REPRESENTATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT VERBAL AGGRESSION IN ENGLISH POLITICAL DEBATES

Abstract

Nowadays philologists show a special interest in the question of what is the real basis of discursive behavior of speakers and ensures their harmonious or non-harmonious interaction with others in various communicative situations. The article addresses the issue of non-cooperative (aggressive) interaction between participants of political debates, and specifically response utterances of communicators with direct and indirect response intentionality, characterized by deviations from the established rules and norms of cooperative behavior. The plane of content of a direct response utterance, in case it is true, always coincides with the plane of its expression, whereas an indirect response utterance contains a direct meaning and an additional implicit meaning. The aim of the study is to systematize the tactics of expression of direct and indirect verbal aggression used by participants of political debates to realize certain strategies and pragmatic goals in the course of non-cooperative interaction. The strategies chosen by the participant of political communication determine their discursive behavior in the process of interpersonal interaction and are directly related to their attitudes, values, beliefs, goals, etc. The analysis of English political debates shows that indirect communication prevails in this kind of political discourse and is characterized by withdrawal of the most significant information into unexpressed implications. Verbal aggression is achieved through the use of irony, sarcasm, hyperbola, intentional misunderstanding, etc.