Content uploaded by Odarka Kravchenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Odarka Kravchenko on Jan 07, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
Forum for Linguistic Studies
https://journals.bilpubgroup.com/index.php/fls
ARTICLE
Detection of Typical Aggressive Lexical Markers through Authorisation
of Publicistic Texts
Karina Bortun 1, Veronika Chekaliuk 2, Odarka Kravchenko 3, Iryna Soroka 4* , Adila Asadova Yagub 5
1Department of Legal Linguistics, National Academy of Internal Affairs, 03035 Kyiv, Ukraine
2Institute of Journalism, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 01033 Kyiv, Ukraine
3
Department of Chinese Language and Translation, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, 04212 Kyiv, Ukraine
4Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences, O. P. Jindal Global University (JGU), Sonipat 131001, India
5Department of Azerbaijani Language and Literature, Western Caspian University, Baku AZ1001, Azerbaijan
ABSTRACT
The aim of the research is to establish standard lexical signs of aggressiveness through the analysis of authorised
publicistic texts. Methods. The research employed the method of functional semantic analysis, study of the cognitive
discursive model, and lexico-semantic analysis of aggression markers. The obtained results were processed using the
methods of descriptive statistics. Pearson’s chi-square test (χ2), the Mann–Whitney U test, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient were also used. Results. The identified markers reflect a variety of functions, such as expressing the author’s
point of view, forming a subjective attitude, expressing judgments, and supporting the author’s position. Statistical analysis
confirmed their statistical significance and systematicity in journalistic discourse. Donald Trump uses high levels of
aggressive language and radical statements, while other sources show lower levels of aggressiveness. Bloomberg and The
Economist lead in the lowest use of aggression markers. Conclusions. The article reveals various markers of aggression
through the authorisation of publicistic texts. The identified markers indicate various functions, including expressing
the author’s point of view and forming subjective attitudes. The study confirms the statistical significance of aggression
markers, which indicates their systematicity in journalistic authorised discourse. Prospects. Further research may focus
on deepening the understanding of aggressive vocabulary markers and their influence on the perception of publicistic
*CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Iryna Soroka, Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences, O. P. Jindal Global University (JGU), Sonipat 131001, India; Email: lingnlinguistic@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 14 August 2024 | Revised: 18 September 2024 | Accepted: 24 September 2024 | Published Online: 29 November 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i6.7051
CITATION
Bortun, K., Chekaliuk, V., Kravchenko, O., et al., 2024. Detection of Typical Aggressive Lexical Markers through Authorisation of Publicistic Texts.
Forum for Linguistic Studies. 6(6): 172–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i6.7051
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2024 by the author(s). Published by Bilingual Publishing Co. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
172
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
information.
Keywords: Communication; Publicistic Discourse; Language Tools; Emotional Vocabulary; Social Networks; Aggression;
Lexical Markers; Authorisation
1. Introduction
The problem of aggression has long been the subject of
research by scholars from various fields of science. Psychol-
ogists made a special contribution to the study of this phe-
nomenon, who proposed the main theoretical approaches to
understanding the origin of aggression
[1]
. The phenomenon
of verbal aggression has been studied recently in connection
with the rapid development of social networks
[2]
. First, this
is connected with the growing aggressiveness of the modern
cultural and speech environment, which is observed in the
increase in the emotional level of communication and the
activation of invective vocabulary[3].
The researchers primarily focus on the definition of the
concept of speech aggression, in which no consensus has yet
been reached and on the identification of the means of its
expression. This issue is currently being actively studied by
linguists. Many means of expressing aggression have been
proposed, which are distinguished according to three main
approaches: structural-linguistic, communicative-pragmatic,
and speech-genre[4].
The concept of aggression came to linguistics from
psychology, where this phenomenon has been actively stud-
ied for a long time. Several concepts have been developed
within the framework of psychological science. Currently,
when formulating the definition of the concept of aggression,
attention is focused on the intention factor. Accordingly, ag-
gression is considered as any behaviour aimed at harming
another person or object[5].
The concept of authorisation is formulated within the
framework of studying the problems of functional and com-
municative syntax. In this study, authorisation is understood
as a semantic category that serves to express the source of
knowledge underlying the message
[6, 7]
. Its essence is that a
second structural-semantic plan indicating the subject, the
“author” of the perception, is introduced into a sentence con-
taining particular information about objective reality in var-
ious ways, which, however, are completely amenable to
description. At the same time, the structure of the statement,
which indicates the source of information, contains two main
components: the designation of the subject-author and the
description of a real or imaginary situation[8].
It is possible to single out a group of indicators that
formed the basis of the authorisation phenomenon:
1)
subjective (I/we authorisation), characterised by the co-
incidence of the speaker and the authoriser;
2)
objectified (you, he, she/they authorisation), where the
addressee and the authoriser are defined as different per-
sons[9].
