The following chapter outlines a theoretical framework for the concept “aggression”. It aims to present various definitions of the term as well as the concepts and dichotomies related to it. This part of the research will shed light on the peculiarities of the concept of verbal aggression and highlight interrelations between aggression and provocation. The theoretical framework will also present communicative strategies and tactics which might be used to react to verbal aggression and provocation.

Understanding Aggression: Definitions and Dichotomies

Aggression is perceived to be a complex concept as it comprises a sheer range of constituencies. Consequently, the basic properties of the notion, or the core, are hard to distinguish. It might be the reason for existing research being scattered and narrow-focused.

One of the earliest and most prominent works in the field of aggression is `The psychology of aggression', the paper by Buss (1961), in which he discussed aggression in detail from the psychological point of view. As was stated by the researcher, aggression is `a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism' (as cited in Geen, 2001, p.2). In other words, Buss argued that aggression demands at least two actors - the one who is carrying out an aggressive act and the one who is perceiving it - as well as it comprises an action which is considered to be harmful and imposes threat on one of the actors. Apart from that, it can be inferred that aggression might take various forms.

As was proposed by Geen (2001), intent to harm and motivation of a victim should be among basic properties of the concept aggression. His definition is the following: `aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus' (Geen, 2001, p.3). It is seen from the respective definition that it is only the motivation of the actors that should be added to the core of the concept but also intentionality. An aggressor has the intention to harm a victim and expects them to be hurt and threatened. The victim, in their turn, has the intention to avoid an aversive act.

Anderson and Bushman (2002) proposed another definition concentrating again on the intentionality of aggression: `Human aggression is any behaviour directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm' (Anderson and Bushman, 2002, p.28). Essentially, an aggressor should believe that the behaviour enacted is harmful as well as that a victim has the desire to avoid an unpleasant encounter. Consequently, Geen' and Anderson and Bushman's ideas match in terms of accidental harm being not aggressive as it is not intentional. For instance, medical treatment which causes pain or psychological discomfort will not be perceived as aggression as the intention is to help.

The views on aggression was summarized by Richardson (2014). The researcher described four basic components of the concept: aggression is a behaviour, not idea or attitude; aggression is intentional, not accidental; intention to harm may take various forms; aggression is directed at living beings, not inanimate objects, unless destroying or using objects to hurt a victim physically or mentally.

Nevertheless, the notion is further complexified by its dimensions. Severance, Bui-Wrzosinska, Gelfand, Lyons, Nowak, Borkowski, Soomro, Soomro, Rafaeli, Treister, Lin and Yamaguchi (2013) argue that there might be universal dimensions upon which aggression is perceived. Verbality of aggression is perceived to be one of the dimensions which has the opposition in the form of physical aggression. For the purposes of the study, only verbal means of aggression will be taken into consideration.

At this point it can be highlighted that aggression has in its basis the outcome of delivering an intentionally obnoxious stimulus from an actor to a victim and is directed at a living being, not objects. Moreover, the stimulus might adapt various forms. Therefore, the kinds of aggressive actions must be differentiated. For instance, verbal insults and punches, though similarly aggressive, are in fact not the same and thus must be described as different phenomena.

The concept of verbal aggression is nevertheless more intricate as it has special features. Hamilton and Tafoya (2012) claim that verbal aggression is dangerous for the society as it can instigate conflicts and cause them to escalate bringing about wars. The phenomenon is also deteriorating for discourse in groups and organizations which is the consequence of it being reinforced by the means of mass media.

Speaking about verbal aggression, it is also crucial to differentiate it from verbal aggressiveness. These are two interdependent terms used by the researchers in the field of verbal aggression. Verbal aggression is `the act of using aggressive language on a target' (Hamilton, 2012, p.6). Verbal aggressiveness is `a person's attitude toward using aggressive language' (Hamilton, 2012, p.6). Therefore, verbal aggressiveness denotes a person's inclinations towards the use of verbally aggressive means of communication (Hamilton, 2012).

