Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics

Saussure, Louis de

doi:10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau

Cited by 82 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to reach such objectives, a manipulator usually relies on the effectiveness of his/her discursive strategies to (re)shape the audience’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. Ideological manipulative discourse is believed to be more effective and efficient “in societies where some conditions are met, especially a state of crisis” (de Saussure, :124). Hence, crisis conditions facilitate the accomplishment of a higher degree of impact by a manipulator’s ideological discourse, since the addressees in this case are considered to be more receptive, vulnerable, and thus, prone to manipulation.…”

Section: Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abdulmajid

2019

Digest Mid East Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the ideologization of media discourse in the Middle East through investigating political influences over leading media corporations in the region. A critical discourse analysis was applied to news reports issued by prominent Middle Eastern media giants Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The research data included eight news articles from both media outlets. Thus, four articles from each corporation have been studied and analyzed in an effort to realize the objectives of the study at hand. Blass's Manipulative Strategies… and van Dijk's Ideological Square… constituted primary methodological instruments within the framework of this research. The findings indicate an explicit impact of local political agendas on the discourse and editorial policies of each of the studied media corporations, which emerge in violation with the claimed journalistic commitment to objectivity and impartiality in terms of news reporting.

show abstract

Section: Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abdulmajid

2019

Digest Mid East Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is here a similarity with continental and other trends in philosophy that see discourse, language and speech as means of power -or as being a form of power itself. On the other hand, Utterance approaches have also showed that semantic and pragmatic features of the utterance itself are a key to manipulative uses of language (see Allott 2005, Choi and Nisbett and Smith 1997, Saussure 2005b, still without commitment to the notion of 'discourse' as a structured whole, and without the generalization that discourse or language is always in relation with power, as claimed by trends in continental philosophy. 3 This last point is important since Discourse approaches are more like tools for the analyst than explanation of natural language understanding procedures, although some theories aim at bridging the gap between the two, following the pioneering work of Searle when he, so to speak, made the Austin-Grice interface through the architecture of illocutionary force applied to a propositional content that could take into account intentional implicit meaning.…”

Section:  Discourses As Wholes Discourses As Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural pragmatics and the study of discourse

Saussure

2007

P&C

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term discourse is generally used either as a technical equivalent for 'verbal communication' or as referring to a particular scientific notion, where discourses are spans of texts or of utterances obeying specific principles of organisation. The aim of this paper is to suggest that an account of discourse is possible, in both cases, only through a theory of utterance-meaning construction. If discourse stands for verbal communication, then it can be explained only with regard to speaker's intended meaning. If discourse stands for organised spans of texts or utterances, then they must be meaningful spans of texts or meaningful utterances. Yet it is argued that a pragmatic explanation of meaning provides all the elements that discourse analysis describes. In the end, the paper claims that a theory of context combined with a theory on the semantic-pragmatic interface should prove sufficient to explain discourse, in whichever sense, along the idea that discourse should be viewed as a process, not as a whole, following the claims of a number of scholars in the field. A possible way to tackle this process is proposed in terms of procedures through the approach of procedural pragmatics. (2003) he developed an algorithmic method inspired by cognitive pragmatics in order to account for the interpretive procedures and thus increase the operability of the philosophical concepts and principles proposed by such approaches. He is now also interested in wider problems of language and cognition such as manipulative and fallacious discourse; he recently co-edited a book on this topic, Manipulation and Ideologies in the 20th century: Discourse, language, mind (2005).

show abstract

“…Manipulation occurs when the company, in citing the one positive study, knowingly conceals or fails to cite other negative studies, which do not support the product. In this case, the company is manipulating information by knowingly presenting a part of the information as if it were the whole information (e.g., Danler, 2005;Saussure, 2005). Precisely because 'manipulating information' differs from straightforward dishonesty, it is an important critical concept.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics

Cited by 82 publications

References 0 publications

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Media and Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Procedural pragmatics and the study of discourse

Manipulating Information and Manipulating People

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About