The speaker continues to keep the state of calm presence as there are no moves or gestures. However, during the answer he looks in other directions several times. He chooses to answer the question as if it was a simple `green' question getting straight to the point.

The answer is not that effective because of non-verbal signs the speakers show. Therefore, the question gets a follow-up. It would be better if the speaker used the `showdown' technique and made some statements based on the information about the interlocutor which came before the question itself.

So, a quick follow-up. So, if you've got the versatility to acquire mass market and the products, how do you then determine value for a product? So, if you go right the way through very expensive products down through to throwaway products, how do you choose which into the market?

Green

The person clarifies on some parts of the answer, the question is asked to fill in on the information.

The speaker once again starts to say `yeah' while the question is being asked. He starts answering the question before the interlocutor finishes asking and deals with it straightly.

The answer is not effective because the responses happens to be a bit mixed. The situation is definitely influenced by the awkwardness of the speaker's interruptions and fuss. It would be better if he listened to the question and then used the `showdown' technique to ask rhetorical questions or make some statements on which he could further elaborate.

The speaker's communicative behavior is not really successful in terms of answering the questions as he exhibits many non-verbal signs and makes interruptions which shows that he is nervous and cannot keep the state of calm presence. His answers get more mixed as the Q&A session goes further. It would be better if the speaker learned to keep the state of calm presence longer and stopped interrupting speakers.

Case 4: Kani company's representatives pitch at the Rising Stars Grand Final in London and answers the questions after the talk. Rising Stars is the UK pitch competition for early-stage tech startups.
Question	Type of Question	Acuity of question	What strategies were used	Effectiveness and Recommendations
I work with the company that's extremely competitive in your space, so I know this intimately. What's your business model?	Green	Although the question to the person's expertise, it is green because there is no aim to somehow damage the reputation of the speaker. Language wise, there are no conflictogenes.	There are two speakers to which the study will refer to as Speaker 1 and Speaker 2. Speaker 1 show the state of calm presence - he barely moves, shows to gestures and looks on the audience. Speaker 2 is likely to subconsciously defend himself by putting his arms around himself. Speaker 1 answers the question, he says `Sure' which might be a kind of adjustment because he now knows that the interlocutor knows the industry.	The answer seems to be quite effective as there is further discussion going (the interlocutor makes comments).
How about a share of the savings that you create in those financial institutions? Because it's an easier business model for them to understand.	Yellow	[A follow-up question]. While the first question was rather green, this question seems to be yellow because here the person shows their stance and voice opinion on business models.	Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 have no time to give the answer. Speaker 1 just agrees and thanks the interlocutor which might be considered as withdrawal.	There is no answer from the representatives; therefore, it is not effective. They could use the `showdown' and say that they would consider what was said.
You touched on that you're on our go-to-market, you're focused on challenger banks. Can you talk a little bit more about that because I thought I've got a bit of a mixed message about who you were actually focusing on and who you're actually getting traction with.	Yellow	The question is acute as it somehow subtly criticizes parts of the speech for being `mixed' and unclear damaging the reputation of a speaker.	Speaker 1 says `sure' again which also indicates adjustment because it shows that he (and probably Speaker 2) has given this idea a thought.	Speaker 1 manages to answer the question well because he does not lose the state of calm presence.
Who do you see is somebody who might acquire you at your exit?	Green	The question is not provocative as it just asks for the speaker's opinion.	Speaker 2 does not answer any of the questions. Speaker 1 reacts normally to a `green' question just answering it straight.	The answer is effective.

