?ften h?s ?n ?ggressive ?h?r??ter. ?t the s?me time, ?ggressiveness ??mmuni??ti?n is determined, first ?f ?ll, by the m?tives ?nd g??ls ?f the ?ggress?rs, ?nd ?ls? their psy?h?l?gi??l ?nd s??i?l r?les, whi?h ?re refle?ted in the ??rresp?nding ??ti?ns ?f spe?kers t? ??hieve ?ert?in neg?tive result.

??h biqinig? musht kelib tush?di. [6;5]

The ?b?ve p?ss?ge presents the mildest f?rm ?f ?ggressi?n. In f??t, the expressi?n ?f hunger itself (??h q?lish) is ? neg?tive ?ggressi?n, ?nd its expressi?n t?gether with the p?ssibility ?f ? pun?h (musht kelib tushishi) le?ds t? ?n in?re?se in ?ggressi?n. This h?ppens ?nly when the ?b?ve ex?mple is used sep?r?tely. But the w?rk itself is ? j?ke, ?nd the ?ggressi?n l?ses its p?wer ? little.

By ?n?lyzing the ?h?r??teristi?s ?f ?n ?ggressive pers?n?lity with s??i?- ?nd

fr?m ? psy?h?p?th?l?gi??l p?int ?f view, it is ne?ess?ry t? define this phen?men?n, tr??e it in ?nt?genesis t? identify the m?in ?h?r??ter?l?gi??l pr?perties ?nd qu?lities. In the title ?f the p?r?gr?ph there is ?n ?ttributive phr?se ?ggressive pers?n?lity. ?entr?l ?luster in the?reti??l ?nd experiment?l psy?h?l?gy ?nd s??i?l?gy is the ??n?ept ?f pers?n?lity. ?ggressi?n, t? ?ne degree ?r ?n?ther, refle?ts the b?si? pr?perty pers?n?lity: his beh?vi?r is extern?lly ?bserv?ble m?t?r ??tivity living beings, in?luding m?ments ?f stillness. It is exe?utive level ?f the highest level ?f inter??ti?n ?f the integr?l unit with the surr?unding n?ture. Beh?vi?r represents ? purp?seful system ?f sequenti?lly perf?rmed ??ti?ns, whi?h ??rry ?ut pr??ti??l ??nt??t ?f the b?dy with ?thers ??nditi?ns, medi?te the rel?ti?nship ?f living beings t? th?se pr?perties envir?nments ?n whi?h the preserv?ti?n ?nd devel?pment ?f their lives depends.

?n?lyzing further the ?n?t?my ?f hum?n destru?tiveness, it is ne?ess?ry t? ?ddress the m?st relev?nt ?ggressi?n f?r ?ur rese?r?h – m?lign?nt ?ggressi?n (destru?tiveness), whi?h is ?ne ?f the ?enters ?f ?ur rese?r?h, ?nd it is this view th?t we m?st interesting ?nd imp?rt?nt. We will l??k ?t its v?ri?us f?rms m?nifest?ti?ns. In psy?h?l?gy there is ? ??n?ept ?f the l?ngu?ge ?f em?ti?n?l st?te pers?n, whi?h ?ll?ws y?u t? very effe?tively present ?nd des?ribe ?ggressive beh?vi?r ?f the individu?l [3;198]. S?, ?t the b?sis ?f this beh?vi?r ?f ? destru?tive pers?n?lity, ?s ? rule, lie em?ti?ns ?f ?nger ?nd r?ge, s?dness ?nd s?rr?w, disgust ?nd fe?r, et?. ?ll ??n?epts ?f this registries refer t? the subje?tive l?ngu?ge ?f des?ribing em?ti?ns. It is n?tur?l th?t subje?tive l?ngu?ge ?ls? ??rresp?nds t? the l?ngu?ge ?f beh?vi?r: ?ggressive ?tt??k, ?v?id?n?e ?nd l?ss ?f ??nt??t; ?s well ?s the l?ngu?ge ?f fun?ti?ns: pr?te?ti?n, destru?ti?n, depriv?ti?n, deni?l [3, 201]. In gener?l, neg?tive em?ti?ns is ?ttributed t? ? dis?rg?nizing fun?ti?n, sin?e they ?re “emergen?y” sign?ls ?f ment?l ?nd psy?h?l?gi??l st?te pers?n.

