Speech aggression in means mass media has a slightly different character than with interpersonal aggression. This happens for reasons that will be discussed below. Therefore, L.M. Maidanova identifies the following cases of verbal aggression in the media:

Speech aggression on television

On television, in various discussion television programs, interviews and similar programs, manifestations of verbal aggression very often occur. This is understandable, because each communicator tries to influence the other participants in the discussion in order to capture the communicative space. But since there is a certain censorship on television, public discussion, and, accordingly, verbal aggression takes other forms. So, the main differences between discussions on television:

1) Equality of communicants, regardless of social status.

2) Approximately the same time allotted for each communicator’s statement.

3) The presence of censorship.

4) The speech of all participants in discussions should be understandable to the TV viewer and other communicators.

5) The moderator controls the progress of the discussion.

These rules must be enforced on television, but they cease to be observed as soon as one or more communicators try to seize the communicative space. And here they often use verbal aggression as a tool that can influence the mass consciousness of television viewers

If a communicative imbalance is achieved by one of the participants in the discussion, then it is this communicator, in whose favor the communicative advantage is, who will have a real opportunity to establish his point of view as the main one.

There are two ways to capture communication space:

Reasonably and convincingly support your point of view with facts

Using the means of verbal aggression, suppress opponents, thereby pushing aside and disrupting the balance of the discussion in your favor.

Let's consider the capture of speech space through the use of verbal aggression. As mentioned above, verbal aggression can be implicit or explicit, and in a public discussion one participant can correctly combine both types (for example, in television debates, the leader of the LDPR faction V.F. Zhirinovsky skillfully combines direct obvious insults and hidden irony, often turning into sarcasm) .

Attempts to capture speech space begin at the outset of the discussion, namely during the presentation of the participants. It is during the presentation that the professions or areas of activity of the communicants are announced, which can influence other members of the discussion due to the so-called “professional factor”. Even if this factor is not used, other participants will try not to argue with this person on a topic that is within the scope of his activity.

As a “shade” of this factor, one can also cite a hobby (in public discussions, participants often focus their attention on their passion for an issue that is directly related to the subject of discussion) or hereditary affiliation (for example, in discussions on esoteric topics one can often hear about "hereditary fortune tellers").

A way to enhance the “professional factor” can be using special professional coding. These are all kinds of professional terms, professional jargon, humor. Providing a person with information that is incomprehensible to him deprives him of the opportunity to respond adequately and reasonedly, and on the contrary, this gives the aggressor the opportunity to expand the communicative space by suppressing the opponent.

In its most aggressive form, this can manifest itself in a direct indication of the opponent’s professional incompetence in this matter (for example: “You don’t understand anything about this because you’ve never done this”), various provocative questions, quotes and references to frivolous matters can also be asked. topic of this discussion (jokes, advertising, etc.).

The following technique can be used both as a method of aggression on television and as a method of protection against the use of professional coding. This is a technique of deliberately unclear definition of his type of activity, which reduces professional status opponent and raises the question of his competence in the issue discussed by the participants in the discussion. This method is especially effective against the backdrop of the contrast between the status of the speaker and his position on the subject of discussion (you are a competent politician, but you are talking about creating a utopian state).

Another way to suppress an opponent is the factor of communicative competence. The assignment of evaluative characteristics to someone else's statement directly shows the degree of his communicative competence. Therefore, if you give a negative assessment to your opponent, this may suppress his initiative, which will lead to the seizure of communicative space. Also, a negative assessment, which is emotionally presented correctly, discredits communicative competence partner and, therefore, devalues all the information presented by him. Let us give an example of some ways of devaluing information.

Evaluating a partner’s statement in terms of its significance and relevance in a given discussion (expressing an opinion about whether it is relevant to the topic or not).

Evaluation of the partner’s statement from the point of view of the genre features of the discussion (“This is a serious conversation, not a farce!”).

Evaluating the linguistic means used by the partner (indicating the incorrect meaning of a word or term).

These methods of devaluing information lead to complete or partial ignoring of the content of the opponent’s statement, the consequence of these actions is again a communicative imbalance

A directly expressed negative assessment of the truth of the information, clearly emotionally expressed (this is all a blatant lie!).

A negative assessment of an opponent’s statement, expressed through one’s own affective state (I am very shocked by what you are saying here!).

In television discussions, various implicit methods of verbal aggression can be used. So, for example, there is a way of expressing one’s negative assessment to an opponent - “depersonalizing” the partner. Depersonalization can be performed in the following ways:

Addressing an opponent based on gender (man, what are you saying?!).

Addressed on a professional basis (Here is a representative oil industry speaks of incredible economic transformations).

Addressing an opponent based on his affiliation with any organization (Let's listen to what a member of the United Russia party will tell us).

Addressing using adjectives (Dear, you do not understand what you are saying).

This method of verbal aggression on television is used to demonstrate the insignificance of the partner when discussing the topic of discussion. This distances the opponent from other participants in the discussion and lowers his status in the eyes of television viewers.

Thus, the semantic ways of creating a communicative imbalance can be reduced to a series of generalizations. According to the speaker, the speech partner does not have the “right to speak”, because he: a) is professionally incompetent; b) does not have sufficient communicative competence; c) reports false information; d) does not have due authority and therefore does not have the right to an identifying designation.