The function of journalistic texts in social networks is
similar to the function of journalism, as they serve to inform,
analyse and comment on events. The advent of social media
has created a new platform for content distribution, provid-
ing a convenient way to quickly respond to current events,
express your opinions and interact with your audience.
Like traditional journalism, non-fiction texts on social
networks are based on fact-based analysis, although they
often have a more personal and informal tone. This genre
allows authors to respond quickly to events and disseminate
their views to a wider audience, helping engage readers and
raise awareness of specific issues. Audiences get the opportu-
nity to actively participate in content creation, commenting,
sharing and asking questions, which promotes two-way com-
munication between authors and readers.
The object of the research is words, statements, and
text fragments that contain aggressive intent. The subject is
a means of expressing verbal aggression (signals of verbal
aggression). The unit of research is a word, statement or
fragment of a text in which means of expression of verbal
aggression are used.
Research problem. The increase in the use of aggressive
language in publicistic texts reflects the need for in-depth
analysis of such phenomena. However, existing methods
for detecting and analysing aggressive lexical markers are
not always effective due to their subjectivity and limited
processing of large volumes of text. Therefore, there is a
need to develop an objective and effective methodology for
173
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
the automatic detection of aggressive statements. The re-
search is focused on identifying and systematising the means
of expressing verbal aggression in words, statements and
text fragments found in the journalistic discourse during the
authorisation process.
The aim of the study is to identify typical aggressive
lexical markers through the authorisation of publicistic texts.
Objectives/questions
1.
Reveal the functional semantic conditions of the author-
ship of a journalistic text.
2.
Analyse the cognitive discursive model of authorisation
in journalistic discourse.
3. Analyse lexical units of aggressive semantics.
4.
Conduct a correlational analysis between the lexical units
of aggressive vocabulary and the method of authorising
the journalistic text.
2. Literature Review
In identifying the causes of acts of speech aggression,
modern researchers believe that psychological factors can
be the basis. In connection with this, psychologists single
out several main circumstances of the occurrence of speech
aggression: biological, social, psychological, socio-cultural,
and communicative. Ying et al.
[10]
consider representing a
living being as an object of aggression to be an important
condition for calling a particular action aggressive. Accord-
ing to researchers, aggression is any form of behaviour that
aims to offend or harm another living being who does not
want such treatment.
It should be noted that, according to Malysheva
[11]
, the
biological nature of verbal aggression is determined by the
need to release “accumulated negativity”. This can be, for
example, the destruction of inanimate objects, or participa-
tion in sports competitions. Analysis of the work of Khan
[12]
showed that the most frequent use of swear words and expres-
sions in the language occurs instead of physical aggression
(as unacceptable) to reduce negative psychological tension.
The theoretical analysis of approaches to the interpre-
tation of the speech concepts “aggressor”, “aggression”, and
“hostility” conducted by Lien
[13]
showed that the majority
of specialists and experts in the field of linguistic expertise
agree with the opinion that “...political discourse is charac-
terised by acts of speech aggression and threats against the
opponent”. In this aspect, we consider the lexico-semantic
approach of Freudenthaler
[14]
to study the mentioned phe-
nomenon interesting, which involves the study of linguistic
ways of presenting the community. First of all, it is neces-
sary to understand that acts of verbal aggression and threats
are usually presented as “forms of communicative interac-
tion” aimed at insulting or “intentionally causing damage to
the existing image of the opponent”, a group of people, an
organisation or society in general.
Analysis of the work of Khan
[12]
showed that the most
frequent use of swear words and expressions in the language
is manifested instead of physical aggression (as unaccept-
able) to reduce negative psychological tension. In connection
with this, it is necessary to consider the “psychological fea-
tures of persons” who show verbal aggression.
The theoretical analysis of approaches to the interpre-
tation of the speech concepts “aggressor”, “aggression” and
“hostility” in the work of Lien
[13]
showed that the majority
of specialists and experts in the field of linguistic expertise
agree with the opinion that “...political discourse is char-
acterised by acts of speech aggression and threats against
the opponent”. In this aspect, we consider interesting the
lexical-semantic approach of Freudenthaler
[14]
to the study
of the mentioned phenomenon, which involves the study of
linguistic ways of presenting the community. First of all, it
is necessary to understand that acts of verbal aggression and
threats are usually given as “forms of communicative inter-
action” aimed at insulting or “intentionally causing damage
to the existing image of the opponent”, a group of people, an
organisation or society in general.
Alia-Klein et al.
[15]
and Lisova et al.
[16]
most often
consider such a form of behaviour as “verbal aggression”.
It includes the manifestation of “reflection of negative emo-
tions” through verbal and non-verbal language components
based on the threatening content of statements. According to
Tordjman
[17]
, the Humanities interpret speech aggression in
different aspects, but purposefully: from the use of stylistic
markers and specific psycholinguistic units to the purposeful
suppression of the personality of a political opponent.
According to Oesterle et al.