?ggressive beh?vi?r ?f ? destru?tive pers?n?lity is ?ne ?f m?nifest?ti?ns ?f neg?tive em?ti?ns ?nd is presented ?s ?ne ?f the widely ??mm?n w?ys ?f s??i?l inter??ti?n between pe?ple in s??iety. L?ngu?ge ?nd spee?h ?ggressi?n ?f ? destru?tive pers?n?lity h?s ?ert?in ??uses ?f s??i?l ?nd psy?h?l?gi??l n?ture, ?s well ?s pl?ys ? huge r?le in em?ti?n?l s??i?l ?nd individu?l pers?n?l inter??ti?n. The l?ngu?ge ?f ?ggressi?n ?f ? destru?tive pers?n?lity pr?vides per?epti?n ?nd ?w?reness by re?ipients ?f em?ti?n?l, ment?l ?nd psy?h?l?gi??l hum?n ??nditi?n. ?d?pt?ti?n ?f l?ngu?ge t? fun?ti?ning in ?ert?in ?re?s ?f hum?n ??tivity is expressed in the regul?r use ?nd ??nst?nt interrel?ti?n ?f ?ert?in ph?neti?, lexi??l ?nd gr?mm?ti??l phen?men? ?f l?ngu?ge in spe?ifi? ?re?s hum?n ??mmuni??ti?n.

The m?in t?sk ?f psy?h?linguisti?s in ?ur rese?r?h is ?n?lysis ?nd m?deling ?f me?h?nisms th?t ??nne?t kn?wledge ?nd the use ?f l?ngu?ge - in p?rti?ul?r, pr??esses (?lg?rithms) ?f per?epti?n ?nd spee?h pr?du?ti?n, ??gnitive pr??esses inter??ting with linguisti? kn?wledge in the pr?du?ti?n ?nd underst?nding ?f l?ngu?ge. Thus, presenting in this se?ti?n ?f ?ur study ?ggressive destru?tive pers?n?lity, t?king int? ????unt the t?t?lity ?spe?ts ?n?lyzed ?b?ve, we ??nsider it ?s ? phen?men?n gener?l ?ultur?l level, whi?h is refle?ted in the l?ngu?ge th?t is ?ne ?f the m?in m?nifest?ti?ns ?f the ?ulture ?f ? p?rti?ul?r pe?ple. Thr?ugh?ut the hist?ry ?f the devel?pment ?f s??iety, ?ttempts t? rese?r?h ?ggressive destru?tive pers?n?lity psy?h?p?th?l?gi??l pr??esses ?nd st?tes refle?ted n?t ?nly the s?ientifi? trends ?f the time, but ?ls? gener?l ?ultur?l level ?f his er?. Em?ti?ns ?nd feelings ?re univers?l, “intern?ti?n?l” ?h?r??ter", in?luding ?ggressive ?nes, whi?h ?re ?h?r??teristi? ?f b?th the British ?nd Russi?n. ??mp?r?tive ?nd ??mp?r?tive ?n?lysis ?f ex?erpts fr?m the fi?ti?n ?f the tw? ??untries ?le?rly dem?nstr?ted this, in ?ther w?rds, ?ggressive verb?l beh?vi?r is represented in b?th l?ngu?ges. Verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressi?n pl?y ? signifi??nt r?le in pr??ess ?f s??i?l inter??ti?n between the British ?nd Uzbeks, we ??nsider b?th individu?l ?nd ??lle?tive em?ti?n?l re??ti?ns, emb?died using linguisti? me?ns, ?nd ?ls? thr?ugh spee?h, ?imed ?t ??using h?rm, d?m?ge ?r t? destr?y ?n?ther pers?n ?r gr?up ?f pe?ple.

We h?ve est?blished th?t the sem?nti? b?sis ?f the l?ngu?ge ?f ?ggressive em?ti?ns is pre?isely the pers?n?l ??rrel?ti?n ?f the m?del ?f ?ggressi?n with im?ges ?f her em?ti?ns bel?nging t? the tri?d ?f h?stility.