The struggle to capture speech space can also be carried out through a structural and semantic disturbance of the speech process. Speech intervention over other discussion partners becomes one of the main goals set by the participants. This communicative intention is realized both at the structural and semantic levels. To do this, various methods are used to disrupt the structure of the dialogue: interrupting the opponent, trying to “drown” him with his own remarks, withdrawing him from main topic discussions. At the same time, discrediting a speech partner can also occur at the content level of an extraordinary utterance. Interception of speech is due to the intention to disrupt the communication program and thereby gain a communicative advantage. The aggressor’s statement carries two goals at once: 1) to express directly or indirectly his attitude towards the addressee and 2) to seize the communicative space. But the problem with the use of verbal aggression on television (for those who use it) is that on television there is censorship determined by law and ethical standards. Therefore, if verbal aggression is used too actively, it may cause disgust in the viewer and other participants in the discussion.

Observing aggression in the media.

What is the connection between aggressive behavior and watching aggression on TV? In public opinion, one of the most typical scapegoats responsible for violence in our society is the media. It is assumed that aggressive episodes on the screen increase the aggressiveness of the viewer. Such claims about aggressive behavior not only seem plausible, but also promise a relatively simple solution to the problem - simply turning off the TV to eliminate aggression.

From point of view social psychology two fundamental questions are whether media showing scenes of violence increase aggression, and what are the psychological processes, causing or mediating possible effect media influence? Systematic reviews using meta-analytic techniques have concluded that observing aggression often results in increased aggressive responses. Critics have questioned the ecological validity of these results, noting the artificial nature of the laboratory studies on which the analysis was based. However, a more recent meta-analysis based solely on field studies reached the same conclusions, namely that violent media content stimulates aggressive behavior among media consumers.

To understand the possible long-term effects of viewing aggression on TV, longitudinal studies were conducted in which TV viewing habits and observed aggressive behavior were quantified at specific points in time. A number of authors tested the same sample of respondents at the age of eight years and then at the age of 18 years. The obtained correlations confirmed the hypothesis regarding high level aggression at age 18 is associated with relatively frequent viewing of violent films at age eight. Other longitudinal studies report similar results.

In 1991, a meta-analysis of data was conducted on more than a thousand tests of the effects of media aggression in a wide variety of studies in laboratory experiments, field studies, and longitudinal studies. The authors conclude that the resulting picture is completely unambiguous.

There is a persistent short-term effect of the impact of TV scenes of aggression on the behavior of viewers. As for the long-term effect, at least a significant positive correlation can be shown between the level of TV aggression and the severity of the tendency towards aggressive behavior. In addition, the authors identified a number of factors that weaken the effect of TV on aggressive behavior. Aggression in the media is more likely to increase aggressive tendencies viewer if the following conditions apply:

1 Efficiency. Aggression in the media is presented as effective tool achieving goals, which can be used with impunity.

2 Normativity. When displaying physical aggression or acts that are intentionally harmful, they are not addressed negative consequences for the sacrifice of her suffering, grief or pain. Moreover, aggression is often presented as justified, that is, when the actors are the “good guys”, such as the police.

3 Relevance. The portrayed offender bears some resemblance to the viewer, who can thus imagine himself in a similar role. Aggression is presented in a realistic rather than fantastical manner.

4 Receptivity. Watching an aggressive scene, the viewer is in a state of emotional upsurge (pleasure, anger, frustration), which prevents the development of a more detached or critical attitude to what is happening.

It is obvious that scenes of aggression in the media affect the aggressiveness of viewers in real life. What processes can explain this effect? Having conducted theoretical and empirical work in this area, Gunther concluded that, in addition to the processes of arousal transmission and imitation of models, constant observation of aggressive characters and bullied victims can reduce the emotional sensitivity of viewers to abuse (desensitization) and weaken the tendencies to inhibit their own aggressive actions.

If “enemies” on television display aggressive behavior and go unpunished, the viewer's “restraint” against deviant behavior may weaken. Male subjects who were exposed to aggressive pornographic films daily for a week reported decreased feelings of depression, irritation and anxiety. They began to rate films more as enjoyable and less as violent and degrading to women.

Frequent scenes of aggression in the media also influence attitudes. People who have learned from TV that conflicts are often resolved aggressively and that one aggressive act usually leads to another may overestimate their own chances of becoming a victim. They are more suspicious of others and demand harsher sentences in the fight against crime. The relationship between media aggression and behavioral aggression is not unidirectional, although this fact is often overlooked. In real life, programs containing scenes of violence are usually not specifically imposed on children and adolescents. They have the opportunity to choose among channels, films and videos what they want to watch themselves. Thus, the relationship between media exposure to aggression and aggressive behavior may be confounded by individual preference for aggressive films.

The current increase in violent crime, especially among teenagers, raises questions about what social conditions lead to this.

It is possible that increased individualism and materialism in society are contributing to the rise in violence. Or maybe a huge number of scenes of violence in the media popular culture. The latter assumption arises because the surge in physical violence coincided with the increase in the appearance of bloody scenes in the media, especially on television.

Numerous studies of aggressive behavior, its acquisition and modification were conducted by Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura within the framework of social-cognitive theories. This approach assumes that modeling influences “learning” primarily through its informative function. This process, called “observational learning” by A. Bandura, is regulated by four components:

· attention (understanding of the model): a person monitors the behavior of the model and accurately perceives it;

· storage processes (memorizing the model): the previously observed behavior of the model is stored in long-term memory;

· motor-reproductive processes (translation of memory into behavior): a person translates memories of the model’s behavior encoded in symbols into the form of his behavior;

· Motivational Processes: If positive reinforcement (external, indirect, or self-reinforcement) is potentially present, the individual will learn the modeled behavior.

Obviously, not all “learning” through observation leads to socially acceptable results. An adolescent may learn undesirable and even antisocial behaviors through the same processes that promote cooperation, empathy, altruism, and effective problem-solving skills.

