LINGUISTIC MARKERS AND PRAGMATIC MECHANISMS OF CONFLICT DISCOURSE REALIZATION

Abstract

In the context of the modern anthropocentric approach in linguistics, considerable attention is paid to the study of the contexts of conflict discourse and their pragmatic use. The article investigates the communicative-pragmatic specificity of linguistic means that are characteristic of conflict discourse and reveals the relationship between the communicative intentions of the conflict participants and the choice of their speech strategies. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the lexical and grammatical markers of conflict discourse, identify its linguopragmatic characteristics, as well as linguistic means used to realize conflict intentions. It has been determined that conflict discourse is an open dynamic system that combines linguistic, psychological and social mechanisms of influence. Its study contributes to a deeper understanding of the patterns of interpersonal communication, the nature of speech aggression and ways to harmonize communicative interaction in modern society. It has been found that most often participants in conflict communication use non-standard vocabulary, which includes invective expressions, swear words, obscene vocabulary, vulgarisms, stylistically marked colloquialisms, expressive linguistic devices, rhetorical questions, imperative forms, and other emotionally charged means. The analysis of the communicative behavior of conflict participants shows that the choice of linguistic means is directly determined by the speaker’s pragmatic intentions, his communicative experience, social status, and the features of a specific communicative context. Special attention has been paid to the analysis of communicative strategies and tactics used by the addresser to achieve his own goals in a conflict situation, as well as to the linguistic means of expressing confrontation, evaluation, manipulative influence, and emotional tension. It has been found that the pragmatic specificity of conflict discourse lies in the implementation of intentions aimed at achieving dominance, discrediting the opponent, defending one’s own position, or reaching a compromise. It has been proven that the effectiveness of conflict communication largely depends on the choice of speech strategies, sociocultural context, and communicative competence of the participants. The features of lexical and grammatical markers of conflict discourse and the main types of speech strategies involved in the formation of conflict communication are characterized, in particular, by accusation, reproach, threat, insult, and ultimatum. It has been proven that conflict manifests itself not only through open aggression, but also through implicit linguistic means — irony, sarcasm, manipulative statements, categorical judgments, implicit accusations, and evaluative expressions. It has been noted that evaluativeness plays a special role in the structure of conflict discourse. Negative evaluation is shown to be one of the main means of verbalizing the conflict, as it allows the speaker to express his attitude towards the addressee or the subject of the dispute. Negative evaluative vocabulary serves not only a nominative but also a pragmatic function aimed at discrediting the interlocutor, reducing his status, or forming a negative image. The study of conflict communication makes it possible to trace the mechanisms of the formation of communicative tension, the features of the linguistic representation of negative emotions, and the ways of implementing conflict intentions in different types of discourse. The results obtained expand the understanding of the functioning of conflict communication and outline the prospects for further research into verbal conflict in media, political, and digital discourses.