We ?ls? n?ti?ed th?t verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n in in English ?nd Uzbek l?ngu?ges is ?ss??i?ted m?inly with ?ggressive em?ti?ns ?nd feelings. ?m?ng ?ggressive em?ti?ns ?nd feelings, tr?nsmitted by me?ns ?f l?ngu?ge ?nd spee?h, during the ?n?lysis ?f textu?l fr?gments ?f British ?nd Uzbek writers we des?ribed neg?tive re??ti?ns ?f irrit?ti?n, ?nger, dis?ppr?v?l ?nd disgust. Wherein ?l?rifi??ti?n ?f the essen?e ?f verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n pr?vided identifying su?h ??mp?nents ?f its stru?ture ?s m?tive, g??l, me?ns, pr??ess ?nd result. E??h ?f these ??mp?nents ?f verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n must be t?ken int? ????unt when des?ribing it ?s ? type em?ti?n?l resp?nse. In ?dditi?n, ?m?ng ?ur m?in m?tives the em?ti?ns ?f ?nger, disgust ?nd ??ntempt, whi?h m?ke up the tri?d, ?re indi??ted h?stility.

?n?lysis ?f psy?h?l?gi??l ?nd phil?s?phi??l (s??i?l phil?s?phy, m?r?l phil?s?phy, phil?s?phi??l ethi?s) ?ppr???hes t? verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n reve?led the f??t th?t the le?ding r?le in ???urren?e ?f the studied type ?f neg?tive em?ti?n?l re??ti?ns ?m?ng represent?tives ?f British ?nd Russi?n ?ulture perf?rms s??i?l f??t?r. ?f ??urse, ?ggressi?n is ?ss??i?ted with us m?inly with the inter??ti?n ?f individu?ls in s??iety. Sin?e ?ggressive em?ti?n?l re??ti?ns t?ke ? sep?r?te pl??e in the ??mmuni??ti?n pr??ess, le?ding interl??ut?rs t? ??nfli?t, we ?ls? p?id ?ttenti?n t? the ??mp?nents ?f ??mmuni??tive situ?ti?ns influen?ing the devel?pment ?f the ?ggressive ??mp?nent ?f ??mmuni??ti?n. ?m?ng these ??mp?nents, we h?ve identified m?tives, g??ls, psy?h?l?gi??l ?nd s??i?l r?les ?f ??mmuni??nts, ?s well ?s the result ?f ?ggressive ??mmuni??tive inter??ti?n ?f spe?kers.

During ?ur rese?r?h, we ?ls? identified tw? ?spe?ts ?h?r??terizing verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n, ?nd n?mely extern?l/f?rm?l ?nd intern?l/subst?ntive. Extern?l ?spe?t inv?lves lexi??l-synt??ti? me?ns ?f English ?nd Russi?n l?ngu?ges, timbre, int?n?ti?n, v?lume ?f spee?h ?f the spe?ker in the pr??ess ?f emb?dying ?ppr?pri?te em?ti?n?l re??ti?ns. In the intern?l ?spe?t refle?ts the dis??urse, ??ntent, purp?sefulness ?f the st?tement. It is imp?rt?nt t? n?te th?t the extern?l ?nd intern?l ?spe?ts ?f verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n ?re in inter??ti?n – the intern?l ?spe?t determines the extern?l. Theref?re, the extern?l ?spe?t ?bvi?usly ?ll?ws us t? identify ?ggressive (neg?tive) em?ti?ns ?f the spe?ker, ?s well ?s identify their ?dditi?n?l ?h?r??teristi?s. Sin?e ?ggressive verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l m?nifest?ti?ns, like in b?th English ?nd Russi?n l?ngu?ges definitely h?ve inherent ?h?r??teristi?s, in this ?h?pter we ?ls? identified the fe?tures the type ?f em?ti?n?l resp?nse being studied ?nd, t?king them int? ????unt, we ?l?rified its m?in types.

III. R?SULT ?ND DIS?USSI?N

The her?ine's feelings ?re ?nly re??gnized in the f?ll?wing phr?se: It's t?? distressing! Be??use ?f this, in this ex?mple, the interje?ti?n "?h" first sh?ws the em?ti?n?lity ?f the spe?ker's w?rds with?ut menti?ning the em?ti?ns ?f the her?ine, ?re?ting suspense th?t is s??n dispelled by the se??nd ??mment, "It's t?? distressin'!" In this text ex?ept, the ?h?r??ters' vi?lent spee?h in??rp?r?tes expressi?ns ?f s??rn, desp?ir, ?nd j?y th?t ?re expressed thr?ugh the lexi??l ?nd int?n?ti?n?l tr?its ?f their dupli??tes.

??nsider ?n?ther ex?mple.

– Y?'q, — dedi x?tini, keyin «v?y ?'lm?s?m, sh?k?l?dni qizingiz yebdi. Dilb?r, qurib ketm?gur, tur ?'rningd?n», deg?n ?v?z eshitildi.   [6;46].