[18]
, journalistic discourse
forms a set of speech acts used in political discussions and
public policy rules based on tradition and experience. In his
work, the researcher notes that certain stylistic, interactional
or thematic markers can indicate the peculiarities of political
174
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
discourse. Blynova
[19]
characterises journalistic discourse
as a unity of genres of the political domain. She contrasts
it with other types of discourse – educational, legal, and
mass media. At the same time, it cannot be said that clear
boundaries characterise the domain of politics, as the term
“politics” itself has the most diverse interpretations.
Regardless of the sufficient degree of development of
the topic, the issue of naming and defining a class of methods
that would be able to help assess the emotional colouring of
the text is on the agenda. The issue of identifying aggression
markers in journalistic discourse can be especially valuable
for further research because this environment has a special
impact on a person. Interest in the proposed problem can be
explained by the relevance of the issue of discursive markers
and the insufficient coverage of related issues.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design
A consistent study was conducted in several stages to
achieve the set goals and objectives. The study occurred in
2023, and its results were summarised in 2024. The research
stages are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of research stages and their con-
tent. Source: developed by the authors of the research.
3.2. Participants
Personal blogs of political and public figures in the so-
cial network X (formerly Twitter (
https://twitter.com
)) were
chosen for the study of aggression markers in journalistic
discourse. Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) tweets (con-
sidered 678 tweets + comments below them), Ben Shapiro
(@benshapiro) (considered 467 tweets + comments below
them), Spigel publication (@Spigel_km) (considered 1,098
tweets) were selected as material for the study + comments
below them), Bloomberg (@business) (785 tweets examined
+ comments below them), The Economist (@TheEconomist)
edition (1888 tweets examined + comments below them).
Donald Trump’s Facebook accounts were also reviewed
(https://www.facebook.com/POTUS45
) and Ben Shapiro
(https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro
). The Face-
book pages of periodicals were not considered in the study,
because the information they have is duplicated with that al-
ready available in X. Both the tweets themselves and the com-
ments under them were analysed in the amount of 4,916 posts
with comments. Such markers as Personality Aggression,
Action Aggression, Idea Aggression, Emotional Aggression,
and Hate Speech were examined. This sample is the most
representative of such a study. The main inclusion criterion
was the discussion under the tweets. Furthermore, Social
Network X (formerly Twitter) is one of the most popular com-
munication channels for politicians and public figures, where
they communicate directly with their audiences, making it
an ideal environment for studying the dynamics of public
debates. Tweets from Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Spigel,
Bloomberg, and The Economist represent different political
and ideological positions, allowing for a wider range of data
to analyse. According to the authors of the study, this spec-
trum of publicistic texts is sufficient to follow the tendency of
the representation of aggressive markers. It is also important
to emphasise the representativeness of the selected research
material. First, these figures and publications are known
for their high reputation and influence in the media world.
They are reputable sources of news and analytics. The world
community feels their influence and shapes public opinion.
Second, such a choice ensures the representativeness and di-
versity of journalistic discourse. The research is not limited
to the analysis of the tweets themselves but also takes into
account the users’ comments under them, which makes it
possible to study the audience’s reaction to aggressive lexi-
cal markers and the discussion development dynamics. This
approach ensures that the topic will not be localised and the
analysis will be objective. The selected publications have a
175
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
global impact and reflect diverse views on a global scale.
3.3. Instruments
The data was entered and processed using Microsoft
Excel and SPSS Statistics 18.0. All data are given in absolute
and relative values.
3.4. Data Collection
The method of functional semantic analysis was used
to identify the dependence of the authorisation properties in
the journalistic text on the action of extralinguistic factors.
Moreover, the use of this method made it possible to consider
different-level means of language as structural elements of
the category of authorisation, differentiate it from adjacent
categories, investigate authorisation from the perspective
of its role in the process of text creation, and authorisation
constructions — from the aspect of their semantic meaning
in the surrounding context and in the whole academic work.
The method of discourse analysis is the study of lan-
guage as a means of expressing social reality, emphasising
how meanings, identities and social relations are constructed
through linguistic strategies. In this work, discourse analysis
is applied to the study of journalistic texts - posts in social
networks, in particular, to reveal how expressive means of
expressing aggression are verbalised. The method made it
possible to investigate how political actors use language to ex-
press aggression and how it relates to the text’s authorisation.
Cognitive discursive model of authorisation in journal-
istic discourse. This method involves observation, analogy,
and description techniques, which make it possible to consider
the authorisation block as a syncretic, multi-level unity of the
meanings expressed by the authorisation. This approach is
aimed at analysing the relationship between cognitive pro-
cesses and discursive structures reflected in the text. Using
observation, analogy, and description techniques helps to
reveal the complex interrelationships between the author’s
positions and their influence on forming the semantic context.