The operational definition of verbal aggression would be the following: verbal aggression is a behaviour which has the intention of harming another living being, who tries to avoid the encounter, through spoken means of communication.

Types of aggression

As was indicated earlier, aggression may take various forms. Severance et al. (2013) provided typologies of aggression whilst trying to establish potentially universal dimensions upon which the phenomenon is measured.

Physical versus verbal aggression is viewed in the research by Severance et al. (2013) as a potentially important dimension. Verbal aggression entails assaulting a victim through spoken or written means; physical aggression, on the contrary, presupposes hurting a victim using body parts or weapons. Verbal aggression is a widespread phenomenon, much more common than physical (Severance et al., 2013), partially to the fact that involves less effort and partially because of it being in the spotlight in media. Howbeit, verbal aggression to oneself and to others are not the same. Cursing at oneself indicated an individual discontent with a person's own actions and decisions and is not likely to be viewed as aggressive as it entails no threat to other people. But verbal aggression directed at other people is highly likely to be seen as offensive and threatening. Moreover, it may stimulate a victim of aggression to retaliate with an alike verbally aggressive response which would contribute to further escalation (Smits, De Boeck & Vansteelandt, 2004).

Another possibly important dimension is direct versus indirect aggression. This dimension is quite complicated because it offers a number of different means for the analysis of aggression, especially when verbal aggression is examined as a self-sufficient concept. For instance, Severance et al. (2013) describe direct aggression as the acts of delivering aversive stimuli directly to the target and indirect aggression as harmful acts aimed at someone or something other than a victim with the intention to harm them. Therefore, attacking or insulting are viewed as direct aggression, whereas damaging a victim's property or social snub are considered to be the acts of indirect aggression. The researchers also add that the target need not to be present when indirect aggression is performed. There is a related dimension of overt versus covert aggression which refers to the transparency of intentions. When aggression is overt, the intentions and motivations of an aggressor are direct and transparent. On the contrary, when aggression is covert, the intentions are hard to identify as they are ambiguous. The overt-covert and direct-indirect dimensions are interrelated and, in some cases, interchangeable (Severance et al., 2013).

However, the opinions regarding the direct versus indirect aggression differ. In this fashion, Anderson and Bushman (2002) provide the same as Severance et al. (2013) description for indirect aggression taking subtle forms such as that of a reputation spoilage or spreading rumors. But they argue that direct aggression exhibits hostility, thus the damage of the property is viewed by them as direct aggression. The researchers also suggest that verbal aggression relates more to direct aggression considering insults and shouts. Therefore, Severance et al. (2013) seem to focus of the parties' involvement if the aggressive act, whereas Anderson and Busman (2002) consider the extent of harm. This idea moves the focus of dimensions from the form of aggression to the potential damage caused by it.

The dimensions of direct versus indirect aggression has receive attention from both developmental and social psychologists. It is believed that indirect forms of aggression encompass several types of aggression such as passive, social, or relational (Warren, Richardson & McQuillin, 2011). Due to this fact, it might be hard to distinguish among non-direct forms of aggression. Indirect forms of aggression involve no interpersonal confrontation and reduce the risk of a victim's retaliation. Warren, Richardson and McQuillin describe the Direct-Indirect Aggression Scale, or DIAS, referring to Bjцrkqvist and his colleagues who developed it (Bjцrkqvist, Lagerspetz & Цsterman, 1992). The Scale constitutes a peer estimation manner and encompass such indirectly aggressive behaviours as telling false stories about someone, shutting people out of a group, and making other people to dislike a particular person. The work by Crick and Grotpeter explains the term of relational aggression which the researchers define as `harming others thorough the purposeful manipulation and damage of their pee relationships' (Crick and Grotpeter, 1995, p. 771). Although some of the actions which fall under relational aggression overlap with those employed in DIAS (Bjцrkqvist, Lagerspetz & Цsterman, 1992), it still encompasses direct actions such as stating that a person does not want to be someone's friend anymore. Another work by Baron ad Richardson (1994) describes the The Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire (RCRQ). It encompasses the behaviours from DIAS as well as spreading rumors, making up stories, or forcing people not to be friends or lovers with somebody. Therefore, many actions, both verbally and non-verbally aggressive, fall under the notion of indirect aggression.

