COMMUNICATIVE AND PRAGMATIC DIMENSIONS OF CONFLICT AS A RESULT OF SPEECH AGGRESSION

Abstract

The article focuses on pragmatic and anthropocentric approaches to language teaching. The first one is emphasized on studying language as a means of achieving a speaker’s communicative goal, while the second one is focused on understanding a speaker through the language units used for realization certain intentions. The author connects all the above with the transformation processes in modern linguistics, namely withdrawal from the system-structural idea of ​​the level organization of language and target on studying the functions of language units in specific communicative acts while transmitting communicative meanings.
Focusing on the field of conflict, the author proves that the effectiveness of communicative interaction ​​determines the way in which the speaker achieves the goal of a particular situation. Given examples prove that significant differences in communication settings and background knowledge of the interlocutors, the excessive verbal influence of one of them, the use of language with negative connotations (invectives, discrediting presuppositions, verbal labels), offensive gestures, aggressive tone, violation of language norms are the most common mechanisms for generating conflicting statements aimed at discrediting the addressee.
Conscious aggressive reaction of the addressee to the speech action of the addresser is an important criterion of conflict. However, the author offers to qualify any statement about the manifestation of aggression in it only in the context of a specific speech situation.
The author supposes that the right choice of means of speech oriented at the interlocutor, the ability to meet their expectations in the process of adequate transmission of content taking into account their interests, motives, and intentions, as well as socially important conventions and patterns of speech behaviour, communicative roles defined by social status, profession, nationality, emotional intelligence, and ability to verbalize differences in a courteous form significantly harmonize and improve social practice of communication.