Manipulation, discourse and cognitive science: preliminary hypotheses

Manipulation, discourse Manipulation, discourse analysis and cognitive analysis and cognitive

science: methodological science: methodological perspectivesperspectives

Louis de SaussureUniversity of GenevaAscona, sept. 2002

Manipulation: issuesManipulation: issues

• Semantic complexity, conceptual vagueness• Etymological meaning / metaphorical

derivation• Implications: Power and hidden strategies• Goals: sincere consent

Manipulative Manipulative discourse discourse : : hypotheseshypotheses

• MD is not a discourse typenot a discourse type according to pure linguistic criteria.

• MD is a type of usetype of use of language.• Identification of a manipulative

discourse is therefore a pragmatic pragmatic problemproblem.

An An a prioria priori definition definition

• MD is a discourse that is produced MD is a discourse that is produced to persuade the addressee of a set to persuade the addressee of a set of propositions P1…Pn with specific of propositions P1…Pn with specific means Msmeans Ms.– P has some precise characteristics,

particularly on the truth-functional level.– Ms have characteristics according to the

goal of conveying the propositions P.

P and truthP and truth

• The main characteristic of P is the discrepancy of P with its objective truth-conditional value or with the truth of truth-functional conclusions normally drawn by the addressee.

Manipulators, liars andManipulators, liars and psychoticspsychotics

• The manipulator is not a psychoticnot a psychotic: He knows that P is not, or may not He knows that P is not, or may not be, consistent with realitybe, consistent with reality.

• The manipulator is not (simply) a liarnot (simply) a liar. He produces axioms / dogmas.

• The manipulator short-circuits normal short-circuits normal information processinginformation processing and reality / likeliness checking.

Px as a moral statementPx as a moral statement

• When P is a moral statement (or equivalent, as a desired state of the world and of the society), then there is no truth-conditional checking but an evaluation of the acceptability of the statement with regard to the ethical values / background of the addressee.

Cultural and moral Cultural and moral checkingchecking

• The proposition P is then evaluated with regard to the moral culturemoral culture of the concerned society.

• The moral culture C is a set of moral assumptions that sanction the acceptability of P.

• The weaker C, the stronger P, the The weaker C, the stronger P, the more successfully P is conveyedmore successfully P is conveyed.

Evaluation of PEvaluation of P

Consistency of Pwith states of affairsassumed to be true

Consistency of Pwith states of affairs

assumed to be desirable

And / or

Consistency of P withother Prop. forming an argumentation

Consistency of P withother Prop. forming an argumentation

Local and global meansLocal and global means

• Local meansLocal means (about processing of a given utterrance or discourse)

• Global meansGlobal means (about external factors that influence context construction)

Linguistic local strategies: Linguistic local strategies: some casessome cases

• Rhetorical devices, syntactic-semantic features

• Connotative lexical items, misuse of concepts / presuppositions and implicatures

• Religious and religious-like concepts and imitation of religious “style”

• Unmotivated or questionable analogies• Metaphor, vague terms and general

fuzziness

• Attitude• Prosodic features• Appeal to emotion• Typeface and layout

Non-linguistic local strategiesNon-linguistic local strategies

Linguistic Linguistic global global

strategiesstrategies

• Spreading and repetition of specific words• Generalization of a new terminology• Elimination of some lexical items• Unmotivated or misleading analogies

(again)• Acronyms, abbreviations, numbers• Naming of elements of the everyday

environment

Non-linguistic global Non-linguistic global strategiesstrategies

• Group pressure• Power and punishment• Construction of the god-like image of

the manipulator, or of transcendent-like dogmas

• Fuzziness creates trouble (a double-binddouble-bind and an assumption about self assumption about self incompetenceincompetence).

• The only way to solve the double-bind is the belief in the manipulator’s wordbelief in the manipulator’s word.

• The manipulator appears as the saviour but is in fact forcing the addressee into a relation of intellectual, psychological intellectual, psychological and moral dependenceand moral dependence.

Fuzziness againFuzziness again

The manipulative intentionThe manipulative intention

• The central way to avoid identification of the manipulative intention resides in the god-god-like imagelike image of the manipulator.

• Cognitive assumption: humans are equipped with a mind-reading abilitymind-reading ability (theory of mind).

• This applies normally to other humansother humans, but cannot apply legitimately to a god-like cannot apply legitimately to a god-like creaturecreature. The manipulated blocks some aspects of this natural ability when interpreting the manipulator’s discourse.

Not everybody...Not everybody...

• …is manipulation sensitive. It needs to be accepted that the speaker is not an ordinary human being.

• Knowledge of the mechanisms of manipulation and proper analysis of discourse

Thank you for your Thank you for your attentionattention