Degree of threat is vital in terms of perceived damages as well as the consequences of aggressive acts. It comprises information about the intensity and speed of the reaction a victim is to exhibit when dealing with aggression. The treat is suggested to be a central component if the composition of conflicts is considered.

As for verbal aggression, it is measured upon the dimension of politeness based on the understanding of manners and etiquette (Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012). These notions are not alien for business field and, therefore, might constitute a periphery of the concept of verbal aggression.

There are several types of aggression which the victim might choose as a response to provocation, namely affective, reactive, and proactive aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Affective aggression is a reaction to noxious changes, or provocation, in an individual's environment, provided the changes have a negative effect on the individual. It is vital to highlight that the affective type constitutes a reaction to external, and not internal, stimuli. Reactive aggression is a type of self-defense carried out in response to an insult or an attack and is more deliberate than the affective type. In the broad-based literature, these types of aggression are also called impulsive. The latter, proactive aggression (also called premediated, predatory, instrumental, callous-unemotional), is used according to one's internal motives such as those of asserting power, dominating, or obtaining things. Therefore, it is not a response to provocation, contrarily to two previous types. The proactive types of aggression might be attributed to the aggressor, whereas reactive aggression might be ascribed to the victim. The provocateur uses provocation to achieve a goal which depends on circumstances (Interrogation - to find out the truth, to get a confession; business meeting -to achieve the objectives of the contract or break it; school and university settings, bullying - to assert power by intimidating people who are inferior). From this perspective, provocation may be seen as a form of aggression.

Some limitations of such a categorization are discussed by the researchers. For instance, it is not always clear which category a certain instance of aggression falls under, thus methodological difficulties. Dichotomous classifications, such as that of direct versus indirect aggression discussed above, might be too simplistic for describing human behaviour because of the capability to display more than one defining element at a time. It gives rise to the possibility of attributing the action to two or more categories simultaneously (Weinshenken & Siegel, 2002)

Different Perspectives on Aggression

The choice of the theories is explained by people's aptitude for favouring an aggressive response and technique other than any other which is likely to be a hurdle for effective communication. Based on that, the issue of the capability to inhibit verbally aggressive behaviour gains more weight and, regarding the theories, acts a starting point for various assumptions.

The Argumentativeness theory (Infante, 1987) is based on the idea that individuals must choose between aggressive and argumentative message when contemplating about how to respond. Argumentative responses touch upon other persons' positions on issues while aggressive messages attack self-concepts of others rather than their positions' (Infante & Rancer, 1982). Therefore, the person has a choice to contribute to the escalation of an argument by choosing an aggressive message or to inhibit an argument by choosing an argumentative one.

The theories which will be presented further in this paragraph focus on an individual's inclination towards verbal aggression. They were formulated by Smits, De Boeck, and Vansteelandt (2004) after they carried out the experiment on 316 participants giving them the questionnaire which contained 15 anger-provoking questions and 3 verbally aggressive responses. The point of interest for all theories is the inhibition of aggressive responses.

The null theory is assumed to be a starting point for other theories constructed by the researchers as it is based on the supposition that there is no inhibition of verbal aggression. The second theory, constant inhibition theory, has in its basis the opposite assumption. According to it, any individual is constantly inhibiting their verbal aggression, regardless of character traits and circumstances. It is also proposed that the effect of always inhibiting verbal aggression is negative. The third theory called situational inhibition theory argues that it is the situations which affect a person's conscious and unconscious decisions not to employ verbally aggressive behaviour. The researchers argue that every situation has intrinsic inhibitory effects. The next theory, personal inhibition theory, claims that personal traits constitute a central decision-making factor and do not depend on situational factors. Therefore, the inhibition is seen as a personality trait. The last theory is called combined theory and comprises components of the situational and personal inhibition theories discussing the possibility of both situational and personal traits to affect the decision to adopt a verbal behaviour other than aggressive.