Lexico-semantic analysis of aggression markers. The
analysis of lexical units of aggressive semantics identified
markers of speech aggression intending to create thesaurus
fields for journalistic discourse. The principle of formation
of thesaurus fields is shown in the designed Knowledge Base
Model (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The Knowledge Base Model based on markers and iden-
tifiers of “aggressive” journalistic discourse. Source: developed by
the authors of the research.
3.5. Analysis of Data
1. Descriptive statistics methods for calculating frequently
used lexemes. These methods were used to create frequency
tables of the aggressive markers use[20].
2. Pearson’s chi-square test (χ2) was applied to determine
the reliability of the obtained data by using the Equation (1):
χ2 =1
n2n1Xm
i=1
(xin2−yin1)2
xi+yi
;(1)
where n
1
, n
2
– the number of lexemes in the first and second
compared rows;
m – the number of levels in the compared series of data;
x
i
, y
i
– frequency value at the ith level in the first and second
data series;
χ2emp – the empirical value of the aggression level.
3. The Mann-Whitney U test is calculated by using the Equa-
tion (2)[21]:
U= (n1×n2)+(nх×(nх+1)/2)–Тх;(2)
where n1– the number of lexemes in Group 1;
n2– the number of lexemes in Group 2;
Тх– the larger of the two rank sums;
n
х
– the number of lexemes in the group with a higher rank
sum.
4. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient indicates the
test items’ internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alpha is
calculated by using the Equation (3):
N
N−1(σ2
x−PN
i=1σ2
Yi
σ2
x
); (3)
where σ2
x– the entire test score variance;
σ2
Yi
– і-element variance. Values in the range of 0.7–0.8 are
considered satisfactory.
3.6. Ethical Criteria
It is important to approach the research objectively and
critically and avoid any biases or distortion of the results.
The publication of the obtained results must comply with aca-
demic standards and methodology and indicate the sources
176
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
used during the research. Adherence to high academic stan-
dards and principles helps ensure the research’s reliability
and integrity.
4. Results
At the beginning of the research, it was necessary to
determine the authorisation markers in publicistic texts. The
identification of statistically significant results was also an
important task. Table 1 presents the results of the cognitive
discursive analysis of authorisation markers.
Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the results of
the cognitive discursive analysis of authorisation markers in
the publicistic texts of X Network. The identified markers
reflect a variety of functions, including the expression of the
author’s point of view, the formation of a subjective attitude
to the topic, the expression of the author’s judgment and
evaluation, emphasising the categoricalness of the opinion,
involvement of the audience to the discussion and support
of the author’s position with the help of reputable sources.
Statistical analysis confirmed the statistical significance of
these markers, emphasising their systematic and purposeful
use in journalistic discourse. This indicates that the authors
of texts in X Network consciously and purposefully use these
markers to achieve certain communicative goals. It can be ar-
gued that the authorisation markers play a key role in forming
journalistic discourse in X Network, reflecting the influence
and goals of the authors of the texts. This information can be
helpful in understanding communication approaches in this
media environment and developing effective communication
strategies on the Internet.
The next step was selecting a cognitive discursive au-
thorisation model in journalistic discourse. The results of
the calculations are presented in Table 2.
Table 1. Results of the cognitive-discursive analysis of the authorisation markers of publicistic texts in X Network.
Authorisation
Marker
Cognitive-Discursive
Description Frequency Statistical
Significance Example
Indicative words Expressing the author’s
point of view 1287 p < 0.001
Trump: “Believe me, folks, this is the
worst deal in history. I’m telling you,
it’s a disaster.”
Shapiro: “I’m convinced that the left
is trying to undermine our democracy.”
Modal verbs
Expressing the author’s
judgment, evaluation,
probability
843 p < 0.001
Trump: “I think it’s time for a great
wall. We have to stop illegal immigra-
tion.”
Shapiro: “It’s clear that the Democrats
are trying to destroy our country.”
Language clichés
Emphasising the categorical
nature of the opinion 592
Trump: “This is absolutely the worst
election in history. Believe me, it’s a
fraud.”
Shapiro: “The liberal media is
undoubtedly biased against
conservatives.”
Rhetorical questions Involving the audience in
the discussion 378 p < 0.01
Trump: “Don’t you think it’s un-
fair that we’re being treated so badly?
We’re the greatest country in the
world!”
Shapiro: “Can you deny that the
radical left is trying to indoctrinate our
children?”
Citation of reputable
sources
Strengthening the author’s
position 264 p < 0.05
Trump: “As General Mattis said,
‘We should not be a policeman to the
world.’”
Shapiro: “According to Dr. Jordan
Peterson, the left is trying to destroy
traditional values.”
Source: developed by the authors based on the results of the conducted research.
