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