Another approach to the concept was presented by Berkowitz (1990), renowned for the research works on human aggression and altruism. In his work, he proposed the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory. According to it, there are aversive events and circumstances which affect individuals negatively. These might be uncomfortable temperatures, loud noises, frustration, unpleasant odors, or provocations of various kinds. They instigate responses and thoughts correlated with fight and flight tendencies which encompass feelings of anger and fear respectively.

The theory states that aggressive behaviour, thoughts, and emotions are interrelated and stored in memory. There are association memory structures in which a concept is linked to its aggression-related concepts (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997). Strong associations are present between similar or simultaneously activated concepts, such as these of aggressive acts and related emotions and responses. The theory argues that aversive events increase aggressive inclinations by the means of negative affect. Deliberations about the causes of a person's actions and ways of feeing relate to the higher-cognitive processes, another part of the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory. Being able to identify the motivation between one's actions and feelings enables an individual to differentiate between anger and fear and thus to choose an appropriate response.

As was highlighted, the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory states that noxious stimuli cause aggression. However, there is considerable amount of research literature and experiments which suggest other antecedents. There are biological, psychological, and situational variables which might affect the proneness to aggression.

There is no common stance among researchers on whether biological antecedents are an important variable in the instigation of aggression. There is much research done on the topic; however, the data are considered to be not reliable as there are many experiments which defy the hypothesis of genetics being defining in terms of aggressiveness. Nevertheless, some experiments involving twins and adopted children have altered the situation so that now the idea that human aggressiveness has hereditary origins is gaining more weight. Therefore, it might be the case that some people are prone to exhibit aggressive behaviour due to the genes.

There is also a suggestion based on behavioral biology, or ethology, that aggressive behavior happens in a fashion where a human being is influenced by various external stimuli. The impact of this is the accumulation of aggressive energy which reaches its catharsis and is realized in an aggressive act. There was a number of studies carried out on primates, the closest animals to humans which gave rise to the fact that analogy was used as the primary method in these studies. Primates learn in groups and must develop social competence in order to know how to behave in particular situations and what behavior confines with the norms of a group. Humans also go through the process of socialization during which they develop communicative competence. Nevertheless, the theory was dismissed by social psychologists because they consider evolutionary facts to be inferior to social ones. Apart from that, social psychologists argue that viewing aggressive behavior as natural and therefore normal leads to the legitimization of its exhibition in the society which is a negative tendency.

Another biological cause for aggression is an androgenic hormone testosterone. The study on animals reveals two effects of it: an activating effect which contributes to the mood swings and an organizing effect which contributes to shaping the nervous system prior to birth. Although there was not sufficient research on the matter, it seems that hormonal activity in males is connected with the trait of aggressiveness as well as readiness to exhibit aggressive behaviors. However, the query whether the hormone raises the level of aggressiveness or the level of readiness to exhibit aggressive behavior as a response to provocation remains unanswered. Some researchers suggest that testosterone has an effect on people with subjects self-reporting great amount of verbal and physical aggression exhibiting by them. Therefore, it might be said that people with high levels of testosterone are likely to aggress when provoked. However, some studies show that people with normal levels of testosterone might have the level of the hormone increasing when they find themselves in a provocative or dangerous situation which gives rise to one of the limitations to the studies on hormonal activity being correlated with provocation.

Gender also seems to play a role in the instigation of aggressive responses as it was found that men carry out 10 as many aggressive acts as women. Moreover, men resort to direct aggression and women prefer indirect aggression (White, 2001).

Panksepp (1998) also argued that brain mechanisms are important when it comes to aggression. While the feelings are provoked by external causes, emotions and responses are governed by the brain activity. The functions of the brain should thus not be neglected when studying the antecedents of aggression (Geen, 2001).

Psychological antecedents correlate with identity, character traits, personality, and the society a person was brought up and live in.