Speaker 1's communicative behavior is quite successful. He manages to keep the state of calm presence and answer most of the questions effectively. Speaker 2's communicative behavior cannot be evaluated in an appropriate fashion. However, it might be said that it is not effective as Speaker 1 answers all the questions

Case 5: Foodomnia company's representatives pitch at the Rising Stars Grand Final in London and answers the questions after the talk. Rising Stars is the UK pitch competition for early-stage tech startups.
Question	Type of Question	Acuity of question	What strategies were used	Effectiveness and Recommendations
So, you mentioned it several times that you're very data-driven. Could you please elaborate what kind of data and how are you using the data?	Yellow	The question is yellow because it points out some flaws of the speaker's talk. However, there is still interest in the response.	The speaker shows some non-verbal signs which are likely to be the indictors of the absence of active listening and the state of calm presence: he holds his hands behind his back, moves here and there, and looks down when answering the question. It seems to be an unconscious technique of Diffusion - the speaker tries to get himself `busy' with other things while answering the question. He then manages to collect himself and make eye contact with the audience.	The answer seems to be rather effective, although it might be stronger. It would be better for the speaker to show positive non-verbal signs of active listening.
Yeah, just following on from that. So, you mentioned your region at the moment. What's sort of proof point that you want to hit in order to, say, go for a national rollout?	Green	This is a follow-up question which seeks to fill in on some information, therefore it is not provocative.	The speaker looks more `collected', there are no moves or gestures, a calm tone of voice which might indicate the state of calm presence. However, he still subconsciously tries to `defend' himself by having his arms behind the back.	This is a simple answer to a question which is not provocative. The speaker manages to address the topic, therefore it is effective.

The speaker's communicative behavior is quite good, although there might be more signs of active listening. The answers are concise and clear, and the speaker rather manages to keep the state of calm presence.

Case 6: Vitaccess company's representatives pitch at the Rising Stars Grand Final in London and answers the questions after the talk. Rising Stars is the UK pitch competition for early-stage tech startups.
Question	Type of Question	Acuity of question	What strategies were used	Effectiveness and Recommendations
What are your aspirations in terms of exit?	Green	The question is not provocative because it refers to the talk, there are no conflctogenic expressions or negative vocabulary. The interlucotr just fills in on some information.	Speaker 1 answers the question. He does not use any strategies, just answers a question. He stumbles many times while answering. He shows negative non-verbal signs such as crossed arms.	The answer is not effective as the speaker does not resort to any strategies. He does not fully address the query as he does not choose key theses to cover in his answer. Non-verbal signs make the answer weaker in this case. The answer of the speaker would be more successful if he re-addressed the question to his colleague, Speaker 2, or suggested alternative stating that he is going to speak not about aspiration but about what they have already achieved.
Can you give me an example of a project that you've helped a pharmaceutical company run and what has been the advantage that you have added that otherwise would not been there?	Yellow	The question is tallow as there is a subtle criticism of the talk because the speech lacked examples and clearly highlighted benefits of the business.	The answer is scattered, Speaker 1 keeps stumbling and deviates from the essence of the question talking not about one concrete, real case but about general advantages which their company has to offer. The speaker shows less negative non-verbal signs and keeps an eye contact with the jury.	Speaker 2 remains silent again. Speaker 1 uses a partial adjustment choosing those parts of the question which he can successfully answer to. The answer is quite effective as Speaker 1 manages to reinforce his statements and also to answer the question concisely at the end of his monologue.
So, I think you hit the nail on the head. Orphan diseases where they don't spend money because there's not enough traction to validate a cure. So, you, guys, are providing that validation?	Green	The interlocutor wants to make sure that he understood the previous answer right.	Speakers exhibit the signs of active listening keeping an eye contact. Speaker 1 answers the question and reinforces the point by using a partial adjustment and elaborating on the topic.	The answer is effective as the speaker manages to use the strategy of adjustment in a right way so that he answers the question and even manages to reinforce a short answer.

On the whole Speaker 1 manages to answer two out of three questions successfully. His answers would be more successful if he showed more positive non-verbal signs of active listening. Apart from that, he kept stumbling when answering the questions which shows his nervousness. So, it would be beneficial for him to learn to go into the state pf calm presence so that he can experience inner psychological calmness.

The speakers tend to use strategies regardless of what type of the question these strategies are devised or often used for. People are likely to use the strategies to answer to red questions while answering yellow questions quite often. Some strategies to answer yellow questions are used for green questions. It can also be pinpointed that speakers have issues with showing active listening and shifting to the state of calm presence. These findings should be taken into consideration for the following part of the research.