A. Bandura is convinced that people “learn” aggression by adopting it as a model of their behavior by observing other people. Like most social skills, aggressive behavior is learned by observing the actions of others and assessing the consequences of those actions.

American psychologist George Gerbner studied the US television broadcast network. As a result, it was revealed that two out of every three programs contained scenes of violence (“actions of physical coercion accompanied by threats of beating or killing, or beating or killing as such”). Thus, by the time the end high school a child watches about 8 thousand scenes of murder and 100 thousand other acts of violence on television.

Reflecting on his research, J. Gerbner notes: “There have been more bloodthirsty eras in the history of mankind, but none of them was so saturated with images of violence as ours. And who knows where this monstrous stream of visible violence will take us... seeping into every home through flickering television screens in the form of scenes of impeccably choreographed cruelty.”

Beginning with laboratory studies undertaken by A. Bandura and his colleagues in the 1960s, a significant amount of data has been collected on the effects of television violence on social behavior. These works show that prolonged exposure to violence on television can increase the aggressive behavior of viewers, reduce factors inhibiting aggression, dull sensitivity to aggression, and form in viewers an image of social reality that is not entirely adequate to reality.

The greatest body of evidence suggesting that screen violence promotes aggressive behavior comes from laboratory studies. Typically, subjects were offered to watch fragments of programs either with a demonstration of violence, or inciting, but without showing violence. They were then given the opportunity to express aggression towards another person. Most often this was done with a controlled electrical shock, which they knew would be painful. Typically, researchers found that subjects who watched a program showing violence acted more aggressively than those who saw a regular program.

Scientists also note that the impact on subjects of seeing a scene of violence lasts for a short period of time. In addition, the actions by which the experimenter proposes to harm another person (pressing a button to produce an electrical shock) are far from real life.

Iron and his colleagues conducted a longitudinal statistical research in 1960, examining third-year schoolchildren (875 boys and girls) in a small town in upstate New York. Some behavioral and personality characteristics of these children were studied, and data was collected about their parents and environment. At this early stage of the study, it was found that eight-year-old children who preferred violent television programs were among the most aggressive in school.

Ten years later, the researchers re-examined 427 children from this group to find a link between the amount and content of television programs they watched at age eight and how aggressive they became. Frequent exposure to violence in childhood was found to predict aggression at age 18. In other words, stable aggressive behavior was observed for ten years.

In 1987, Iron and his colleagues published data from another study - 400 subjects from the same group, who by that time were approximately 30 years old, maintained stable aggressive behavior throughout the entire period. Those who were aggressive in childhood, by the age of 30, were not only in trouble with the law, but also showed cruelty towards their loved ones. Moreover, scientists have found a strong link between the number of violent programs children watched at age eight and the likelihood that they will commit serious crimes as adults.

The study of the influence of television on everyday behavior has used a variety of methods, in the development of which many people have been involved. In 1986 and 1991 there were comparative analyzes the results of correlational and experimental studies, on the basis of which the researchers came to the conclusion that watching films containing antisocial scenes is closely associated with antisocial behavior. Experimental work indicates the presence of just such a cause-and-effect relationship. The conclusion drawn from the research is that television is one of the causes of aggressive behavior.

With a convergence of correlational and experimental evidence, the researchers explained why witnessing violence has such an impact on an individual's behavior. First, social violence is not caused by the observation of violence itself, but by the arousal that arises from such observation. Excitement usually increases sequentially, charging with energy different kinds behavior. Second, witnessing violence is disinhibiting. Observing violence activates thoughts associated with it, programming the viewer to behave aggressively. Thirdly, the depiction of violence in the media of mass culture causes imitation.

Observations of adolescents and adults have shown that people who watch more than four hours of television per day are more vulnerable to aggression from others and perceive the world to be a more dangerous place than those who watch two hours a day or less.

It is an undeniable fact that reports of violence have a major influence on people's fears. Thus, in the course of his research, Heath classified newspaper reports of robbery into categories such as randomness (lack of obvious motivation), sensationalism (strange and macabre details) and location (near home or far away). Then newspaper readers were asked how the messages made them feel. The results showed that when people read about local crimes, they are more frightened if the crime is classified as random (unmotivated) and the report gives sensational details than if none of these factors are highlighted in the newspaper report. .

Research conducted in the United States in 1988 showed that the average ten-year-old child spends more time watching television than in the classroom, a situation that has not changed for more than 20 years. In fact, the average American child watches about 30 hours of television per week. A report from the National Institute of Mental Health (1982) indicates that by the age of sixteen, the average television viewer has probably already seen about 13,000 murders and many other acts of violence. So, according to D.Zh. Gerbner, who has been evaluating since 1967 entertainment programs for children shown at prime times, they average five acts of violence per hour, while Saturday morning children's programs average about twenty per hour. Based on these statistics, it can be concluded that watching violence on television promotes aggression, at least indirectly, and directly leads to interpersonal problems. In addition, statistical and experimental studies allow us to conclude that watching violence on television reduces the sensitivity of viewers to aggression, weakens the deterrent internal forces and changes the perception of reality.

Russian cinema also uses scenes of violence to create films filled with naturalistic scenes of cruelty. Information programs compete with each other to see who can scare the viewer the most. Computer games, which are becoming available to an increasing number of children and adolescents, often often promote violence.

Thus, the media are one of the main sources of propaganda of aggression, which becomes a model for further behavior of adolescents.

Thus, the media, being the most accessible and widely used means of obtaining information, has a dual orientation: positive and negative. A modern teenager spends a sufficient amount of time in front of the TV screen, listening to music on the radio or using the Internet, and may unwittingly become a “hostage” of the media.