Personality antecedents touch upon the notions of egocentrism and hostility. Egocentrism is thought to be connected with the self-concept and hostility is considered to be the temperamental trait. In combination, they lead to verbal aggressiveness being an attitudinal phenomenon which is then realized in aggressive behavior affecting the society. Egocentrism is realized in the process of the categorization of other human beings and attacking their self-concepts by the means of negative symbols reflecting hostility. The symbols give rise to a verbal behavior which dehumanizes the targets being the representation of verbal aggression (Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012). Other traits encompass susceptibility and high self-esteem.

There is the dichotomy of personal versus social variables of aggressive behavior. Personal antecedents include personality traits and the attitudes held by the person which are developed while people grow up. The features can be called personal provided they are consistent across time and situations. They may also be connected with the exposure to verbal aggression. In other words, if a child experiences much verbal aggression from their parents, it is likely to contribute to their preparedness to exhibit the same behavior due to the developed trait of verbal aggressiveness.

There are emotional and cognitive causes which are based on a person's inner state and perception of various situations. Emotional causes are `irritability, a propensity for anger, negative affect, and emotion dysregulation', whereas cognitive factors include `hostile rumination, normative beliefs, and social representation of aggression' (Konopka, Zajenkowska, & Dominiak-Kochanek, 2017, pp. 4-5).

Cultural traits and namely the differences between cultural background may also cause aggression. In terms of cultures, considering both bigger national cultures and smaller interest-driven subgroups, there is the division between the ingroup and outgroup members. The conflicts occur when acts and words are perceived as aversive by the outgroup. Apart from that, political tensions often lead to bickering (Hamilton and Tafoya, 2012).

A more complex perspective on the concept is illustrated by the General Aggression Model (GAM) proposed by Bushman. The GAM provides an integrative social-cognitive framework for understanding aggression and violence. It includes several theories of other researchers. What distinguishes the Model from other theories is that it incorporates biological, personal, and situational variables of aggression along with social and basic cognitive processes and decision-making. Not only that, it illustrates the fashion in which these factors affect the act of aggression.

The model is based on the studies which examine the antecedents of aggression. There might be several major types of the instigators of aggression: biological and genetic causes for aggressive behaviour and verbal aggressiveness (Geen, 2001; Panksepp, 1998); personal factors which comprise the character traits on individuals, egocentrism, and social competence (Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012); situational variables which contribute to the process of decision-making when analyzing whether the situation delivers a noxious stimulus and whether an aggressive, retaliatory response would be effective (Berkowitz, 1990; Anderson & Bushman, 2002); gender-based causes with men preferring direct aggression and women choosing mostly indirect aggression (White, 2001); emotional and cognitive causes (Konopka, Zajenkowska, & Dominiak-Kochanek, 2017); and, finally, cultural causes leading to different perceptions of the the same communicative situation out of which the conflict is born (Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012).

The model is based on the assumptions that acts of aggression are episodical - in other words, the stages can be clearly defined and tracked - and cyclical. There are three primary stages of an episode. The first one comprises individuals' personalities and character traits as well as the situational variables. The second stage describes an internal state of a person and its constituents, namely cognition, affect, and arousal. The third stage is concerned with the outcome of the decision-making process and thus the effectiveness of a response chosen. It is assumed but the researchers that every single act of aggression is to affect future social encounters, thus individuals must take into consideration the fact that their decisions would have long-term effects (Bushman, DeWall & Anderson, 2011).

Social learning theory pertains to individual contributions to aggression (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin & Glew, 1996). It suggests that persons who obtain positive results for their aggressive actions learn to exhibit aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1973). However, it is also true for observational learning. In other words, if an individual lives in the environment where aggressive patterns are favored, they are more likely to turn to aggression.

Script theory is similar to the social learning theory; however, it emphasizes the influence which the media have on a person. Apart from that, it may be seen as a more detailed variant of the social learning theory (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Huesmann (1986, 1998) argued that children learn aggressive scripts through the observation of violence in the mass media. Scripts are defined as `sets of particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in memory, often involving causal links, goals, and action plans (Abelson, 1981; Schank & Abelson, 1977)'.These scripts represent behavioural guidelines which, once learned, may be retrieved and used later (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).