177
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
This table provides a detailed analysis of the different
use levels of authorisation markers in publicistic texts. At
the microlevel, or phrase level, we observe markers such
as demonstratives, modal verbs, and emotive words that in-
dicate the author’s point of view, judgment, and emotional
response. These markers demonstrate high statistical sig-
nificance, which indicates their diversity and wide use in
publicistic texts. At the mesolevel, or text level, we observe
using authorisation blocks to structure the text, emphasise
key points, and polemics. This contributes to the formation
of the author’s position and value system and the realisation
of the author’s communicative intentions. At the macrolevel,
or the level of the discursive complex, authorisation markers
are used to form a single discursive field, emphasise the au-
thor’s identity and influence the audience. They also affect
the cognitive processes and emotions of the audience.
Table 2. Cognitive discursive authorisation model in the journalistic discourse of X Network.
Level Functional and Semantic
Characteristics
Cognitive Discursive
Characteristics
Lexico-Semantic
Characteristics
Statistical
Significance
Microlevel (phrase)
- Use of authorisation construc-
tions.
- Use of modality.
- Use of emotional words.
- Expressing the author’s point of
view and forming a subjective at-
titude to the topic.
- Expressing the author’s judg-
ment, assessment, and probability
of events.
- Emphasising the author’s
emotional reaction to events.
- Use of verbal aggression
markers (“lies”, “deceit”,
“uselessness”).
p < 0.001
Mesolevel (text)
- Use of authorisation blocks con-
sisting of several authorisation
constructions.
- Using authorisation blocks to
structure text and emphasise key
points.
- Use of authorisation blocks for
controversy and argumentation.
- Formation of the author’s posi-
tion and value system.
- Structuring the author’s cognitive
space.
- Implementation of the author’s
communicative intentions.
- Using verbal aggression
markers directed at other au-
thors or the audience.
- Formation of an aggressive
discursive context.
p < 0.01
Macrolevel
(discursive complex)
- Use of authorisation to form a
single discursive field within the
journalistic complex.
- Use of authorisation to empha-
sise the author’s identity and dif-
ferentiation from other authors.
- Use of authorisation to
influence the audience and shape
their opinion.
- Formation of a single cognitive
base of discourse.
- Implementation of author’s com-
munication strategies.
- Influence on the cognitive
processes and emotions of the
audience.
- Use of speech aggression
markers aimed at discrediting
other discursive complexes.
- Formation of an aggressive
discursive atmosphere.
p < 0.05
Source: developed by the authors based on the results of the conducted research.
Statistical analysis confirms the statistical significance
of the use of authorisation markers at all levels, which indi-
cates their key role in journalistic discourse. Consequently,
this analysis allows us to better understand the various func-
tions and meanings of markers of authorisation in texts,
which contributes to deepening our understanding of the
communicative strategies of authors in the journalistic envi-
ronment. The next step was the lexico-semantic analysis of
aggression markers, which is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 provides an analysis of aggression markers by
semantic fields. Markers include words that indicate aggres-
sion toward a person, actions, ideas, emotional aggression,
and hate speech. Their frequency of use indicates their sig-
nificance in the texts. Next, Figure 3 compares aggressive
markers in each of the analysed sources.
Figure 3 provides a comparative analysis of the use of
aggression markers. According to the results of the analysis,
a high level of aggressive language and radical statements in
Donald Trump’s speeches is noted. Ben Shapiro and Spigel
show lower levels of aggression, while Bloomberg and The
Economist show the lowest levels of aggression markers.
Table 4 presents the correlation between aggression markers
and the authorisation model.
178
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
Table 3. Lexico-semantic analysis of aggression markers.
Semantic Field Marker Frequency
of Use
Statistical
Significance
Aggression against the
individual “lie”, “deceit”, “worthlessness”, “failure”, “idiot”, “clown” 823 p < 0.001
Aggression against the actions
“destroy”, “crush”, “overthrow”, “fail”, “disgrace”, “denigrate”
617 p < 0.01
Aggression against the ideas “senseless”, “unfounded”, “harmful”, “dangerous”,
“pernicious”, “fatal” 486 p < 0.05
Emotional aggression “to be surprised”, “to be indignant”, “to be astonished”, “to be
indignant”, “to be angry”, “to get into a rage” 352 p < 0.1
Hate speech
“foreigner”, “stranger”, “illegal”, “terrorist”, “enemy”, “traitor”
214 p < 0.2
Source: developed by the authors based on the results of the conducted research.
Table 4. Correlation between aggression markers and authorisation model.
Aggression Marker Donald
Trump
Ben
Shapiro Spigel Bloomberg The Economist p-Value (Mann-Whitney
U Test)
Hate vocabulary 0.24 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.05
Images 0.15 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.12
Threats 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.24
Belligerent rhetoric 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.08
Radical statements 0.28 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.03
Source: developed by the authors based on the results of the conducted research.
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of aggressive markers. Source:
developed by the authors based on the results of the conducted
research.
