The article analyzes scientific papers devoted to the understanding of aggressive communication and toxic communication as linguistic and socio-cultural phenomena of our time; it identifies the technical, technological, and socio-communicative conditions that contributed to the emergence and development of such forms of speech behavior as toxic media communication in the Internet space. Based on the literature analysis, the author will identify common and distinctive features of aggressive communication and toxic communication, which are related but not identical phenomena. Relying on the integrating and di erentiating features (indicators) of both forms of speech behavior, the author analyzes specific media texts for the implementation of signs of communicative aggression and toxicity in them. A number of indicators were taken into account: the nature of the development of a communicative conflict, the order of the exchange of remarks, the duration of communication, the nature of the victim’s verbal reactions, the communicative e ect achieved by the aggressor, and the final communicative intention. The material was Internet comments on a “neutral” art publication “What happens in this painting by William Bouguereau? ” (posted on the channel “artsₜobe - just about art” of the blog platform “Yandex. Zen”). Users left 272 comments, and the 25 most popular comments with accompanying comments were selected for analysis. The analysis showed that toxic comments “infect” and “cling” to the addressee due to hyperbolization, dramatization of the details of the overall picture, distortion of information, and slander. The interlocutor shows signs of verbal arousal: he is verbose, proactive and inertial, his speech is confused. The process of toxic media communication often involves both toxic communicants - interlocutors who are ready to maintain and develop this type of interaction, exchanging toxic statements and the roles of aggressor and victim. The conversation develops according to an agonal scenario, as a result of which the verbal contest continues until the aggressor’s obvious victory and, consequently, the victim’s defeat. The toxic communicator always has the last word, and this fact serves as a formal indicator of his communicative superiority over the defeated interlocutor. All participants of the polylogue become witnesses of the public victory.
Vera V. Antropova (Mon,) studied this question.