{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01882845188284519, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020920502092050207, 'mean_word_length': 5.5290102389078495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pragmatic Vector of Verbalized Aggression Within Internet Mediated Communication: Textual Context Dimension

Research on aggressive speech behavior, realized through Internet mediated communication, faces with the problem of highlighting messages that are truly aggressive, that means a person has intention of doing harm to other person (in case of written communication on social network sites, it is psychological harm). The task of identifying a real aggressor turns even more difficult once a response to speech provocation is presented in form of responsive aggression. In this case the respondent's intention differs from the desire to do harm. Since speech provocation and speech response are given in the same form, from a bystander's perspective, both actions are perceived as aggressive. It may seem that the attacker and the victim alternately play the role of the aggressor. To solve the problem of identifying the true aggressor by speech production, it becomes significant to reconstruct the framework of a particular communicative situation. The present research project focuses on the distinction between verbalization of offensive (provocative) and defensive (responsive) types of aggression, which makes it possible to fix the scheme of interaction between interlocutors while switching the roles of the aggressor and the victim. In the course of an experiment on written verbalization of aggression realized on the social network site VKontakte, based on perceptual method and linguistic pragmatics approaches, 20 respondents evaluate stimuli material (10 samples in Russian language without textual context and with pre- and post-textual contexts). It was revealed that the narrow context surrounding a speech message is significant in defining the aggressor: namely, the presence of textual pre- and post-contexts in the form of messages provoking the verbalization of defensive aggression.