Social interaction theory (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) argues that aggressive behavior is social influence behavior. It means that a provocateur has the aim of changing a target's behavior somehow. According to the theory, aggressive actions can be used in order to actualize self-identities (for instance, competence), to obtain something valuable (money, goods, services, and many other things), and to exact justice for perceivably wrong deeds (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). This theory has the idea of influencing the target expressed by Buss (1961) and Geen (2001). However, the researchers focused on the victims of aggression stating that they want to avoid being hurt. The social interaction theory, in its turn, focuses on the aggressor and their aim to not only deliver an obnoxious stimulus but to change the behavior of a victim.

1. The Concepts of Verbal Aggression and Provocation

The concept of verbal aggression might be more complex than the concept of human aggression as it has special features. Nevertheless, it is still based on four principles described by Richardson (2014).

Hamilton and Tafoya (2012) claim that verbal aggression is dangerous for the society as it can instigate conflicts and cause them to escalate bringing about wars. The phenomenon is also deteriorating for discourse in groups and organizations which is the consequence of it being reinforced by the means of mass media.

Speaking about verbal aggression, it is also crucial to differentiate it from verbal aggressiveness. These are two interdependent terms used by the researchers in the field of verbal aggression. Verbal aggression is `the act of using aggressive language on a target'. Verbal aggressiveness is `a person's attitude toward using aggressive language'. Therefore, verbal aggressiveness denotes a person's inclinations towards the use of verbally aggressive means of communication (Hamilton & Tafoya, 2012).

As was pinpointed several times (Buss, 1961; Geen, 2001; Anderson & Bushman, 2002), aggression as well as verbal aggression require at least two people, an aggressor and a victim, involved in the act. Therefore, there is the interrelation between the interpersonal communication and verbal aggression. It pertains to and is influenced by wider societal phenomena such as the aggressiveness of communicative field in big cities, jargon and vulgarisms infiltrating the everyday discourse of people, and the deterioration of speech culture in general. These processes have led to the point where a number of social groups perceive aggressive vocabulary as normative (Yakimova, 2011). These tendencies constitute the underlying cause for verbal aggression to be employed more often nowadays. Another reason for that is the inability to solve communicative conflicts effectively with verbal aggression being, consequently, seen as conflictual communicative behaviour (Infante, Chandler & Rudd, 1989; Yakimova, 2011). Eventually, verbal aggression is an immanent characteristic of the modern society which contributed to the relevance of the study.

There are many definitions of verbal aggression with various properties of the concept being reinforced in them. McCabe and Lipscomb (1988) defined verbal aggression as `any sentence or phrase standing alone and judged to be a reprimand, harsh command, tattle, tease, insult, rejection, hostile assertion of ownership or priority, callous factual statement, accusation, criticism, obscenity, or other expletives' (McCabe and Lipscomb, 1988, p. 393). Comprising the definition, the researchers focused on the forms which aggression may take. However, there might many other forms, or practical enactments of verbal aggression, namely withholding information, countering someone's ideas or experiences, discounting others' accomplishments as unimportant, verbal aggression in the form of disguised jokes (often considered as verbal abuse in the relationships), blocking others' efforts to communicate, accusing the victim who confronts a provocateur about their behavior, criticizing, trivializing victim's thoughts, name calling, commanding (Bosch, 2004).

Other forms of verbal aggression comprise character attack (the critique of personal characteristics), competence attack (the critique of skills), background attack (the critique of the biography facts), physical appearance attack, curse, teasing, ridicule, threat, swearing, nonverbal emblems (Infante, 1987).

Infante, well-known for his Argumentativeness theory described above, and Wigley (1986) had the following definition of verbal aggression: it is the act of `attacking the self-concept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person's position on a topic of communication' as well as the act which attacks the self-concept of a person in order to cause psychological pain. It refers not only to Infante's Argumentativeness theory which is based on the idea of choosing between aggressive or argumentative responses but also to the social interaction theory stating that aggressive acts represent social influence behavior with the aggressor having the aim of causing changes in the victim's behavior.