5. Discussion
As Sakki and Castrén
[22]
and Sell and Testa
[23]
indi-
cated, the authorisation of a journalistic text consists in recog-
nising the correctness of the presentation of the work by the
author. Such recognition is based on the selectivity principle,
which involves selecting the most characteristic and typical
text features, which can confirm the results obtained in this
study. In this study, as in the mentioned works, emphasis was
primarily placed on the lexical and phraseological, and then
on the grammatical units and inherent manner of expression
of a particular author.
Discursive markers are a functional class of units
that exist in languages. The studies of Anyanwu
[24]
and
Kemin
[25]
note that their morphological nature can be differ-
ent: conjunctions, particles, propositional structures and, as
the researchers suggest, even sounds and exclamations. As
in the current one, the aforementioned studies pay attention
to special discursive words with an emotionally coloured
nature, semantics, and functions.
The functional class of emotional language units at-
tracted the attention of Rose Ebert and Weinert
[26]
and
Dmitrieva and Glukhova
[27]
. This is due to a new approach
to discourse and text, which is widely used in this study. It
should be noted that the discovery of the existence of such
units was followed by a period of introduction of the term
and clarification of the functioning of the units, which does
not seem to have been fully completed at the moment. This
state of knowledge on the issue makes discursive markers
one of the criteria for analysing the character of the text. The
conclusions obtained for this study confirm the validity of
the obtained results and the applied work methods.
Verbal aggression, used as a mass communication tool,
clearly demonstrates its negative power, which objectively re-
duces communication effectiveness. Such conclusions were
reached by Poplavska et al.
[28]
and Culatta et al.
[29]
. Ac-
179
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
cording to the authors, which is confirmed by the results of
this study, “hate speech” in combination with manipulation
methods becomes a tool of information warfare. Consider-
ing “hate speech” as the highest point of the development
of speech aggression, which contains explicitly expressed
statements of an invective nature against a person or a group
of people, as well as taking into account the activity of fakes
that flooded the world media space, the need to think about
ways to authorise the text becomes obvious. In our opinion,
this will help to avoid manipulations and reduce the general
aggressiveness of journalistic discourse. The toxic environ-
ment created by such practices may remain in the post-war
era, which calls into question the effectiveness and safety of
communication in society. However, there is also an opposite
point of view. According to Hüroğlu et al.
[30]
and Vusyk
[31]
,
speech aggression has no negative impact on society. Instead,
the authors propose a series of measures that would prevent
manipulation in journalistic discourse. This may include in-
creasing media literacy among citizens, strengthening ethical
standards in journalism, and developing and implementing
technological solutions to detect and filter negative speech
in the network. Such measures can help reduce speech ag-
gression’s impact on society and provide more favourable
communication and information security conditions.
For journalists, this study’s theoretical significance is
expanding the understanding of how language units form
discourse. Understanding how grammatical and lexical struc-
tures and discourse markers can influence how the audience
perceives information is especially important.
For political scientists, the study’s theoretical signifi-
cance is to better understand how language practices, espe-
cially those related to verbal aggression and “hate speech,”
can influence public opinion and political processes.
The practical significance of the study for journalists is
that it contains recommendations on the use of language tools
that will contribute to the creation of ethical and responsible
media discourse. Understanding the principles of selectivity
and text authorisation will help to avoid manipulation and re-
duce the aggressiveness of journalistic content. For political
scientists, the study’s practical significance lies in the possi-
bility of applying its results to the analysis of political texts
and speeches, particularly in the conditions of information
wars. Political scientists can use this knowledge to develop
strategies to counter hate speech and verbal aggression and
promote peaceful and constructive political dialogue.
For the most part, the limitations of the study were
methodological. They included limitations in the scope of
the research material. Only tweets and comments on them
were considered. It should also be mentioned that the limited
number of analysed lexical units and the exclusion of some
contexts may lead to the omission of some aggressive mark-
ers or insignificant changes in their perception. Considering
the methodological limitations of choosing data analysis and
processing tools is important. The methods of automatic
text analysis may be inaccurate in recognising aggressive
lexical items. The study’s results may be somewhat limited
by the specifics of X Network and Facebook because lan-
guage features and the dynamics of discussions may differ in
other social networks. Also, one should consider the limited
sample of the research field, which shows the verbalisation
of aggression patterns exclusively in these networks. How-
ever, the obtained results provide an opportunity to continue
research on this topic and expand the sample of social net-
works and periodicals. Despite the representativeness of
the corpus, there is always a risk of sample bias because it
is impossible to cover all journalistic blogs of politicians
and public figures. Interpreting the research results requires
careful analysis and consideration of the context because not
all cases of aggressive lexical markers indicate the author’s
intention to express aggression.