3. Communicative Model and Training Session

The next part of the thesis will be devoted to the construction of the communicative model and a training session on how to react to verbal aggression and provocation.

Based on the information obtained from the case study, it is possible to construct a communicative model which comprises effective tactics to react to provocation. The model is based on the theoretical framework and the results of the case study analysis.

The training session will also be presented as the model constitutes only a temporary solution for the problem. It can be used on spot when the speaker faces verbal aggression and provocation. However, a composite training is more beneficial in terms of the creation of long-term skills. It should contain theoretical foundations, case analyses, and practical tasks so that business professionals will understand the concepts more, develop new communicative skills and learn how to employ them.

3.1 Communicative Model

The communicative model will be presented first. It contains several steps which will be described thoroughly. Each step is divided into smaller steps, or tactics, which contain practical advice or techniques. The model is to be used during the Q&A sessions. It does not cover techniques which might be useful before the sessions.

Communicative Model to React to Verbal Aggression and Provocation

Step 1: Shifting to the state of calm presence. As was highlighted, the key to successful reaction to provocation is to overcome automatic reactions of the body and to start choosing reactions consciously. The state of calm presence is a skill to master. However, if a person has never practiced it, they can still try to shift into this state by carrying out certain techniques. The techniques are the following:

1. Playing with the anxiety: letting oneself to worry as much as one needs in order to diminish bodily reaction to fear and anxiety; talking the fear through as it helps to let the emotional excitement down.

2. The technique of paradoxical intensity: The technique was proposed by Viktor Frankl, an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist (Kuzin, 2019). The essence of this technique is to let oneself worry as much as possible because it will help to fight the fear and get things done by filtering the fear through.

3. Redirecting nervousness: the technique encompasses focusing on the body and how it feels. It might help to strain and then rest some parts of the body. Breathing techniques may also help to redirect anxiety. One more exercise that can be used is close to the state of calm presence. It entails focusing on the moment and trying to describe everything that a person sees around.

4. Pretending to be confident: `fake it till you make it' is a famous phrase which best describes this technique. Some exercise to achieve success in this technique is to control your body and its non-verbal signs. Confident people do not close themselves; they smile, their posture is straight. Adopting these bodily features help in achieving confidence. When people are nervous, they often make fuss. It is useful to do things slower in order to calm down. Finally, changing the attitude to the audience may help. They are not enemies who can hurt but ordinary people.

Step 2: Showing non-verbal signs of active listening. It is easier to show these signs if a speaker has already achieved the state of calm presence. When people are confronted with tough questions or provocation, their body instinctively tries to close. Therefore, it is important to avoid such reactions as looking down, clenching fists, crossing arms, stepping backwards, making fuss, touching face or things, frowning. These negative reactions will not serve the speaker well. They should be turned into the positive signs of active listening: stepping forwards, opened arms, smile, nodding, making eye contact, and other.

Step 3: Deciding whether a question is green, yellow, or red. In order to decide that quickly, a person can discriminate against basic features of each question. So, if a question refers to some parts of a speech, there are no conflictogenic expression and words with negative connotations, then it is a green question. If a question contains negative vocabulary, conflictogenic expression and deviates from the topic, it is a yellow question. If a question does not touch on the topic, encompasses negative and even offensive vocabulary, evaluates personalities, then it is a red question.

Step 4: Choosing an effective strategy to react to a question.

As can be seen from the case study, green questions are not hard to answer as they touch on the topic and their aim is not to make the speaker lose face. However, it is possible that sometimes the speaker cannot answer green question. In this case, the strategy should be avoiding the question but using tactics to mitigate the consequences: addressing the question to another person, redirecting the question by offering alternatives in the answer, and explaining why the question cannot be answered.