Finding the link between the intern?l ?nd extern?l f??ets ?f the vi?lent em?ti?n?l resp?nse th?t is being p?rtr?yed is fe?sible th?nks t? the ex?min?ti?n ?f the p?ss?ge under dis?ussi?n. Turning t? the intern?l ??mp?nent, it sh?uld be n?ted th?t there is ?n existenti?l dis??urse present in this inst?n?e, despite the f??t th?t the st?tement's ??ntent is m?re ?kin t? ? ??mm?nd designed t? submit the ?ddressee t? the spe?ker. The v?lume ?f spee?h, int?n?ti?n, lexi??l stru?ture, ?nd synt??ti? ?rg?niz?ti?n ?f the dupli??te ?f the ?ggress?r ?re ?ll extern?l m?nifest?ti?ns ?f h?stility th?t ?re determined by the interi?r ?spe?t. The w?rd "st?nd up" - "?ssume ? st?nding p?siti?n" [3;1231], expresses the ?rder in the text fr?gment, ?nd its infinitive gr?mm?ti??l f?rm den?tes the imper?tive m??d. While the verb "st?nd up" is repe?ted in the her?'s repli??s, there is ? ?le?r int?n?ti?n differen?e between these repli??s, ?nd the first is s?mewh?t ?f ? pl??eh?lder bef?re the se??nd is put int? pr??ti?e:

- Get up! I yelled, "Get up!" in ? quiet but stern v?i?e.

The in?lusi?n ?f the m?st em?tive gr?phi? sign—the ex?l?m?ti?n m?rk—indi??tes th?t the lexeme "st?nd up" in b?th inst?n?es is m?rked by ? ?ert?in level ?f em?ti?n?lity. H?wever, y?u m?y determine the differen?e in the intensity ?f the ?ngry feeling felt by the spe?ker by ??mp?ring the synt??ti? stru?tures ?f tw? ??pies ?f "St?nd up!" (?ne ex?l?m?ti?n m?rk) ?nd "St?nd up!!!" (three ex?l?m?ti?n m?rks). In ?ther w?rds, the se??nd repli??'s in?lusi?n ?f three ex?l?m?ti?n m?rks signifies ? triple int?n?ti?n ?mplifi??ti?n. The fin?l repli?? yelled, "Get up!" l?udly. The spee?h v?lume s??le reve?ls th?t it is ?t ? gre?ter level be??use the ?ddressee h?s l?st ??ntr?l ?f his em?ti?ns. ?s ? result, in the text fr?gment, the spe?ker's vi?lent re??ti?n's exteri?r ?spe?t ??mes thr?ugh in b?th the lexi??l stru?ture ?f his st?tements ?nd his int?n?ti?n tr?its, ?r the p?wer ?nd v?lume ?f his v?i?e.

— Sen h?li sh?shm?y turgin! — dedi ?yim d?g'd?g'? qilib. [7]

If we l??k ?t the ?b?ve p?ss?ge, the differen?e between the ?ulture ?f Uzbek ?nd English l?ngu?ges is ?bvi?us. In the Uzbek l?ngu?ge, the phr?se "d?n't be in ? hurry" sen h?li sh?shm?y tur ?re?tes the thre?t ?f ?ggressi?n, but when tr?nsl?ted int? English, "d?n't be in ? hurry" l?ses its ?ggressiveness. In ?dditi?n, the w?rd bullying ?re?tes ?dditi?n?l intimid?ti?n ?ggressi?n.

Initi?lly, it is imp?rt?nt t? ??kn?wledge th?t verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressiveness in?lude ? r?nge ?f em?ti?ns th?t v?ried in intensity, sp?nning fr?m the le?st p?tent t? the m?st p?tent. Theref?re, it is imp?rt?nt t? ??nsider the level ?f severity when ?h?r??terizing h?stile feelings. [1;166].

F?r ex?mple,
“Y?u ?re m?d, D?ri?n.”

“?h! I w?s w?iting f?r y?u t? ??ll me D?ri?n.”

“Y?u ?re m?d” [7;304]

 The text fr?gment illustr?tes the her?’s ?ggressi?n ?f medium intensity, whi?h m?nifests itself in the ??ndemn?ti?n ?f the ?ddressee, implemented thr?ugh the lexi??l repetiti?n ?f m?d, ?nd d?es n?t imply physi??l vi?len?e ?g?inst the ?bje?t.