The child's psyche, especially during puberty, is especially unstable. A child, becoming an adult, changing his beliefs, tastes, interests, hoping for the support of adults and still believing that an adult is always right, becomes disappointed in the people around him. Often parents do not understand their children, scold, reproach, punish, so the teenager begins to look for idols among his favorite movie or cartoon characters, computer games or music artists. The behavior of an idol becomes a model of behavior for a teenager. He tries to imitate everything: clothes, gait, manner of communication and behavior. Unfortunately, most often negative heroes become idols. The child seems to be protesting against established rules and laws; he tries to assert himself as an individual, wants to become strong and respected, but does not always understand that his actions can cause harm to the people around him.

Modern films and cartoons are filled with cruelty and violence. A child, starting from 3 to 4 years of age, watches cartoons in which there is aggressive behavior of a “positive” character. At the age of 13, it becomes normal for him to watch scenes of violence and brutal murder on screen. All this can lead to the fact that each subsequent generation will increasingly show aggression towards others, the threshold of criticality towards one’s actions will decrease, which will lead to an increase in the number of offenses among adolescents.

Thus, programs broadcast through the media must be controlled by the state, preventing cartoons and films with scenes of violence and cruelty from being broadcast in the daytime and in the evening.

The destruction of the conceptual and stylistic unity of the media was expressed in the division of the press into quality and tabloid, in the latter aggression is often unbridled, which was impossible in previous years of strict censorship. High-quality press refers to publications aimed at highly educated readers with average and high incomes (“Business Petersburg”, “Kommersant”, “ Russian newspaper"). “Yellow press” (also tabloid press) is a designation for printed press publications that are affordable and specialize in rumors, sensations (often imaginary), scandals, gossip, shocking coverage of taboo topics (“Life”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda”). If serious publications do not allow themselves obvious insults, and counter the reader’s rudeness with an ironic or emphatically polite tone, then other publications choose a rude, aggressive manner of speech. In statements intended to directly insult the target, abusive language and phraseology are used.

Let's look at some examples in the media

Often, in order to convey the completeness of the interviewee’s speech, the author specifically leaves certain words so as not to distort the meaning and to show a certain level of the interlocutor. As a rule, non-literary vocabulary is found in interview responses:

... running a business so that not a single beast could get into it... The interviewee uses evaluative language, shows his looseness, hostility towards those he is talking about. Invective is used inappropriately a certain person, A social group generally.

“I wanted to understand: am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right,” said a young resident of Novosibirsk during interrogation. In this context, it is used to evaluate oneself, perhaps even a narrative function.

The tragedy near Smolensk is one of the most tragic..., asking: “How can we mourn the enemy of Russia?” The noun enemy initially has a negative connotation, a rough assessment. The word separates people into different layers, groups. And it looks like a means of verbal aggression.

After the crisis, more idiots will enter the market again. In this material, the author demonstrates the negative opinion of his interviewee towards other people sharing the labor market with him. This word is colloquial in nature.

...always on New Year crawled under the bed and peed there, infection, but this time - nothing... The word used, infection, is of a colloquial nature. This is an expressive assessment of personality. The word (infection), if absent, would not change the meaning of the test, but its presence immediately sets the reader up for negative emotions towards the person being described.

Probably because of this freak?

As in the previous material, the word used does not carry a load, and could have been absent, but in order for the reader to take someone’s side, the author leaves evaluative words. The author allows expressiveness in words. We see that the author, when quoting, repeatedly uses the same word in relation to a person, conveying someone else’s speech. The text was not about a person with external physical disabilities.

And Dawkins is just a smug turkey, not very smart and not very honest. Turkey, has zoosemantic coloring. Referring a person to an animal and comparing it with it.

Invective expressions placed in quotation marks are perceived differently. This suggests that the author “feels” the language and intentionally uses this or that word. Often non-literary words put in quotation marks by the author do not correspond to the style of the work and are used by the journalist to add expression to the text:

“Pigs” and “morons” of the world economy. The author deliberately uses such a bright title. The zoosimantic group of invective vocabulary is used here. And expressive-evaluative vocabulary. By allowing such words, the author puts them in quotation marks, knowing that such a title can attract a large number of readers.

Cattle! - the lead singer of “VIA Gra” finally muttered, leaving the stage. In the material itself, the author quotes without the quotation mark “beast,” but the title already has quotation marks.

Oksana again became a “prostitute”, and sent the kids - our little ones, our blood siblings - to an orphanage. In the material, the word “prostitute” has a negative evaluative character, denoting an antisocial, socially condemned activity.

Yana Rudkovskaya: “I have never been a “stupid woman”! Baba is a fool, is emotionally evaluative in nature and separates the interviewee from a certain social class.

Who these “they” are, these “onanists”, “brainwashed idiots” and “damned wankers” is unknown. Such rude words, put in quotation marks, are not only emotionally evaluative in nature, but also define everyone into an antisocial group that lags behind the norms.

At the beginning, Lear says to Kent: “Go to hell!” - this is very organic, the same is the Jester’s mother tongue. The author introduces quotation marks in this text, but not separately for the word, but when quoting the hero of the material. This quote says that the hero is not very friendly with the society around him. He demonstrates his relaxedness.

You can also often find manifestations of verbal aggression already in the title.

Yes, I’m Russian, I’m a brute... The journalist uses invective language to provoke readers.

Violator to traffic cops: “You scum will be left without work... Emotional and evaluative vocabulary. The author puts a quote from the material in the title. Grabbing the reader's attention.