Yellow questions are asked in order to voice an opinion or let the emotions out. In some cases, it is hard to even partially adjust to the question. It might be helpful to ask the interlocutor to voice their thoughts on the matter in order to diminish psychological tensions. The main strategy is to bring to the attention the constructive part of the question without avoiding the destructive part. If it is still hard to answer the question, the speaker might employ techniques which are usually used to answer red questions. Red questions are the hardest to answer. It is effective to deal wit them as quick as possible. The speaker might choose to use humor, redirect attention, or use some other tactics to fulfil the strategy to deal with red questions quick and not losing face.

How to Answer Green Questions

How to Answer Yellow Questions

How to Answer Red Questions

Step 5: Retaining the state of calm presence throughout the Q&A session. When the person is provoked, they feel threatened so that the state of calm presence may vanish. Consequently, the psychological leadership will be lost as well as the positive atmosphere, and it will be harder for the speaker to answer the questions. There are some techniques which might help to keep the state of calm presence during the session. It includes awareness, or realizing what has just happened. The average speed of human reaction is about 0,2 second (Kuzin, 2019). During these 0,2 second a person's ability to think and to do something consciously is paralyzed which gives rise to automatic reactions such as retaliatory aggression. Awareness entails realizing what automatic reactions your body is willing to exhibit and to curb it keeping inner calmness. It is also helpful to make a pause giving yourself a one second break to breath in and out bringing back the control of your emotions. Finally, some physical and psychological techniques might be used. For instance, the speaker can press a fingertip with a fingernail, bite a tongue lightly, squeeze something in a hand. Such simple physical actions may help to return to the reality. Psychological techniques are about detaching from the audience imagining that all the people are just fish in the aquarium or animals at the zoo who cannot hurt you as there is something like glass or cage which divides you from each other

Training Session

As was pinpointed, the ability to answer verbal aggression and provocation is a skill to master. Therefore, there is the need for a practical training which will encompass theoretical background, practical exercises, examples of the usage of various techniques, and recommendations. The following part of the research will present the structure for the training on how to react to verbal aggression and provocation. Taking into consideration the situation with the spread of COVID-19, the researcher has decided to create a structure for an online training session. It is intended that the training will last 5 weeks with each module taking a week to learn. The session is to be realized using computers, video recordings, stable internet connection, and software which would enable the researcher to create handouts. The following structure of an online training session incorporates theoretical background, inferences from case study analysis, practical tasks, case studies, and their analysis.

Training Session: Reacting to Verbal Aggression and Provocation during Q&A Sessions

The following parts of the study will explain the contents and the format of the suggested training session in more details.

Module 1: Understanding Aggression and Provocation

Contents: Definitions of aggression, verbal aggression, and provocation. Types of aggression. Peculiarities of verbal aggression. Interrelations between aggression and provocation.

Format: 1 video lecture of definitions and types. 1 video lecture on verbal aggression and interrelation between aggression and provocation. Handout with key information. Live chat with the tutors to ask the questions.

Self-study: Reading an excerpt from Human Aggression by Geen (2001) in order to understand information better.

Module 2: How do we process provocation? How are we influenced by it?

Contents: The origins of aggression. Biological, personal, situational variables in the instigation of aggressive responses. How do we behave when we encounter aggression and provocation? Theories which explain how people perceive aggression.

Format: 1 video lecture about the origins and variables of aggression. 1 video lecture on how people react to aggression and how it is explained in research literature (the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory, the General Aggression Model, the Violence Escalation Model (VEM)). Handout which includes the list of origins, variables, and explains bodily automatic reactions to aggression as well as the Cognitive Neoassociation Theory, the General Aggression Mode, and the Violence Escalation Model. Live chat with the tutors to ask the questions.

Selg-study: looking through the Direct-Indirect Aggression Scale and the Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire in order to understand which behaviors are considered aggressive and how they are measured. Answering queries from the questionnaire by Smits, De Boeck, and Vansteelandt (2004) which they used in one of the experiments to see whether people inhibit verbal aggression or not. Reflecting onone's experience of being confronted with provocation and analyzing their behavior during an encounter.

Module 3: Communicative Strategies and Tactics to React to Verbal Aggression and Provocation.