M?re?ver, ?ggressi?n, ?s well ?s the intensity ?f its expressi?n, like ?ny ?ther type ?f em?ti?n?l resp?nse, ??n ?ert?inly be b?th ??ntr?lled ?nd un??ntr?lled. Let us n?te su?h ?n imp?rt?nt ?h?r??teristi? ?f verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressi?n ?s ?w?reness (purp?sefulness) / un?w?reness ?f the ??rresp?nding ??ti?ns. Let us n?te th?t by ??ns?i?us verb?l ?nd n?nverb?l ?ggressi?n we underst?nd ??ti?ns th?t ?re ?h?r??terized by the presen?e ?f ?n intern?l urge t? ??use h?rm t? the re?ipient, while the un??ns?i?us v?riety ?f the type ?f em?ti?n?l resp?nse under study d?es n?t imply the presen?e ?f su?h ?n urge.

F?r ex?mple:

Higgins (in desp?iring wr?th ?utside). Wh?t the devil I h?ve d?ne with my slippers? (He ?ppe?rs ?t the d??r.)

Liz? (sn?t?hing up the slippers, ?nd hurling them ?t him ?ne ?fter the ?ther with ?ll her f?r?e). There ?re y?ur slippers. ?nd there. T?ke y?ur slippers; ?nd m?y y?u never h?ve ? d?y’s lu?k with them! [5;108].

Conclusion

??nsequently, t?king int? ????unt the essen?e ?f the spe?ker’s ??ti?ns, we ??n ??n?lude ?b?ut the hidden n?ture ?f veiled ?ggressive em?ti?ns t?w?rds ? third p?rty. It is imp?rt?nt t? n?te th?t ?ggressi?n, ?s ? rule, is initi?ted by the ?ddresser ?nd ?imed ?t the ?bje?t, whi?h indi??tes ? dire?t ??nne?ti?n between the ?ggress?r’s ?ttitude t?w?rds the ?bje?t ?nd the n?ture ?f the ?ggressive ??ti?ns ?f the f?rmer. Depending ?n the ?ttitude t?w?rds the ?bje?t, she identified tr?nsitive ?nd intr?nsitive (displ??ed) spee?h ?ggressi?n. B?sed ?n the ?f?rementi?ned inf?rm?ti?n, it ??n be inferred th?t verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressi?n ??n be ?l?ssified b?sed ?n v?ri?us ?h?r??teristi?s. These ?h?r??teristi?s in?lude the level ?f ??tivity exhibited by the ?ggress?r, the intensity ?f the ?ggressi?n, the degree ?f ?w?reness ?nd intenti?n?lity, the ?ttitude t?w?rds the t?rget, ?nd the number ?f individu?ls inv?lved. These distinguishing f??t?rs ??ntribute t? the ??teg?riz?ti?n ?f verb?l ?nd n?n-verb?l ?ggressi?n. The ?f?rementi?ned ?h?r??teristi?s ?f ?n individu?l\'s ?ggressive displ?ys ?re evident in the ??mmuni??ti?n pr??ess between individu?ls ?nd sh?uld be duly ??nsidered when ex?mining ?ggressive resp?nses.

References

[1] ?????????? ?.?. ?????? ????????: ????? ? ?????. ?.: ???????????, 1996. 416 ?. [2] ????????? ?.?. ?????????? ????????. ?.: ????????, 2006. 360 ?. [3] Buss D.M., Sh?kelf?rd T.K. Hum?n ?ggressi?n in ev?luti?n?rypsy?h?l?gi??l perspe?tive. ?lini??l Psy?h?l?gy Review, 17, 1997. P. 605–619. DI?TI?N?RIES: [4] L?ngm?n Di?ti?n?ry ?f ??ntemp?r?ry English. Pe?rs?n Edu??ti?n Limited, 2003. 1950 p. LITER?TURE: [5] G?lsw?rthy J. The Isl?nd Ph?risees. SPb.: ??R?, 2007. 384 p [6] Sh?w G.B. Pygm?li?n. ?.: Gl?ss?, 2001. 224 p. [7] T?’xt?b?yev X. S?riq devni minib. T.: “Y?ngi ?sr ?vl?di”, 2010. 236 b [8] Wilde ?. The Pi?ture ?f D?ri?n Gr?y. ?.: «????????», 2002. 304 p.

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Mukhamadiyev Aziz Shavkatovich. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.