The Pragmatics of Manipulation in British and American Political Debates
©2017
Textbook
372 Pages
Summary
The main concern of this work is to tackle manipulation in communicative events as one of the means used by politicians to achieve certain goals such as influencing the behavior, desire, belief and emotions of others to their self-interests without evident detection of their communicative intention.
As a communicative event and from a pragmatic point of view, manipulation in the political field has not been given enough attention. Thus, this study scrutinizes the pragmatic aspects of manipulation in British and American political debates. As such, it sets itself the task of achieving several aims, the most important of which are: (1) specifying the pragmatic criterion/criteria according to whose presence a certain political debate is considered as manipulative, (2) identifying the manipulation types used by politicians and the pragmatic strategies via which each type is fulfilled, (3) exhibiting the whole pragmatic structure of manipulative, whether British or American, political debates, (4) pinpointing both the manipulative pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each sub-stage (component) and manipulative strategies adopted to attain all the sub-stages (components) of the entire pragmatic structure of manipulation, (5) highlighting the manipulative pragmatic strategies, the manipulative strategies, as well as the manipulation types highly resorted to by politicians in political debates, (6) showing transparent inter/intra-differences that can be detected in terms of the debater's employment of manipulation types, the whole pragmatic structure of manipulation, the manipulative pragmatic strategies, and the manipulative strategies used by the debaters, and (7) developing a pragmatic model for identifying the types of manipulation and the pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each type; in addition to another eclectic model to analyze the pragmatic structure and strategies of the data under scrutiny.
As a communicative event and from a pragmatic point of view, manipulation in the political field has not been given enough attention. Thus, this study scrutinizes the pragmatic aspects of manipulation in British and American political debates. As such, it sets itself the task of achieving several aims, the most important of which are: (1) specifying the pragmatic criterion/criteria according to whose presence a certain political debate is considered as manipulative, (2) identifying the manipulation types used by politicians and the pragmatic strategies via which each type is fulfilled, (3) exhibiting the whole pragmatic structure of manipulative, whether British or American, political debates, (4) pinpointing both the manipulative pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each sub-stage (component) and manipulative strategies adopted to attain all the sub-stages (components) of the entire pragmatic structure of manipulation, (5) highlighting the manipulative pragmatic strategies, the manipulative strategies, as well as the manipulation types highly resorted to by politicians in political debates, (6) showing transparent inter/intra-differences that can be detected in terms of the debater's employment of manipulation types, the whole pragmatic structure of manipulation, the manipulative pragmatic strategies, and the manipulative strategies used by the debaters, and (7) developing a pragmatic model for identifying the types of manipulation and the pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each type; in addition to another eclectic model to analyze the pragmatic structure and strategies of the data under scrutiny.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
4
Preface
The main concern of this work is to tackle manipulation in
communicative events as one of the means used by politicians to achieve
certain goals such as influencing the behavior, desire, belief and emotions of
others to their self-interests without evident detection of their
communicative intention.
As a communicative event and from a pragmatic point of view,
manipulation in the political field has not been given enough attention. Thus,
this study scrutinizes the pragmatic aspects of manipulation in British and
American political debates. As such, it sets itself the task of achieving
several aims, the most important of which are: (1) specifying the pragmatic
criterion/criteria according to whose presence a certain political debate is
considered as manipulative, (2) identifying the manipulation types used by
politicians and the pragmatic strategies via which each type is fulfilled, (3)
exhibiting the whole pragmatic structure of manipulative, whether British or
American, political debates, (4) pinpointing both the manipulative pragmatic
strategies used to fulfill each sub-stage (component) and manipulative
strategies adopted to attain all the sub-stages (components) of the entire
pragmatic structure of manipulation, (5) highlighting the manipulative
pragmatic strategies, the manipulative strategies, as well as the manipulation
types highly resorted to by politicians in political debates, (6) showing
transparent inter/intra-differences that can be detected in terms of the
debater's employment of manipulation types, the whole pragmatic structure
of manipulation, the manipulative pragmatic strategies, and the manipulative
strategies used by the debaters, and (7) developing a pragmatic model for
identifying the types of manipulation and the pragmatic strategies used to
5
fulfill each type; in addition to another eclectic model to analyze the
pragmatic structure and strategies of the data under scrutiny.
In relation to the aforementioned aims, the following hypotheses are
tested: (1) political debates are considered as manipulative according to the
presence of one or more of certain pragmatic criteria, (2) several types of
manipulation are resorted to by British and American politicians in political
debates, (3) certain types of manipulation are highly used by British and
American politicians in political debates, (4) each manipulation type is
achieved by means of certain pragmatic strategies, (5) manipulation is a
process pragmatically structured of a number of stages (components) and
sub-stages (components), (6) each sub-stage (component) in the entire
pragmatic structure of manipulation is achieved by means of manipulative
pragmatic strategies, (7) all the sub-stages (components) in the entire
pragmatic structure of manipulation are fulfilled by means of manipulative
strategies, (8) certain manipulative pragmatic strategies score higher
frequency than others to achieve manipulative ends in political debates, (9)
certain manipulative strategies score higher frequency than others to achieve
manipulative ends in political debates, (10) transparent inter/intra differences
can be detected in in British and American debates in terms of the debater's
employment of manipulation types, (11) conspicuous inter/intra-differences
can be seen in British and American debates in terms of the whole pragmatic
structure of manipulation, (12) noticeable inter/intra-differences can be
ascertained in British and American debates in terms of the debater's use of
manipulative pragmatic strategies, and (13) discernible inter /intra-
differences can be found in British and American debates in terms of the
debater's use of manipulative strategies.