American secret agent- thief, drunk and reveler... The title uses words related to colloquial speech: thief, drunk, reveler. They border on colloquialisms and jargons. They have an emotional and evaluative nature.

If you're not stupid at all, make a shape with a rolling pin! The author does not call his heroines by name, but uses rude evaluative vocabulary. To attract the attention of readers. This title suits the advertising material. “Fool” becomes a remarkable detail.

Ksenia Sobchak is no longer a horse, but a chicken. The journalist in the headline resorts to the zoosemantic group of invective. Distorts the meaning.

Nanny to a two-year-old baby: “You brat!” If you yell, I’ll tear your head off... A frequent example in media texts is when a publicist uses a quote from a material for the title of the text. Used to effectively attract the reader's eye.

In this chapter, I examined various examples of verbal aggression in the print media. Such vocabulary and phraseology is linguistic violence against the ethical and aesthetic consciousness of the reader. The rejection of the obligatory principle of communist party membership led to ideological demarcation, to the emergence of newspapers of a wide variety of political colors - from communist, monarchist and even fascist to a wide range of democratic ones.

Analyzing the examples given below, you can see that the most common types of verbal aggression are invective vocabulary, used not only in the text of the article, but also in the title. Since the mechanisms that traditionally restrained the manifestation of verbal aggression have been largely lost in conditions of general cultural disadvantage caused by long-term social cataclysms, in our time there is a need for the scientific development of new mechanisms that would prevent the spread of verbal aggression and thereby contribute to the processes of humanization of communication.

The question of the criteria for tolerant and intolerant information is one of the fundamental, sometimes controversial, and not yet entirely clear to both researchers and legislators, and especially to writing journalists. What can be considered tolerant and what can be considered intolerant in information passing through different media channels? Where tolerance ends and conflict in information begins. In what cases can the dilemma of “WE” and “THEY” be divisive and alienating, and in what cases can it be neutral or unifying? What can disturb ethnic well-being, hurt the ethnic or national dignity of a person or group, and what cannot? Why does one person perceive a certain message, some fact or its interpretation very painfully, while others may not even pay attention to it?

Without a doubt, the most important part of diagnosing tolerance in the media is a detailed analysis of the information that a given channel disseminates.

Exist various shapes analysis of newspaper texts, with the help of which one can diagnose the presence and level (for example, frequency) of tolerance:

Consider information on topics or public spheres (culture, sports, economics, politics, etc.);
- by the nature and methods of propaganda (for example, “positive”, “negative”, various effects of perception, etc.);
- in terms of volume and focus on individual target groups;
- by content as a whole or synthesis of individual elements (their relationship, emphasis, subtext and other nuances);
- by the method of presentation (direct, “frontal” propaganda or indirect - implicit propaganda), etc.

However, even with such a significant number of different approaches, there are many difficulties in unambiguously assessing information in the press.

Here is what V.K., a specialist in the field of diagnosing ethnic tolerance, says about this. Malkova: “So there are simple truths that we definitely consider tolerant. They are illuminated by the ideas of humanism, friendliness, sympathy, empathy, compassion, mutual assistance. There are also statements that are mixed in their meaning: on the one hand, they seem to unite and unite representatives of the same ethnic group , let's say US, contribute to the formation of OUR civil and ethnic identity, and therefore are completely tolerant towards US. But, on the other hand, these same statements can separate the US group from others, contrast US and THEM (ethnically others) and even push ", emphasizing our mutual intransigence and hostility towards each other. Thus, this same information already performs an intolerant function. That is why, when considering the texts of newspaper publications, it is very difficult to speak unambiguously about tolerant (or conflicting) information in the press." “Nevertheless,” the author of the article believes, “it is possible” to conditionally divide all newspaper information into “tolerant,” “mixed,” “neutral,” and “definitely conflicting.”

In the last decade, linguists have paid much attention to the problem of verbal aggression in the media. . Signals of verbal aggression in a journalistic text are usually considered from the perspective of linguistic, linguo-ideological and rhetorical analysis. Linguistic analysis includes the analysis itself linguistic means, primarily lexical. The focus of linguo-ideological analysis is the system of values manifested in the text, which find their speech expression in ideologemes. Rhetorical analysis of the text is focused on the ways internal organization text, for example, the degree of its dialogicity. At the level of linguistic means of expression, markers of a negative attitude towards the subject are most often deliberately rude, vulgar, stylistically reduced words and expressions that discredit the personality and form the perception of the subject as suspicious and undesirable, causing hostility, disgust or hatred. This phenomenon falls under the category of dysphemization.

The deliberate use of rude, stylistically reduced words and expressions is found quite often in almost all randomly selected newspapers. The most a shining example Dysphemises became offensive characteristics of CIS citizens. In the text “Invasion of Slaves from Afghanistan to the Urals,” the author writes: The psychology of the eternal slave makes them the most valuable means of production. A five-day trip from Tajikistan to Yekaterinburg costs 80 dollars from the nose... Rumor has it that for the “gibbons” these “cattle carriers” are a legitimate feeding ground. (“Invasion of slaves from Afghanistan to the Urals” (MK-Ural, 2001, November 1-8). Throughout the entire text, the journalist calls citizens of Tajikistan slaves. The negative assessment is reinforced by the use of comparing a means of production with an inanimate noun, zoonym gibbons(it is not clear from the context whether this word refers to the Tajiks themselves or those who transport them; the colloquial name for the livestock bus here also looks insulting towards passengers. In general, insulting metaphors are an indicator of an invective communication strategy, which is unacceptable in journalistic discourse .

