Communicative Strategies and Tactics of Trolls-Aggressors in Computer-Mediated Communication during COVID-19 Pandemic

The article considers the aggressive communicative behaviour of a virtual linguistic personality provoking a communication conflict in the virtual space (a troll-aggressor). The data include comments retrieved from LiveJournal posts and Internet memes published during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the course of the analysis, the authors reveal the communicative roles, strategies and tactics of trolls-aggressors. The common strategy of the troll’s aggressive conflict interaction in the indicated time period is the strategy of hostility which is embodied in particular strategies (micro-strategies) of discrediting and attack. It is concluded that discrediting as a micro-strategy can be implemented via a false compliment, the tactic of taunt, the tactic of insult and the tactic of blaming. The micro-strategy of attack is implemented by means of threat and indignation. Particular attention is paid to the description of the markers of the above-listed tactics observed in trolls-aggressors’ communicative behaviour. Enumeration of the tactics used for provoking conflicts in virtual environment made it possible to concretize the typology of trolls-aggressors which has been revealed in the course of empiric data analysis. As a result, the authors present a scheme which reflects the types of trolls, belonging to the general type “troll-aggressor”, and the implemented communicative strategies and tactics within the framework of the common strategy of hostility.

1. Alimuradov, O. A., Guseva, M. A. (2010). Structural and feature models of the BEAUTY concept objectified in modern English-language women’s discourse. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 3: 12—19. (In Russ.).

2. Belous, N. A. (2008). Socio-cultural aspect of the analysis of speech conflict behavior. Proceedings of the A. I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University, 62: 30—36. (In Russ.).

3. Bierwisch, M. (1980). Semantic Structure and Illocutionary Force. In: Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht; Boston; London: D. Reidel Publishing Co. 1—35. ISBN 978-90-277-1045.

4. Goncharenko, N. V. (2008). Suggestiveness of medical discourse. Proceedings of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/suggestivnost-meditsinskogo-diskursa (accessed 28.08.2022). (In Russ.).

5. Gukosiants, O. Yu. (2016). The speech aspect of masking gender identity in English-language Internet-mediated communication. PhD Diss. Pyatigorsk. 228 p. (In Russ.).

6. Gulakova, I. I. (2004). Communicative strategies and tactics of speech behavior in a conflict situation of communication. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Eagle. 19 p. (In Russ.).

7. Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: from user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (2): 215—242. DOI: 10.1515/jplr.2010.011.

8. Infante, D. (1989). Response to high argumentativeness: Message and sex differences. Southern Communication Journal, 54 (2): 159—170.

9. Infante, D., Rancer, A. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46 (1): 7—80.

10. Issers, O. S. (2008). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Ed. 5th. Moscow: LKI Publishing House. 288 p. ISBN 978-5-382-00698-7. (In Russ.).

11. Karaulov, Yu. N. (2010). Russian language and linguistic personality. Ed. 7th. Moscow: LKI Publishing House. 264 p. ISBN 978-5-382-01071-7. (In Russ.).

12. Karaulov, Yu. N., Krasilnikova, E. V. (1989). Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study. In: Language and personality. Moscow: Nauka. 3—10. (In Russ.).

13. Martin, M., Anderson, C. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11 (3): 547—554.

14. Posner, R. (1980). Semantics and Pragmatics of Sentence Connectives in Natural Language. In: Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht; Boston; London: D. Reidel Publishing Co. 169—203. ISBN 978-90-277-1045-1.

15. Schrodt, P., Wheeless, L. (2001). Aggressive communication and informational reception apprehension: The influence of listening anxiety and intellectual inflexibility on trait argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Quarterly, 49 (1): 53—69. DOI: 10.1080/01463370109385614.

16. Sedov, K. F. (1999). The formation of the structure of oral discourse as an expression of the evolution of linguistic personality. Author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. Saratov. 49 p. (In Russ.).

17. Sedov, K. F. (2002). Linguistic personality in the aspect of psycholinguistic conflictology. International Internet conference “Dialog”. Available at: https://www.dialog-21.ru/digest/2002/articles/sedov / (accessed 12.08.2022). (In Russ.).

18. Sternin, I. A. (2001). Introduction to speech impact. Voronezh: [b. i.]. 252 p. ISBN 5-86937-036-9. (In Russ.).

19. Sternin, I. A. (1989). On the concept of communicative behavior. In: Kommunikativ-funktionale Sprachbetrachtung. Halle: Martin-Luther-Universitat. 279—282. (In Russ.).