6. Conclusions
Relevance. The relevance of the obtained results lies
in their contribution to the understanding and regulation of
speech aggression in publicistic texts. Society is currently
faced with the growth of verbal aggression in the media and
public space, the obtained results are relevant for develop-
ing strategies to control and counter this phenomenon. The
findings indicate the occurrence of typical aggressive lexical
markers in publicistic texts and their potential impact on the
audience. The findings of this study confirm the importance
of authorising publicistic texts in identifying aggressive lan-
guage markers. Authorisation, as a mechanism for determin-
ing the author’s authority and influence, is reflected in the
text’s choice of lexical units, stylistics, and general tonal ori-
entation. The analysis of authorised texts identified typical
lexical constructions that express verbal aggression, as well
180
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
as to understand the contextual features of their use and the
impact on audience perception. This approach contributes to
developing more accurate and effective strategies for regu-
lating speech aggression in the media space. Authorisation
is important for understanding the context and motivations
for using aggressive language markers in publicistic texts.
Thus, understanding the role of authorisation contributes to
improving the quality of communication in the media and
forming a more objective information environment for the
public. Where they can be applied. These findings can be
useful for media practitioners, communication strategists,
and researchers interested in studying speech dynamics in
public space. Research prospects. The obtained results can
be applied in developing software tools for automated detec-
tion of aggressive vocabulary in texts, as well as in creating
educational materials regarding the impact of speech aggres-
sion on society. Furthermore, the results can be helpful for
the development of effective strategies for communication
and influence in the media environment.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.B. and V.C.; methodology, K.B.
and V.C.; software, K.B. and O.K.; validation, V.C., O.K.
and I.S.; formal analysis, O.K.; investigation, I.S.; resources,
A.A.Y.; data curation, K.B.; writing—original draft prepara-
tion, K.B.; writing—review and editing, O.K.; visualization,
A.A.Y.; supervision, V.C.; project administration, V.C. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding
This work received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects in-
volved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The study used materials from open sources, namely
messages in the social network X (
https://twitter.com
).
Public tweets on the pages of Donald Trump (@realDon-
aldTrump), Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro), Spigel publication
(@Spigel_km), Bloomberg (@business) and The Economist
(@TheEconomist) were analyzed. We also analyzed posts on
Facebook pages, namely Donald Trump’s Facebook account
(
https://www.facebook.com/POTUS45
) and Ben Shapiro’s
Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/officialben
shapiro). All materials published in the public domain are
not protected by copyright and do not require additional
permission to use.
Acknowledgments
The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the
collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing
of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1]
Bidzilya, Y.M., Rusynko-Bombyk, L.M., Solomin,
Y.O., et al., 2022. Implementation of the of Lifelong
Learning Principles as a Background for Quality Spe-
cialised Education of Journalists. Journal of Curriculum
and Teaching. 11(1), 142–153.
[2]
Klymkevych, R., Lisitsyna, Y., Maksymovych, R.,
et al., 2023. Violation of Laws and Customs of War:
Criminal-Legal and Procedural Aspect. Pakistan Jour-
nal of Criminology. 15(02), 275–292.
[3]
Zavalska, L.V., 2023. Lexical Means of Expressing
Verbal Aggression in Social Networks (on the Material
of Facebook and Twitter Comments on the Pages of P.
Poroshenko and V. Zelenskyi). Notes on Ukrainian Lin-
guistics. 30, 316–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18524/
2414-0627.2023.30.283892
[4]
Beames, J.R., Slavich, E., Denson, T.F., 2023. Twelve
Weeks of Self-Control Training Does Not Reduce Ag-
gression. Aggressive Behavior. 49(4), 384–395. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22074
[5]
Chester, D.S., 2024. Aggression as Successful Self‐con-
trol. Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
181
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
18(2), e12832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.
12832
[6]
Hornscheidt, L., 2021. Re-Nouncing Violence–Differ-
entiating Linguistic Violence. Culture & Theory. 211,
169.
[7]
Mirzoeva, M.A., 2023. Correct Formation of Scientific
Research Activity of Students. OpenAccess Repository.
4(3), 722–729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO
/VRD5B
[8]
Allen, J.P., Costello, M.A., Pettit, C., et al.,
2024. Unique Roles of Adolescents’ Friends and
Fathers in Predicting Verbal Aggression in Future
Adult Romantic Relationships. Development and Psy-
chopathology. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579423001670
[9]
Van Mulken, M., 2024. What Verbal De-Escalation
TechniquesAre Used in Complaint Handling? Journal
of Pragmatics. 220, 116–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pragma.2023.12.008
[10]
Ying, X., Wang, Y., Fu, A.A., et al., 2023. What Kind
of Internet Memes Do You Like? People’s Prefer-
ence for the Memes Expressing the Positivity, Hu-
mor, Aggression Emotions. Journal of Pacific Rim
Psychology. 17, 18344909231173249. DOI: https:
//doi.org/10.1177/18344909231173249
[11]
Malysheva, M., 2020. Expression of Verbal Aggression
in Comments on the Facebook Social Network. Bulletin
of Odessa National University. Philology. 2(22), 58–63.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18524/2307-8332.2020.2(22)
.235172
[12]
Khan, M., 2024. Political Memes and Affective Polar-
isation: A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis of
Pakistani Political Memes. Pakistan Review of Social
Sciences. 5(1), 71–84.
