Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation

Maillat, Didier

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009

Cited by 51 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This would seem to be the position taken by an emerging school of thought in cognitive and naturalistic approaches to the pragmatics of manipulation (Chilton 2004;de Saussure and Schulz 2005;Hart 2010;Maillat and Oswald 2011).…”

Section: Critical Discourse Analysis and Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…(4) A proposition gains in perceived truthstatus as a consequence of the frequency with which it is repeated (the validity effect) (Hacket Renner 2004). (5) Information which may block the output of the cheater avoidance heuristic may not be available to the audience, either because (a) it is not part of their existing belief system and is not presented in the discourse or because (b) cognitive access to it is somehow hindered (Maillat and Oswald 2011). (3), (4) and (5a) relate to macro-level discourse strategies.…”

Section: Cognitive Heuristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He suggests that speakers can use evidentials rhetorically in discourse to increase the credibility of their propositional claims. In relation to (5b), Maillat and Oswald (2011) propose a contextselection constraint as an integral facet of manipulative communication. The essence of their argument, based in Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995), is that manipulative speakers are able to take advantage of a "resource-bound efficiency constraint balancing cognitive effort and contextual effects" (p. 69) to frame their discourse in such a way as to make certain assumptions salient to the point that any conflicting assumptions do not satisfy effort-effect relations and so remain inaccessible to hearers, at least at the moment of utterance.…”

Section: Cognitive Heuristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration

Hart

2013

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical discourse analysis has focussed extensively on argumentation in anti-immigration discourse where a specific suite of argumentation strategies has been identified as constitutive of the discourse. The successful perlocutionary effects of these arguments are analysed as products of pragmatic processes based on 'common-sense' reasoning schemes known as topoi. In this paper, I offer an alternative explanation grounded in cognitiveevolutionary psychology. Specifically, it is shown that a number of argumentation schemes identified as recurrent in anti-immigration discourse relate to two cognitive mechanisms proposed in evolutionary psychology: the cheater detection and avoidance mechanism (Cosmides 1989) and epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al. 2010). It is further suggested that the potential perlocutionary effects of argument acts in anti-immigration discourse, in achieving sanction for discriminatory practices, may arise not as the product of intentionalinferential processes but as a function of cognitive heuristics and biases provided by these mechanisms. The impact of such arguments may therefore be best characterised in terms of manipulation rather than persuasion.

show abstract

Section: Critical Discourse Analysis and Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Cognitive Heuristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cognitive Heuristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration

Hart

2013

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those taking the cognitive approach to manipulation often stress that receivers cognitively process manipulative message in shallow ways. However such analysts do not tend to base such claims on examining what receivers might be doing when they receive messages, but on linguistically examining the messages themselves (e.g., Maillat and Oswald, 2011;Chilton, 2005). …”

Section: From 'Manipulation' To 'Manipulating'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In cognitive accounts, analysts suggest that receivers are encouraged, and even constrained, to process messages superficially so that they end up with misleading conceptions. Maillat and Oswald (2011) highlight the importance of concealment in this process because 'the success of manipulation lies in its covertness' (pp. 70-1; see also de Saussure, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating Information and Manipulating People

Billig

Marinho

2013

Critical Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, a number of critical discourse analysts have been using the concept of 'manipulation' as an analytic tool to study political language. The attraction is clear:the concept is inherently critical , for by calling a particular use of language 'manipulation', the analyst is likely to be criticising that use. If the concept is to be analytically as well as critically, useful, then analysts must identify what is wrong with the language that they are identifying as 'manipulation'. This is where the difficulties lie. Different analysts are defining 'manipulation' in different ways, thereby highlighting different, even opposing, characteristics.In an important paper, Teun van Dijk (2006) has argued that manipulation occurs when the powerful abuse their power in order to influence those without power, in ways that are against the interests of the powerless but that are in the interests of the powerful (see also van Dijk, 2008). However, other analysts have denied that the formal possession of power need be involved in manipulation (Hasrati & Mohammadzadeh, 2012). Some claim that discursive 'manipulation' involves deceit because manipulators typically conceal what they are doing from their victims in order that the victims do not think ill of them (Blass, 2005;Harré, 1985;Pinto, 2004).Other analysts, however, suggest that manipulation involves using fallacious arguments, regardless of any intentional deceit (Danler, 2005;Kienpointner, 2005;Rigotti, 2005). David Buss, a cognitive social psychologist, explicitly defined 'manipulation' to exclude the possibility that malevolent or dishonest intention need be involved (Buss et al, 1987).On the other hand, some analysts claim that manipulation involves using specific fallacious arguments, regardless of any intentional deceit (Danler, 2005; 4 Kienpointner, 2005;Rigotti, 2005). Regarding political oratory, some critical analysts claim the key element of 'manipulation' is that speakers exert cognitive control over their audiences. According to Chilton, manipulation depends on the propagator controlling or dominating 'an intended receiver's mind' (Chilton, 2005, p. 17). In cognitive accounts, analysts suggest that receivers are encouraged, and even constrained, to process messages superficially so that they end up with misleading conceptions. Maillat and Oswald (2011) highlight the importance of concealment in this process because 'the success of manipulation lies in its covertness' (pp. 70-1; see also de Saussure, 2005).One might think that there is an impasse because any critical analyst, who wishes to use 'manipulation', is faced with different conceptions. Does manipulation involve conscious deceit, the abuse of power, erroneous arguments, covertness, superficial cognitive processing and so on? The present study aims to provide a way out of this impasse. Rather than adopting a top-down strategy of proposing a definition before proceeding to analysing examples, we offer a bottom-up strategy of advancing towards, rather than starting from, a definition. We will exa...

show abstract

The Neoliberal Colonization of Discourses: Gentrification, Discursive Markets and Zombemes

Wagener

2021

Postdigital Science and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation

Cited by 51 publications

References 10 publications

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration

Manipulating Information and Manipulating People

The Neoliberal Colonization of Discourses: Gentrification, Discursive Markets and Zombemes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About