The Language of Indirect/Direct Aggression among Georgian Politicians
Keywords:
Georgian politicians, Gender, Language of aggressionAbstract
This study is the first attempt to investigate direct and indirect aggression between Georgian politicians. The main focus is on the characteristics of their speech. Additionally, we are particularly interested in weather gender differences are observed when expressing aggression. The article covers 5 videos taken from Georgian political talk shows and 3 plenary sessions of parliament. The study was conducted over 2 months in September and October. For the methodology we use critical discourse analyses which involves analyzing written texts and videos to identify signs of aggression.
At the beginning of the study various characteristics were observed in the political debates. Based on initial observations, this relates to non-offensive statements. Having relevant information made it easier to discover the reasons why they used signs of aggression. Subsequently, we began comparing the similarities in the speech of female and male politicians. detecting the signs of aggression gave us the opportunity to find one of the main reasons causing all of this. The collected material also included parliamentary plenary sessions. It became evident that the linguistic characteristics used in plenary sessions and political videos differed from the material taken from political talk shows. Despite this, no gender differences were found in the expression of direct and indirect aggression. The qualitative methodology shows that number of participants and the specific material.
Additionally, the study also mentions forms of direct and indirect verbal aggression. The study shows how Georgian politicians use signs of aggressions and, it was particularly clearly revealed that there are no gender boundaries or differences when expressing aggression.
References
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
Ben Shitrit, L., Elad-Strenger, J., & Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2017). Gender differences in support for direct and indirect political aggression in the context of protracted conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 54(6), 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317714301
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000). Child development and evolutionary psychology. Child Development, 71(6), 1687–1708. https://doi.org/10.1111/14678624.00258
Card, Noel A; Brian D Stucky, Gita M Sawalani & Todd D Little (2008) Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development 79(5): 1185–1229.
Conover, P. J., & Sapiro, V. (1993). Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1079. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111544
Da Gloria, J., & De Ridder, R. (1979). Sex differences in aggression: Are current notions misleading? European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420090105
Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior:A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & diekman, A. B. (2000). Social Role Theory of sex differences and similarities a current appraisal. in T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (eds.), the developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum. references - scientific research publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/ReferencesPapers.as px?ReferenceID=442750
Golan, G. (2015). Militarization and gender in Israel. Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice, 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-952130_11
HARUTYUNYAN, R. (2020). Linguistic means of expressing verbal aggression in political communication. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 24(1 (28)), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.46991/flhe/2020.24.1.052
Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 722–736. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.20.4.722
Maccoby, E. E., & jacklin, C. N. (1974). the psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA Stanford University Press. - references - scientific research publishing. (n.d.). https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.as px?ReferenceID=1268315