Contents: What is communication? What are communicative acts? Definitions of and differences between communicative strategies and tactics. The state of calm presence and active listening. What strategies can be used to react to provocation? (the Behavioural Anger Response Questionnaire, MAR (mistake, awareness, repair). Types of questions and techniques by Kuzin (2019).

Format: 1 video lecture on communication and communicative acts. 1 video lecture on strategies and tactics. Handout with all strategies and tactics. 1 video lecture of the state of calm presence and active listening. 1 video lecture with cases and their analysis. Live chat with the tutors to ask the questions.

Self-study: Reading an excerpt from Kuzin (2019). 5 cases to analyze: was there provocation? How provocative were the questions? Did the speakers' responses were successful? What could be improved? Exercises which help to learn how to shift into the state of calm presence.

Module 4: How to React to Verbal Aggression and Provocation?

Contents: What to do before the Q&A session? (Making friends among the audience, changing the attitude towards the situation, finding possible provocateurs, establishing positive atmosphere). What to do during the Q&A session: how to go into the state of calm presence quickly? How to show active listening? How to react to various types of questions?

Format: 1 video lecture on what to do before the Q&A session. 1 video lecture of what to do during the Q&A session. Handout with the information presented graphically. Live chat with the tutors to ask the questions. Mock final practical test: tutors work with students individually or in small groups. They play out various scenario containing verbally aggressive and provocative questions. The scenarios are based on the cases which the students have analyzed. The students should answer these questions using appropriate techniques.

Homework: mock scenarios of Q&A session with gaps, students should fill them with answers, explaining what strategies they chose and why. 5 more cases to analyze.

Module 5: Practice

Format: The final practical test. Tutors work individually with the students. They play out various scenarios containing verbally aggressive and provocative questions. The students should answer these questions using appropriate techniques. Live chat where students can get the feedback and ask questions.

3. In conclusion, in this part of the thesis the researcher presented their understanding on what methodological tools and strategies may be employed in order to help the candidates to behave effectively in provocative and verbally aggressive situations. The communicative model is beneficial for people who do not encounter provocation and verbal aggression often and for people who do not have needed communicative skills to react to provocation effectively. Therefore, it is a solution which may be used on spot so that a speaker has less chances to lose face and more chances to react to provocation in an appropriate manner. As for the training session, it constitutes a composite programme which cover the most important theoretical information and practical tasks regarding aggression and provocation. It will suit people who want to understand the concepts thoroughly as well as to develop long-term practical skills to react to provocation in business settings.

Results

The results of the study comprise the creation of the theoretical framework for the concepts of aggression, verbal aggression, and provocation. The framework incorporates various research views on the notions, definitions, dichotomies, types of aggression. It presents theories and models which explain how people perceive and react to aggression and provocation. It also describes interrelations between the concepts. Further on, the framework incorporates the notions of communicative strategies and tactics, explains differences between them, and presents possible strategies to react to provocation. It is a comprehensive framework which take into consideration linguistic and socio-psychological perspectives on the concepts.

Apart from that, the results also incorporate the framework of analysis for video recordings of business Q&A sessions. The framework is based on the theoretical framework and analyzes the most relevant features for business discourse. It can be used to analyze Q&A sessions from other fields, not only business ones. It can be seen from the case study that people are highly likely to encounter yellow, or medium hard provocative questions, during business interactions as well as that it is sometimes hard to answer green, or light, questions if a person does not have relevant knowledge and skills.

The outcomes of the research encompass a communicative model which can be used to react to verbal aggression and provocation. It is based on the theoretical framework and the data obtained from the case study. The model is presented in steps with some information in the form of graphic elements. The model explains what to do before the Q&A session and what actions will be helpful during the session. This is a practical tool which can be used by people, although it needs some time to consideration. The model will be helpful for people who have little experience of public speaking and answering questions and who have the need to master the skill.

Eventually, the study presents a structure for an online training on how to react to verbal aggression and provocation. The training moves from theory to practice as it is vital to give people practical skills so that they will be able to deal with provocation.