It is also unacceptable from the point of view of humanizing communication to single out as an example only one nation that can commit similar crimes that France faced in November 2005. So, commenting on these events as a test " stone in the global European intifada of Muslim aliens", the author (N. Ivanov) writes: " after all, no one will argue that in Moscow there are some random events, even at the everyday level, lead to the fact that on the streets Azerbaijanis or someone else come out (emphasis added - T.N.) and passions begin to escalate". A stylistically reduced expression or someone else forms the perception of an object as undesirable, suspicious, causing hostility, not to mention discrediting an entire nation (in this case, the Azerbaijanis) among the Muslim world. We should not forget what exactly " phenotypic“The definition remains in the person’s memory (“The French are losing France,” World of News, No. 46 (620), November 8, 2005).

But there is also a problem of conscientiousness when reproducing verbal aggression, when a journalist simply cannot help but convey, for example, the words of Zhirinovsky or Mitrofanov, speaking about Americans as " mad dogs". The same newspaper (World of News, No. 46 (620) published an article by A. Bessarabova, “The Murderous Gold of Yakutia”: “For the third week in the Yakut village of Yugorenok, ... the wives of disabled people have been starving. Participants in an open-ended protest demand that they be given certificates promised by the authorities seven years ago. Republican officials responded to the riot in the gold mining village on the fifth day: they flew to Yugorenok, had a hearty lunch at the local administration, and before leaving, visited the starving people to advise them..." wash and get a haircut" (Italics are mine - T.N.) - "They examined it exactly livestock, - recalls Olga Shchelokova. They frowned contemptuously. At the door they said: " You better wash yourself and your disabled people shave"And they left." In this case, the deliberate use of a rough comparison is justified by the position of the journalist, who reflected the fact of the event.

Of course, the reflection of social reality imposes a certain responsibility on the conclusions that a journalist is forced to resort to. PS (Postscript) takes on a completely different shade when the conclusion is made by a specialist in a different field of activity. "One Girl's Street" is the title of an article by a special correspondent, educational psychologist E. Goryukhina (Novaya Gazeta, No. 81 (1011), November 01-03, 2004) " The child from Beslan is not a victim? It happens? Happens! According to the stupid form that has to be in Beslan". Phrases taken out of the context of the entire article: " I won't say anything about power. They are g... Everyone knows this". Or - " Such childish thinking will never be understood by a ministerial head. Natural mix is different" - without a doubt, reflect signals of verbal aggression. But only after reading the entire article, taking the position of the author and common sense, do you understand the depth of the psychological state of both the one surviving child and the parents who lost their children from a mediocre anti-terrorist operation, and power relations, " head” which is turned in the opposite direction from the people.

Generally speaking, examples of dysphemism in relation to the authorities abound from time to time in most newspaper publications, especially during periods of government decisions that are unpopular for the population. For example: " Gref, “the president’s favorite minister,” in the distinct manner of a neurasthenic, asserts: whether we like it or not, we will still have to integrate into world economy. Although this is important only for Gref himself, who is bound by the obligation to completely ruin Russia. In the WTO, where Gref and Kudrin stubbornly, like two Susanins, are dragging the country, there are indeed no housing benefits. But there are high wages, unemployment benefits are higher than the average Russian salary"… . "The new code comes into force on March 1, 2006. And it is clear that private managers will not have any beneficiaries. How can this be correlated with the promises of the “father of Muscovites” Yu.M. Luzhkov?". ("Capital Crime" Issue 24 (245), 2005). Here the elements of verbal aggression include either ridicule, such as " favorite minister...", ironic - " father of Muscovites", or a hateful word " neurotic".

We classify the above examples as direct signals of verbal aggression.

An indirect indicator of verbal aggression, as noted above, can be nominations when the evaluative component of the word’s meaning is absent, but they have acquired a connotative negative evaluation in the modern sociocultural Russian context. For example, the following context: " The pensioners doted on the Azerbaijani local police officer: although he was not Russian, he was very good man. Polite. Calm. (MK-Ural, 2002, June 6-13). " Not Russian, but a good person" indicates that hidden in the subtext are negative judgments about non-Russians.

In linguo-ideological analysis, ideologemes that highlight an intolerant position are structured by the general opposition “us/they”. The most frequent signals of verbal aggression, appearing in the form of lexical, phraseological or syntactic units, texts or fragments of texts, is the formation of the enemy. And most often in the press, as a rule, migrants or immigrants act as the enemy. But let's look at the numbers first. Question: “What feelings do you have towards visitors from North Caucasus, from Central Asia and others southern countries living in your city, region": "respect" - 2%, "sympathy" - 3%, "irritation" - 20%, "dislike" - 21%, "fear" - 6% and "no special feelings" - 50% (only 2% found it difficult to answer, which indicates the severity of such attitudes in the mass consciousness.) Summarizing, we find that negative feelings are manifested in 47% of the population, that is, an order of magnitude higher than the positive attitude (5%).

Negative feelings, are recorded and thereby replicated, consolidated in the mass consciousness. In turn, the enemy’s ideologemes, manifesting an intolerant position, contain meanings of danger for the local population. The following text is indicative in this regard: " Why indigenous people should suffer because of aliens whom no one invited to Kuban?("Kuban Today", October 7, 2004) or the author of the publication ("Kuban Today", September 6, 2004) reproaches the Cossack for weak activity in this direction, depicting the emerging situation as follows: " How many tears are shed by Russians deprived of their native citizenship (by the will of the supreme players in the destinies of people) and forced to stand in queues for a long time at the OVIR windows. While representatives of various " dark-skinned"nationalities(emphasis added - T.N.) quickly settle down with us and feel like masters in the Vishnyakovsky and other markets of the region." These fragments of text show that migrants are attributed numerical, and therefore power, superiority. Vocabulary with a negative component of meaning is used: they are crowding out, fill, flood, invasion, dominance. Images of migrants are filled with negative characteristics with the general semantics of malicious intent towards local residents, presented as victims: they jump in line, become impudent, ruin life. These are no longer just strangers, but enemies. What initiatives are expected from Cossacks in this situation can easily be imagined.