At this point it might be highlighted that verbal aggression seems to be utilized when an aggressor intends to attack a victim's self-concept with the desired outcome of changing their behavior. In order to fulfil this aim, verbal aggression might be realized in an enormous number of forms. It is also vital to pinpoint that the forms discussed are enacted by the means of spoken abilities.

As the study focuses on verbal aggression in business communication, aggression at the workplace must be taken into consideration. There are three major categories into which aggression can be grouped. These are expressions of hostility (hostile verbal or symbolic behavior such as “the silent treatment), obstructionism (behaviors aimed at impeding someone's performance by, for instance, not providing resources needed) and overt aggression (assaults) (LeBlanc & Barling, 2004). Baron, Neuman and Geddes (1999), who explained that expressions of hostility incorporate verbal aggression, also stated that it is the most common type of aggression exhibited at the workplace. Eventually, the first type, expressions of hostility, is of interest for the research as it encompasses verbal aggression.

Classification of verbal aggression is another matter in question. It is common for literature on human aggression to describe verbal aggression as a form of indirect aggression (Rueger & Jenkins, 2014). Nevertheless, Card, Sawalani, Stucky and Little (2008) argue that direct verbal and indirect aggression are unique, self-sufficient phenomena. Aggression is consistently classified by researchers into three types: direct physical, direct verbal and indirect (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz & Kaukiainen, 1992).

The issue is that verbal aggression may be judged against the overt/covert dichotomy but at the same time it is not clear whether covert verbal aggression and indirect aggression constitute the same phenomenon. For instance, verbal aggression in the form of gossiping might be viewed as both covert verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Card et al. (2008) consider gossiping indirect aggression; however, Severance et al. (2013) argue that, although the dichotomies of direct/indirect and overt/covert aggression are similar, interrelated and sometimes interchangeable, they are not the same. For the purposes of the research, verbal aggression will be classified as covert aggressive behavior, not indirect aggression.

The operational definition of verbal aggression would be the following: verbal aggression is a behaviour which has the intention of harming another living being, who tries to avoid the encounter, through spoken means of communication.

Provocation is another term which needs to be clarified for the purposes of the research.

From the point of view of the human aggression studies, provocation is seen as a situational variable (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Therefore, it may be described as an aversive external stimulus. According to Berkowitz (1990), provocation as a stimulus may take various forms such as that of extreme temperatures or loud noises. Geen (2001, p. xii) defines it as `an aversive change in person's environment.'

Although this definition is considered to constitute the core of the concept, the research is to focus on its more complex constituents which correlate with cognitional and societal environment. According to this, there might be provocation in the forms of interpersonal attacks, insults, pain, and frustration along with many others.

Interpersonal attacks are of particular interest for the study. They are considered to be the main cause for aggression (Geen, 2001). Apart from that, interpersonal attacks incorporate any forms of verbal aggression with its insults and ridiculing behaviour as well as physical aggression.

As was discussed, aggression has the intentionality in its basis. Provocation, in its turn, seems to have a need for an aim to fulfil. For instance, it might be a challenge demanding a response or an action as well as a threat. The idea is constructed on the knowledge coming from communication studies; thus, provocation is seen as a way of communication (Miliж, 2014).

There exist two paradigms which tried to explain the phenomenon of aggression in more or less concrete terms and consistent patterns: the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Taylor, 1967) and the Point-substraction-aggression-paradigm (Cherek, 1981). The idea is that the participants are placed in the settings where they experience provocation being confronted with some harm, then their aggression scores are calculated. Although the paradigms were used extensively in empirical research, they are nowadays criticized. Beyer, Buades-Rotger, Claes, and Krдmer (2017) argue that the paradigms should not limit reactions to aggressive ones only. The researchers believe that in real life people have many more ways to respond, they can at least withdraw from an interaction.

To overcome the issue, the Fight-or-Escape (FOE) paradigm was proposed. In this model, there is the possibility to avoid an aversive situation. The research based on the FOE proved that being given the opportunity to withdraw, some people who are prone to defend themselves fiercely behaved less aggressive than they normally would.