[13]
Lien, A.N., 2024. A Battle for Truth: Islam-
Related Counterpublic Discourse on Scandinavian
News Media Facebook Pages. New Media & Soci-
ety. 26(2), 839–858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
14614448211068436
[14]
Freudenthaler, R., 2020. Which Online Counter-publics
on Facebook are Fostering Agonistic Respect? An
Assessment of Counter-publics Debating Germany’s
Refugee Policy. Javnost-The Public. 27(3), 247–265.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2020.1804121
[15]
Alia-Klein, N., Gan, G., Gilam, G., et al., 2020. The
Feeling of Anger: From Brain Networks to Linguistic
Expressions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
108, 480–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubio
rev.2019.12.002
[16]
Lisova, Y., Kostusiak, N., Shulska, N., et al.,
2023. Language Verbalisation of Quantitativeness
in Modern Mass Media: Linguistic-Cognitive and
Communicative-Pragmatic Dimensions in Ukrainian
Language. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Re-
search. 13(1), 149–155.
[17]
Tordjman, S., 2022. Aggressive Behavior: A Language
To Be Understood. L’Encephale. 48, S4–S13. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2022.08.007
[18]
Oesterle, D.W., Jarnecke, A.M., Gilmore, A.K., 2022.
Sexual Re-assault Among College Women Differs
Based on Sexual Refusal Assertiveness and Assertive
Resistance Strategy Intentions. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence. 37(19–20), NP17473–NP17491. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211028656
[19]
Blynova, I., 2023. Black Humour: Origin Description
and an Attempt of Identification. Alfred Nobel Uni-
versity Journal of Philology. 1(25), 260–273. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32342/2523-4463-2023-1-25-19
[20]
Plomp, V.R., 2020. Estimating Links Between La-
tent Variables Using Structural Equation Modeling
in R [Bachelor’s Thesis]. Delft University of Tech-
nology: Delft, The Netherlands. Available from:
http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:a3944cfc-a831-4d6c-a
d0a-04605a0f1b91 (cited 22 November 2024).
[21]
Lewthwaite, S., Holmes, M.M., 2018. The Pedagogy
of Social Science Research Methods Textbooks. Uni-
versity of Southampton: Southampton, UK. p. 32.
[22]
Sakki, I., Castrén, L. 2022. Dehumanisation Through
Humour and Conspiracies in Online Hate Towards Chi-
nese People During the COVID‐19 Pandemic. British
Journal of Social Psychology. 61(4), 1418–1438. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12543
[23]
Sell, N.M., Testa, M., 2024. Precollege Risk Mark-
ers for College Rape and Verbal Sexual Coercion:
Same or Different? Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
39(13–14), 3261–3281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
08862605241229722
[24]
Anyanwu, C., 2024. Negotiating Hostile Academic En-
vironment Through Theatre/Stage Performance. Co-
gent Social Sciences. 10(1), 2306698. DOI: https:
//doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2306698
[25]
Kemin, U., 2020. Emotion, Emotionality and Emotiv-
ity: Regarding the Problem of These Terms Distinc-
tion. Current Issues of Social Sciences and History of
Medicine. 1, 12–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24061/
202285
[26]
Rose, E., Ebert, S., Weinert, S., 2022. Associations
of Preschoolers’ Language Skills with Aggressive
Behaviour, Positive Peer Relations, and the Hostile
Intent Attribution from Preschool to Early Adoles-
cence. European Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy. 19(6), 828–846. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/
17405629.2021.1978971
[27]
Dmitrieva, D.A., Glukhova, O.V., 2022. Linguistic
Means of English Language at the Coverage of the
Domestic Violence Problem. The European Journal of
Social & Behavioural Sciences. 31(2), 151–164.
[28]
Poplavska, N., Struhanets, L., Dashchenko, N., et al.,
2021. Socio-Political Lexicon in Ukrainian Internet-
Media at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Function-
182
Forum for Linguistic Studies | Volume 06 | Issue 06 | December 2024
ing and Decoding. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisci-
plinary Research. 11(1), 33–37.
[29]
Culatta, E., Clay-Warner, J., Boyle, K.M., et al.,
2020. Sexual Revictimisation: A Routine Activity The-
ory Explanation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
35(15–16), 2800–2824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260517704962
[30]
Hüroğlu, G., Timur, A.İ., Erol, E., et al., 2023. TheRole
of Experience and Language Gap on Depression and
Aggression in Hard of Hearing Individuals. Current
Psychology. 42(4), 3142–3150.
[31]
Vusyk, G.L., 2022. Expression of Verbal Aggression
in the Ukrainian Mass Media During the Russian-
Ukrainian War. Scientific Bulletin of I. Franko DDPU.
17, 23–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24919/2663-6042.
17.2022.4
183