“Evaluation in speech is intended to influence the addressee and is intended to evoke a certain psychological state.” For example, a survey was conducted in one of the pedagogical institutes of the capital. Future teachers were asked how they feel about visitors who are carriers of a different culture. More than half of them expressed a sharply negative attitude towards migrants (AIF-Moscow, No. 46, 2005).

Negative attitudes towards visitors in some publications develop into approval of physical violence. It is noteworthy that even murders are not assessed negatively, they are only presented by the author as ineffective, since they cannot significantly affect the number of visitors: " From time to time, in some barn where foreigners live, St. Bartholomew's Night is held, but the labor market has already gained such momentum that the place of the knocked out is not empty"(MK-Ural, 2002, April 4-11). Here the ideologeme of destruction is conveyed by phraseology St. Bartholomew's Night, in which the meaning of physical violence is updated. There are also texts where there is direct approval and call for violence: " We will destroy the Jewish Antichrist when the satanic people disappear from the face of our Earth. And it will happen!"(Russian Vedomosti, No. 35, 2000). The newspaper consistently presents one of the hostile groups (Jews) to readers as an incorrigible enemy of “our”, “their” group (Russians), who are actively offending “us”.

The conflictological model of social reality continues to remain dominant in journalistic discourse, and not only in it. The world is conceived exclusively as a confrontation between certain forces. Postulating ethnicity as a fundamental characteristic of this world, as one of the main, if not the main, basis for its classification inevitably leads to a “problematic” perception of interethnic relations.

So, direct signals of verbal aggression at the level of ideological analysis of texts are ideologemes of the enemy and ideologemes of destruction. The pattern of reasoning in such publications is unusually simple: if we get rid of strangers, the problem will disappear.

This position most often arises from illiteracy or neglect by journalists of professional principles of conduct adopted International Federation journalists.

In this sense, the practice of educating journalists should be aimed at understanding the social processes occurring in society, deep-seated ideas about the naturalness of the hierarchical structure of society, which involves division into ethnic groups with unequal social and political rights. It is not difficult to understand that the general vector of mass public opinion (mood) in these cases will and should be demands for the authorities (and if we don’t get rid of strangers, the problem will disappear) to pursue a tougher policy towards migrants. The frontal practice of “educating the dark masses infected with prejudices” is absolutely ineffective. The problem of xenophobia should be formulated in journalistic materials not as a task of eliminating xenophobic sentiments, but as a task of controlling and reducing them to some socially acceptable and administratively regulated forms.

The third position, which provides a methodology for diagnosing the tolerance of journalistic texts based on markers of verbal aggression, is rhetorical analysis. Unfortunately, we have to note that in our sample there were practically no materials that could be correlated with the criterion of dialogicity. The category of dialogue is the leading category in the analysis of tolerant relations. Internal dialogism is the expression in an externally monologue text of the interaction of different ideological and worldview positions, in contrast, for example, to the actual dialogical newspaper genre - interviews.

The small number of the category of dialogue in the media as a leading category in the analysis of tolerant relations is also indicated by large-scale studies of tolerance/intolerance in federal and regional publications during the implementation of a project carried out within the framework of the Federal Target Program. The study of federal print media was carried out using content analysis - a method where the unit of observation is text, which is understood as any completed work that has an independent heading and/or graphic highlighting on the page, and also performs an autonomous communicative function. The sample included the three most read newspapers of all-Russian circulation: “Arguments and Facts”, “Komsomolskaya Pravda” and “Moskovsky Komsomolets” for the period March - April 2003. The total number of analyzed publications is 2251. The sample included materials characterized by varying degrees of analyticality, dialogism and with different geographical coverage.

However, tolerance is impossible without dialogue, without representing the points of view of all citizens, especially those involved in the conflict. It is noteworthy in this regard (as an example of tolerant conflict resolution) the presentation of materials as a reaction-response to what was previously published. Internal dialogism, with an outwardly monological text, manifests itself here as an expression of the interaction of different points of view and positions of the participants in the conflict.

For example, the reason for the conflict was the article “Historical servility” (Novye Izvestia, October 17, 2005), in which Vladimir Ryzhkov gave his colleagues in the State Duma a very impartial assessment; in particular, the parliamentarians were offended by the fact that the Duma was called “gross” . Not only this material was included in the “case,” but also a number of others in which Mr. Ryzhkov allowed himself unethical statements in relation to parliament and deputies. A conflict arose, based on one of the manifestations of intolerance. However, the editors return to the situation with an article by N. Krasilova “Undefamed” (New Izvestia, No. 205 (1843), November 10, 2005), which presents the points of view of the parties and, in particular, Mr. Ryzhkov himself: “... all the time I emphasize that as a government body it (parliament - T.N.) has not developed. And according to Article 29 of the Constitution, I have the right to express my own position. As far as I understand, only three moments can be classified as ethical actions - a fight, the use of obscene language and personal insult to a citizen... Anything else is an illegal attempt to restrict my freedom of speech.” The conflict is over. “Gennady Raikov (chairman of the ethics commission) decided to limit himself to a “comradely” conversation with Vladimir Ryzhkov.”