The training incorporates not only video lectures but also handouts with the most important information. Students also get to do self-study tasks which encompass reading, analysis, and answering to provocative questions.

Conclusion

It is important to pinpoint that the research findings are limited by several factors. Firstly, there is a shortage of research literature that focuses on verbal aggression exclusively or aggression and provocation from the linguistic perspective. Therefore, the theoretical framework is to a great extent influenced by the views of the researchers from the fields of sociopsychology and human aggression studies as there are more resources written from these perspectives.

Secondly, there is limited possibilities of the researcher regarding the analysis of the materials from the case study. The data for the CSR was chosen using the convenience sampling; moreover, the material comes from the business field as the study focuses of business discourse. Therefore, it is impossible to make universal suggestions for the usage of the presented techniques for Q&A sessions in other fields of expertise, although the type of the event is the same.

Thirdly, the framework for analysis focuses only on the acuity of questions without taking into consideration their toughness in terms of topic or their appropriateness regarding the theme of the talk or the expertise of a speaker. Apart from that, there are not so many linguistic features which are taken into consideration, Consequently, the framework has a limited use as it is devised for analyzing provocative and aggressive questions. The case study will also be limited by the researcher's subjectivity while carrying out the analysis. Nevertheless, the CSR will not be influence by the observer's paradox because the material is in the video format as opposed to the real-life observation of the Q&A sessions.

Apart from that, the types of events are also limiting in case of cases 3, 4 and 5 as the Q&A sessions are carried out during the Rising Stars global business pitch competition in London. The event is influence by some norms of interactions which suggest that the jury must remain objective which curb their ability to ask provocative red questions.

Further on, the practical use of the communicative model presented at the end of a study has limitations regarding the use of the state of calm presence and active listening signs. It takes time to master these skills along with other skills such as oratory or public speaking skills. The study tried to overcome this hurdle by suggesting techniques which might help to go into the state of calm presence right away as well as presenting non-verbal signs which show active listening.

Finally, the training session cannot be carried out as there is the shortage in a team and funding. Therefore, it is at the moment not possible to analyze the effectiveness of the format and the training on the whole.

Suggestions for future research encompass choosing more properties for the framework of analysis regarding the case study research so that the data would be more substantial. Moreover, in order to avoid the limitation about the norms of interaction influencing communicative situations in the case study, it would be sensible to choose other exam of Q&A sessions, preferably those from real business pitches, not competitions. As was discussed, the state of calm presence and active listening are the skills to master. There are techniques which help people to develop these skills; however, there is no research proving that they are effective. It might be helpful to test the effectiveness of various techniques diving them into short-term and long-term ones. Finally, the research may use the observation of real-life situations as the data for the case study as opposed analyzing the video recordings. This will help to read the context better and make suggestions for the factors which might influence speakers' abilities to react to aggression and provocation.

Overall, people tend to spend much time at work where aggression in various forms is a frequently encountered phenomenon which can happen not only during Q&A session but at team meetings, during working days' routine and mundane tasks, and lunch time breaks. The skills to react to aggression and provocation appropriately seem to be necessary for those involved in business communicative situations.

The research constitutes a work on the borders of two scientific fields, namely linguistics and psychology. The results of the study bear both a scientific and a practical value. As regards the scientific outcomes, the theoretical framework of the study presents verbal aggression as a self-sufficient phenomenon which is novel for the communication studies. Nevertheless, it outlines the development of the human aggression studies and explains the bases on which the concept of verbal aggression was devised. Moreover, the framework discusses the interrelations between aggression and provocation, and how people perceive and react to them. And, finally, it presents strategies and tactics which may be used to react to verbal aggression and provocation.

As for the practical results of the study, they include the framework for analysis of business Q&A sessions which might possibly be used in other fields of expertise provided there is the need to study provocation questions. Apart from that, there is the communicative model which can be used by professionals in the field. And as the skills need to be mastered, there is the structure of a training session which is highly likely to be helpful for people from the business field.

References

1. Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychology, 36, 715-729.

2. Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York, NY: Morrow.

3. Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review Psychology, 53, 27 - 51.

4. Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E., & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 462-473. Doi: 10.1177/0146167207311282

5. Anderson, S. F., & Lawler, K. A. (1995). The anger recall interview and cardiovascular reactivity in women: An examination of context and experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39, 335-343.

6. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

7. Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H. & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and persona determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281-296.

8. Baron, R. & Richardson, D. S. (1994). Human Aggression. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

9. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: a cognitive neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychology Journal, 45, 494-503.

10. Beyer, F., Buades-Rotger, M., Claes, M. & Krдmer, U. M. (2017). Hit or Run: Exploring Aggressive and Avoidant Reactions to Interpersonal Provocation Using a Novel Fight-or-Escape Paradigm (FOE). Frontiers in Behavioral. Nueroscience, 11, 190.

11. Bjцrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boysfight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18(2), 117-127. Doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:2<117::AIDAB2480180205>3.0.CO;2-3.

12. Bjцrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz K. & Цsterman K. (1992). The Direct and Indirect Aggression Scales. Vaasa, Finland: Abo Akademi University, Department of Social Sciences.

13. Bosch, K. (2004). When Words Are Used As Weapons: The Signs of Verbal Abuse (Part 2 of a four part series). Lincoln, NE: Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension.

14. Boudana, S. & Segev, E. (2017). Theorizing Provocation Narrative as Communication Strategies. Communication Theory, 27(4), 329 - 346. Doi: 10.1111/comt.12119.

15. Bowes, N. & McMurran, M. (2013). Cognitions supportive of violence and violent behaviour. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 18, 660-665.

16. Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication Strategies. In C. Faerch and Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication. Harlow, UK: Longman, pp.100-108.

17. Bushman, B. J., DeWall, C. N. & Anderson, C. A. (2001). The General Aggression Model: Theoretical Extensions to Violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 245 - 258.

18. Buss, A. H. (1961) The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.

19. Campbell, K. (2006). Thinking and Interacting Like a Leader. Chicago, IL: Parlay Press.

20. Card, N. A., Sawalani, G. M., Stucky, B. D., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185-1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.

21. Cherek, D. R. (1981). Effects of smoking different doses of nicotine on human aggressive behavior. Psychopharmacology, 75, 339-349.

22. Crick, N. & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and socialpsychological adjustment. Children Development, 66, 710-722.

23. Covey, S. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. US: Free Press.

24. Daniushina, Y.V. (2010). Business Linguistics and Business Discourse. State University of Management, 8, 241-247. Doi: 10.4013/cld.2010.83.08.

25. Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 272-292.

26. Formanovskaya, N. I. (1989). Rechevoy etiket i kul'tura obshcheniya [Speech etiquette and the culture of communication]. Moscow: Higher School.

27. Gass, R. (2019). Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggressiveness. Two Argument-related "Traits” [online text]. Fullerton: California State University. Available at: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/comm321/gwalker/VerbalAggressive.html

28. Geen, R. G., (2001) Human aggression (2nd ed.). Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

29. Goffman, E. (1981). The Lecture. In, E. Goffman and D. Hymes (Eds.), Forms of Talk (pp. 160 - 196). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

30. Hamilton, M. A. & Tafoya, M.A. (2012). Toward a Collective Framework on Verbal Aggression: Hierarchical and Antagonistic Processes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.

31. Hamilton, M. A. & Tafoya, M.A. (2012). Verbal Aggression: Understanding the Psychological Antecedents and Social Consequences. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.

32. Herschcovis, M. S. & Reich, T.C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method consideration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34 (S1), S24-S42.

33. Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-140.

34. Huesmann, L.R. (1988). An informationprocessing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24.

35. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35 - 71). (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

36. Infante D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72 - 80.

37. Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J.C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

38. Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal Aggressiveness An Interpersonal Model and Measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69.

