1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper proposes to harness the linguistic theory that looks at the construction of meaning in context – i.e., pragmatics – to investigate the contextual effects bearing on the interpretation of arguments in manipulative seduction contexts. Adopting a cognitively grounded relevance-theoretic approach, I will show that deceptive seduction is used primarily to strengthen the hearer’s perception of the seducer, thereby strengthening the standpoints and arguments s/he puts forward. In that sense, it will be argued, seductive moves function like contextual constraints on the interpretative processes. Exploring further the cognitive grounding of human interpretative processes, I will claim that many seductive manipulations rely on the effect – the cognitive bias whereby a positive trait (e.g., attractiveness) tends to spill over other personality traits (e.g., competence) – to create a contextual environment that will boost argument evaluation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00010.mai
2020-05-04
2020-05-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allott, Nicholas, and Paula Rubio Fernandez
    2002 “This Paper Fills a Much-Needed Gap.” InActes de l’Atelier des doctorants en linguistique, ed. byPeggy Afuta, Adil El Ghali, and François Toussenel, 97–102. Paris: Université Paris 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakemore, Diane
    2002Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  3. Borkenau, Peter, and Anette Liebler
    1992 “Trait Inferences: Sources of Validity at Zero Acquaintance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology62 (4): 645–657. 10.1037/0022‑3514.62.4.645
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bornstein, Robert F., and Catherine Craver-Lemley
    2004 “Mere Exposure Effect.” InCognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. byRüdiger F. Pohl, 215–234. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boulat, Kira and Didier Maillat
    2017 "She Said You Said I Saw It with My Own Eyes: a pragmatic account of commitment. InJ. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrlemann-Tame, C. Laenzlinger (eds), Formal Models in the Study of Language. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.261-281. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. London: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaiken, Shelly
    1979 “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (8): 1387–1397. 10.1037/0022‑3514.37.8.1387
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1387 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Billy
    2013Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dion, Karen, Elaine Walster, and Ellen Berscheid
    1972 “What Is Beautiful Is Good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology24 (3): 285–290. 10.1037/h0033731
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eagly, Alice H., Richard D. Ashmore, Mona G. Makhijani, and Laura C. Longo
    1991 “What Is Beautiful Is Good, but…: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype.” Psychological Bulletin110 (1): 109–128. 10.1037/0033‑2909.110.1.109
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erickson, Thomas A., and Mark E. Mattson
    1981 “From Words to Meaning: A Semantic Illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20: 540–552. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90165‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Griffin, Angela M., and Judith H. Langlois
    2006 “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition24(2): 187–206. 10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187
    https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gross, Alan E., and Christine Crofton
    1977 “What Is Good Is Beautiful.” Sociometry40 (1): 85–90. 10.2307/3033549
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3033549 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hackett, Renner C.
    2004 “Validity Effect”. InCognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, ed. byRüdiger F. Pohl, 201–213. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansen, Hans
    2018 “Fallacies”. InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), ed. byEdward N. Zalta, accessed on31 March 2019. Retrieved fromplato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/fallacies/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaplan, Robert M.
    1978 “Is Beauty Talent? Sex Interaction in the Attractiveness Halo Effect.” Sex Roles4(2): 195–204. 10.1007/BF00287500
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287500 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kleiman, Tali, Noa Sher, Andrey Elster, and Ruth Mayo
    2015 “Accessibility Is a Matter of Trust: Dispositional and Contextual Distrust Blocks Accessibility Effects.” Cognition142: 333–344. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Dorothy Bishop
    2016 “Research Integrity: Don’t Let Transparency Damage Science.” Nature529: 459–461. 10.1038/529459a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/529459a [Google Scholar]
  20. Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Klaus Oberauer
    2013 “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax”. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622–633. 10.1177/0956797612457686
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686 [Google Scholar]
  21. Maillat, Didier
    2013 “Constraining Context Selection: On the Pragmatic Inevitability of Manipulation.” Journal of Pragmatics59(B): 190–199. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2017 “Les manipulations du discours de séduction: éclairage pragmatique.” E-rea, 15(1), accessed on31 March 2019. Retrieved from: journals.openedition.org/erea/5970. 10.4000/erea.5970
    https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.5970 [Google Scholar]
  23. Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics1(2): 348–370. 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 “Constraining Context: a Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Manipulation.” InCritical discourse studies in context and cognition, ed. byChristopher Hart, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.04mai [Google Scholar]
  25. (eds) 2013Biases and Constraints in Communication: Argumentation, Persuasion and Manipulation. (Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 59, Part B).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber
    2017The enigma of reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674977860
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860 [Google Scholar]
  27. Noveck, Ira A., and Dan Sperber
    2004Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230524125
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125 [Google Scholar]
  28. Oswald, Steve and Didier Maillat
    (eds) 2018Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 Volume1 and 2. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pickrell, Jacqueline E., Daniel M. Bernstein, and Elizabeth F. Loftus
    2004 “Misinformation Effect.” InCognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, ed. byRüdiger F. Pohl, 345–361. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pohl, Rüdiger F.
    (ed.) 2016Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory. Second edition. New York: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781315696935
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696935 [Google Scholar]
  31. Reder, Lynne M., and Gail W. Kusbit
    1991 “Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect Encoding, Retrieval, or Match?” Journal of Memory and Language29: 633–654.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Salkind, Neil
    2008Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 10.4135/9781412963848
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963848 [Google Scholar]
  33. de Saussure, Louis, and Peter Schulz
    (eds) 2005Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17 [Google Scholar]
  34. de Saussure, Louis
    . “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 113–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of languageCambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sorlin, Sandrine
    2017 “Vers une théorisation du discours séducteur.” E-rea, 15.1, accessed on31 March 2019. Retrieved fromjournals.openedition.org/erea/5884. 10.4000/erea.5884
    https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.5884 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan
    2010 “The Guru Effect.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology1(4): 583–592. 10.1007/s13164‑010‑0025‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0025-0 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1987 “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences10: 697–754. 10.1017/S0140525X00055345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055345 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language25: 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara, and Vittorio Girotto
    1995 “Relevance Theory explains the Selection Task”. Cognition57: 31–95. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00666‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00666-M [Google Scholar]
  42. Thoresen, John C., Quoc C. Vuong, and Anthony P. Atkinson
    2012 “First Impressions: Gait Cues Drive Reliable Trait Judgements.” Cognition124(3): 261–271. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  43. Thorndike, Edward L.
    1920 “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology4(1): 25–29. 10.1037/h0071663
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663 [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Dijk, Teun
    2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse and Society17(3): 359–383. 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  45. van Eemeren, Frans, and Peter Houtlosser
    2008 “Rhetoric in a Dialectical Framework: Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring.” InDialogue and Rhetoric, ed. byEdda Weigand, 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.2.11eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.2.11eem [Google Scholar]
  46. van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: the Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Walton, Douglas N.
    1987Informal fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbcs.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.4 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2007Media argumentation: dialectic, persuasion, and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139600187
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600187 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2004 “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts”. InPragmatics, ed. byNoel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Woods, John
    1995 “Appeal to Force”. InFallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. byHans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 240–250. Philadelphia, PA: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
    (2012) Meaning and relevance. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00010.mai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00010.mai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error