Thus, if tolerance of newspaper information is diagnosed using the method of verbal aggression (as well as other methods), the conclusions are disappointing. Other researchers come to the same conclusion, noting that “with one or two words (sometimes very bright and witty), the author of a publication can draw the reader’s attention to ethnic problems, ... publicly laugh at the ethnic characteristics of a person or his group, attribute to him or an entire ethnic group positive or negative qualities, blamed for real or fictitious actions... And sometimes you don’t even notice it!” .

Every time the question arises: is it possible and how to stop such practices in domestic journalism? There are several ways to solve this problem, which are formulated differently by researchers - from banning intolerant statements in the media to control and reduction to some socially acceptable and administratively regulated forms. The second way seems more realistic.

However, the main burden in solving this problem should fall on the shoulders of journalists themselves. Resolving these contradictions will require special professional tolerance of the journalist’s personality, based on tolerance and the ability to regulate destructive conflict situations in the professional sphere through understanding and perception of the “other” point of view, rejection of professional dogmatism, the journalist’s ability to self-development and participation in the development of communicative professional culture. But this is a special conversation that requires appropriate scientific research. But not even two weeks had passed - another call reminded me. This time the man who called introduced himself and was even ready to give his address. And he asked - no more and no less - to publish on the pages of the newspaper a list of... Jews - deputies of the regional assembly. “You have no idea how many readers are interested in this!” - assured the brave anti-Semite, who on principle does not vote in elections. In his opinion, all our troubles are precisely from the Jews who have infiltrated into power and business, and the Russians in every possible way... what? That's right, they are crowding. And Russians - they are so quiet, rustic, highly spiritual...

Of course, the caller, like the previous reader, is himself one hundred percent Russian and, in general, a native Pomeranian of God knows what generation.

The unfortunate Russians were directly offended. Why do we allow everyone to oppress us? Why don’t we strive for power as persistently as the Ukrainians and the Jews?

A group of teenagers gathers on a bench at the entrance to my house every evening. Beer, music, laughter, discussion of failures in chemistry and - bottles, cigarette butts thrown right there, a “public restroom” in the entrance. Young highly spiritual Pomors are resting. Or are they Ukrainian pests?

Last weekend, hooligans beat my friend's son and took away mobile phone, tore my jacket. Quiet, simple-minded Russians are having fun. Or the Jewish oppressors? How easy and convenient it is to find the culprit for all troubles by pointing to a “person of suspicious nationality.” This is both an excuse for one’s own laziness, apathy, envy of more successful neighbors, and at the same time a sign of the degradation of society. What's next? Are there pogroms?

In conclusion, I cannot help but cite an example of a journalistic text of a completely different nature that I came across in the Arkhangelsk newspaper Pravda Severa, which was not included in the object of the above study. (http://www.pravdasevera.ru/2005/04/21/17-prn.shtml The bridges in St. Petersburg are all humpbacked... Who is to blame? // Pravda Severa. 2005. April 21.):

“Charming dark-haired six-year-olds with no less beautiful names Elvin and Elnara are having fun at a kindergarten matinee together with my fair-haired son and other “preparators” and unanimously sing the New Year’s chorus: “Rejoice, Russian soul!” For a long time no one turns around after black students on the streets Arkhangelsk. The Tatar holiday Sabantuy has become one of the brands of our city. Even if Germans or Nenets organize such festivities, people will flock to them in droves.

Life itself mixes different peoples and nationalities, testing us for tolerance - tolerance, harmoniousness and mutual respect. The northerners, in fact, have always been distinguished by these qualities. If you dig deeper, our most “indigenous” Pomors will turn out to be just the descendants of the newcomers from Novgorod. So should we reproach each other for our “alien” nationality?

"Khokhols are striving for power!" - a concerned reader calls on the eve of local elections. In response to my objections that representatives of different ethnic groups are striving for power, the woman categorically stated: “But Ukrainians are insolent, grabbers and bribe-takers, and they are pushing out Russians in every possible way!” According to the hysterical lady, almost all the candidates in her district are obvious or “hidden” crests, and under no circumstances should you vote for them. I attributed that meaningless telephone conversation to the spring sun and the waxing moon. And I almost forgot about him.”

We can only hope that the number of journalists who adequately perceive Russian reality and show tolerance towards people of different nationalities, religions, and worldviews will grow.
__________________
Literature:

1. Diagnosis of tolerance in the media. Ed. VC. Malkova. M., IEA RAS. 2002. – P.105.
2. Ibid. – P. 105.
3. See, for example, Kokorina E.V. Stylistic appearance of the opposition press // Russian language of the late twentieth century (1985-1995). - M., 1996. – P. 409-426; Speech aggression and humanization of communication in the media. Ekaterinburg, 1997. - 117 pp.; Skovorodnikov A.P. Linguistic violence in the modern Russian press // Theoretical and applied aspects verbal communication. Scientific and methodological bulletin. Krasnoyarsk-Achinsk, 1997. - Issue. 2. Specifically, the forms of intolerance are generalized and described, for example, in a joint work: Soldatova G., Shaigerova L. Complex of superiority and forms of intolerance // Century of Tolerance. 2001, No. 2 – P.2-10.
4. Sociological survey, November 2005. Data from L.D. Gudkova – Department of Socio-Political Research of the Levada Center (“Nezavisimaya”, December 26, 2005)
5. Stevenson Ch. Some pragmatic aspects of meaning // New in foreign linguistics. - Vol. 16. - M..1985. – P.129-154.
6. Diagnosis of tolerance in the media. / Ed. VC. Malkova. - M., IEA RAS. 2002. – P.122-123.