TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNICATIVE BEHAVIOUR STYLES IN ARGUMENTATIVE SITUATIONS: POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Abstract

The article explores communicative styles of individual behaviour in interpersonal interactions, particularly in the context of argumentative discourse. The objective of this study is to examine both verbal and non-verbal components of communication that individuals utilize in argumentative context influenced by their psychological attributes and individual characteristics. The analysis of the theoretical contributions in the scientific research on the argumentative discourse has facilitated the systematization of distinct characteristics associated with the styles under study (aggressive, assertive, and submissive) and has enabled the formulation of a well-rounded profile of the linguo-psychological personalities profiles that exemplify these styles. The aggressive style of communication is characterized by a tendency to withhold information, distort facts, or disseminate misinformation intentionally. This approach to the communication often entails attributing blame to others and disregarding their opinion. Instead, an assertive personality aims to achieve mutual understanding with their interlocutor, openly defends and advocates for their viewpoints, and actively promotes their arguments without violating the communicative boundaries of the opponent. A submissive communication style is frequently associated with individuals who may have a low self-esteem. These individuals often find it challenging to assert their viewpoints and tend to prioritize the opinions of others over their own. The analysis focuses on the context of political discourse, specifically examining the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign to highlight the significance of non-verbal behaviour exhibited by individuals who demonstrate assertive or aggressive communication styles during the argumentative process. The analysis of their interaction indicates that the Republican often employs a communication style that is aggressive in nature (presents misleading information, attributes blame to their opponent, and diminishes the contributions of the other party, both verbally and non-verbally), albeit with certain passive undertones. In contrast, the Democrat generally demonstrates an assertive communication style mainly (exhibits communicative respect, argues his stance without belittling others, maintains eye contact, and actively conveys his emotions). The suggested study should be enhanced with a comprehensive analysis of the prosodic elements of speech actualized by various personality types in argumentative contexts, along with an examination of verbal communication components and individual behaviour patterns in order to uncover the variability in the correlation between speakers’ verbal and nonverbal means of communication and to identify additional factors that may influence their non-cooperative interactions.