39. Infante, D.A., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163-177.

40. Konopka, K., Zajenkowska, A. & Dominiak-Kochanek, M. (2017). The relation of sensitivity to provocation and frustration to direct aggression: the mediating role of beliefs about aggression. Revista de Psicologнa Social. International Journal of Social Psychology. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1385241

41. Kuzin, S. (2019). Na linii ognya. Iskusstvo otvechat' na provokatsionnye voprosy [In the line of fire. The art of answering provocative questions]. Moscow: Eksmo.

42. LeBlanc, M. M. & Barling, J. (2004). Workplace Aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 9-12. Sage Publications.

43. Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D. (2003). There is more to anger coping than “in” or “out”. Emotion, 3, 12 - 29.

44. Maslova, V.A. (2018). Osnovy sovremennoy lingvistiki [Foundations of modern linguistics]. Vitebsk: VSU named after P.M. Masherov.

45. McCabe, A. & Lipscomb, T. J. (1988). Sex Differences in Children's Verbal Aggression. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(4), 389-401.

46. McDaniel, E.R., Samovar, L.A., & Porter, R.E. (2012). Using Intercultural Communication: The Building Blocks. In L. Uhl & M. Eckman (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pp. 4 - 19). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

47. Messenger, J. (2018). Working time and the future of work. Geneva: International Labour Office.

48. Miliж, N. (2014). Provocation as Communication. 4 Lectures. Belgrade.

49. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated Aggression: A Research Framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253.

50. Panksepp, J. (1998). Series in affective science. Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

51. Patten, M. L. (2016). Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials. Routledge.

52. Patil, S. and Karekatti, T. (2015). The Use of Communication Strategies in Oral Communicative Situations by Engineering Students. Language in India, 15 (3).

53. Richardson, D. S. (2014). Everyday Aggression Takes Many Forms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 220-224. Sage Publications.

54. Roswiyani, R. (2011). Correlation Study on Anger and Academic Achievement. At The Asian Conference on Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences - The International Academic Forum (p 158). Osaka, Japan.

55. Rueger, S. Y., & Jenkins, L. N. (2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000036.

56. Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

57. Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-230.

58. Severance, L., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Gelfand, M. J., Lyons, S., Nowak, A., Borkowski, W., Soomro, N., Soomro, N., Rafaeli, A., Treister, D. E., Lin, C. & Yamaguchi, S. (2013). The psychological structure of aggression across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 835-865.

59. Smits, D. J. M., De Boeck, P. & Vansteelandt, K. (2004). The Inhibition of Verbally Aggressive Behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 18, 537 - 555. Doi: 10.1002/per.529.

60. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets, 151-174). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007

61. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, a foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431.

62. Tarvin, L. D. (2015). Communicative Competence: Its Definition, Connection to Teaching, and Relationship with Interactional Competence. Columbia, MO: University of Mussouri.

63. Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35(2), 297-310.

64. Tedeschi, J. T. & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, Aggression, & Coercive Actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

65. Trnka, R. & Stuchlikova, I. (2011). Anger coping strategies and anger regulation. In R. Trnka, K. Balcar & M. Kuљka (Eds.), Re-Constructing Emotional Spaces: From Experience to Regulation (pp. 89 - 103). Prague: Prague College of Psychosocial Studies Press.

66. Vanbrabant, K., Kuppens, P., Braeken, J., Damaerschalk, E., Boeren, A. & Tuerlinckx,F. (2012). A relationship between verbal aggression and personal network size. Social Networks, 34, 164 - 170.

67. Warren, P., Richardson, D. S. & McQuillin, S. (2011). Distinguishing Among Nondirect Forms of Aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 37, 291-301.

68. Weinshenken, N.J., & Siegel, A. (2002). Bimodal classification of aggression: Affective defense and predatory attack. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 237-250.

69. White, J. W. (2001). Gendered aggression across the lifespan. Encyclopedia of Gender.

70. Yakimova, N. (2011). Verbal'naya agressiya kak aktual'niy phenomen sovremennogo obshchestva [Verbal Aggression as the Phenomenon of Contemporary Society]. Kemerovo: Vestnik KemGU [KemSU Herald].

Размещено на Allbest.ru