Another matter vital for the research is why people choose a particular response when being provoked. This is explained by the Violence Escalation Model (VEM). Anderson, Buckley and Carnage (2008) claim that victims tend to see provocative situations as unjustified towards them as well as dangerous which lead to a high toll of people choosing retaliatory aggression. However, a provocateur may not see a provocation situation to be unjustified. Therefore, when they face retaliatory aggression, they are likely to indulge in a response alike instigating the cycle of conflict. This is explained by their perspective of becoming a victim themselves.

Other issues are face loss and the exposure of provocation. If the provocative act is observed by other people, the effectiveness of provocation starts to depend on whether the act was recognized as provocative or not. If it is clear that provocation is being used, the provocateur would be judged by both the victim and the third parties. If the act is dismissed by the observers as being provocative, then it is highly likely to be beneficial for the provocateur (Boudana & Segey, 2017).

2. Communicative Strategies and Tactics

In order to define what communicative strategies and tactics are, the notion of communication should be defined first. According to McDaniel, Samovar and Porter (2012), communication may be seen as the process of managing messages which a person receives with the aim of creating meaning of them. Therefore, if an individual creates a message with a purpose, irrespective of what the purpose is (for instance, the purpose to inform, to persuade, to entertain, and so on), the communication is intentional. However, communication will not happen if the message is not interpreted. Consequently, it requires at least to participants with interchanging roles, one of whom is creating messages and the other one is interpreting them. Eventually, communication has interaction between at least two participants and intentionality in its basis (McDaniel, Samovar & Porter, 2012).

It might be then inferred that the effectiveness of communication depends on how good the messages are interpreted, or how good communicative act is perceived by the participants. Communicative acts possess a bundle of various features which are interrelated and can affect each other. In 1972, Dell Hymes, a renowned ethnographer and sociolinguist, designed the SPEAKING grid. The abbreviation stands for settings and scene, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms, and genre. Settings refer to the physical circumstances of the place as well as time and space, whereas scene refers to psychological settings. Both settings and scene are significant in terms of implicit rules and expectations from the speech event: what language is acceptable, who should speak, whether interruptions are acceptable. Participants include both the speaker and the audience. However, the grid also considers that the audience may incorporate people at whom the speech act is not directed but who overhear some messages. Ends incorporate goals and outcomes of the communicative events. The more the ends of the participants overlap, the more effective the communication will be. Act sequence means that there is the succession of speech acts which make up an event. These speech acts are often marked by well-known discourse markers such as `Ladies and gentlemen…' at the beginning of the talk or `Thank you for your attention' at the end of the presentation. Key refers to the tone and manner of the act. It incorporates, for instance, intonation, word choice, contractions, use of slang. The most common types of keys are formal and informal. Overall, the key pertains to social norms and adds a touch of a human element to an event. Instrumentalities are the channels used for communication incorporating the registers of a language. Norms refer to the social rules which direct the participants' behaviours and are often influenced by culture. They define, for example, who can speak, at what time, for how long, whether interruptions are acceptable. Genre is the type of a speech act which is unique as a communicative situation. The examples of a genre include jokes, conversations, lectures.

Hymes (1972) believes that people have their own, unique SPEAKING models. Differences and inconsistencies between the models are the cause for misunderstanding and conflicts. Moreover, most features are implicit ones which further complicates the process of message management. Communicative competence is another basic notion closely connected with communication and the SPEAKING grid. It might be defined as `the ability to use language, or to communicate, in a culturally appropriate manner in order to make meaning and accomplish social tasks with efficacy and fluency through extended interactions' (Tarvin, 2015, p.2). In other words, every communicative act is influenced by culture and social-cultural norms which the participants operate on. As an ethnographer, Hymes (1972) emphasizes the impact which the culture has on interpersonal communication. Therefore, the knowledge of language would prove to be insufficient for efficient communication if a person cannot recognize and follow implicit patterns of behaviour or comply with the norms of interaction. Such person would be perceived as communicatively incompetent.