6
To achieve the aims of this study and test the validity of its
hypotheses, the following procedures are followed: (1) reviewing the
literature about manipulation in general, and its pragmatic nature in
particular, (2) surveying relevant pragmatic theories in relation to the nature
of political debates to establish an eclectic model that can be used in
analyzing the data under scrutiny, (3) randomly selecting data as
representative examples of both British and American political debates and
analyzing them by means of the two models developed by this study for this
purpose. The findings of data analysis show that the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth, and thirteenth hypotheses are
verified; whereas the seventh and eleventh hypotheses are refuted.
7
List of Abbreviations
AA
Adaptation to Audiences Demands
AAPSs
Adaptation to Audience Demands Pragmatic Strategies
AS
Argument Stage
CMB
Conversational Maxims Breaching
CP
Cognitive Principle
CS
Concluding Stage
D1
Brown-Cameron-Clegg First Debate
D2
Brown-Cameron-Clegg Second Debate
D3
Bush-Kerry Debate
D4
Biden-Ryan Debate
DMSAs
Direct Manipulative Speech Acts
IMSAs
Indirect Manipulative Speech Acts
IMT
Information Manipulation Theory
IMT
Impoliteness Theory
IS
Inauguration Stage
MAPSs
Manipulative Argument Pragmatic Strategies
MCPSs
Manipulative Conclusion Pragmatic Strategies
MSAs
Manipulative Speech Acts
Pas
Persuasive Appeals
PRSs
Pragma-Rhetorical Strategies
PRTs
Pragma-Rhetorical Tropes
PT
Politeness Theory
8
RT
Relevance Theory
S 1
The Strategy of Distraction
S 2
The Strategy of Deferring
S 3
The Strategy of Emotional Effect
S 4
The Strategy of Ignorance Preservation
S 5
The Strategy of Self-blame Strengthening
SAT
Speech Act Theory
SM
Strategic Maneuvering
TP
Topical Potential
TPPSs
Topical Potential Pragmatic Strategies
List of Appendices
Appendix (1): A Brief Analysis of the Remaining Situations . 341
Appendix (2): Scripts of the Remaining Manipulative
Situations: Both British and American ... 358
Appendix (3): Poll Results after both British and American
Debates (Internet-based) ... 368
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ... 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... 2
PREFACE ... 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... 7
LIST OF APPENDICES ... 8
CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction ... 11
1.1 The Problem ... 11
1.2 Aims of the Study ... 14
1.3 Hypotheses ... 15
1.4 Procedures ... 16
1.5 Limits of the Study ... 17
1.6 Value of the study ... 17
CHAPTER TWO
2. Manipulation and its Pragmatic Nature ... 18
2.1 Manipulation: Notion and Theory ... 18
2.2 Manipulation Parameters ... 24
2.3 Motivations for Manipulators ... 32
2.4 The Central Mechanisms of Manipulation ... 36
2.5 Manipulation Types ... 38
2.6 Manipulation: A Pragmatic Perspective ... 51
2.7 Pragmatic Theories and Manipulation ... 57
10
CHAPTER THREE
3. The Model of Analysis ... 100
3.1 Manipulative Strategies ... 100
3.2 Chomsky's Strategies of Manipulation ... 104
3.3 Manipulative Pragmatic Strategies ... 115
3.4 The Eclectic Model of Analysis ... 140
3.5 Testing the Workability of the Model ... 146
CHAPTER FOUR
4. Data and Analysis ... 156
4.1 Debates as a Form Political Discourse ... 156
4.2 Data ... 158
CHAPTER FIVE
5. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Suggestions for
Further Research ... 315
5.1 Conclusions ... 315
5.2 Recommendations ... 322
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research ... 324
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 326
APPENDICES ... 341
11
CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction
1.1 The Problem
People are thought of as complicated human beings, exhibiting an
extremely wide range of behaviors resulting from an equally wide variety of
causes. Consequently, myriad means are available to influence those
behaviors. Such means mutate people's environment, as such; spur their
perceptual, cognitive as well as emotional faculties.
One of the means used for this purpose is Manipulation. It is,
according to Goodin (1980: 59), a communicative and interactional practice
which is wittingly used by the speaker (manipulator) to influence the
behavior, desire, belief and emotions of others to his self-interests; and thus,
achieving certain favorable goals.
Moreover, manipulation as viewed by Tarasov (1990: 26) is, in
principle, a pragmatic issue by means of which manipulators achieve their
goals without evident detection of their communicative intention. As such,
manipulators appeal to certain pragmatic manipulative strategies to attain
their communicative ends.
The pragmatic dimension of manipulation chiefly concerns the use of
language with regard to the pragmatic theories. Manipulative
communication of this kind is studied in rhetoric, argumentation theory,
politics, law, and marketing (Benz Ruji, 2007: 63).
As far as the field of politics at which this study is targeted is
concerned, it can be considered as one of the major domains where
pragmatic manipulative language is employed. This is so because, in
politics, language use needs to be different and characterized by using
12
certain strategies in order to be effective in conveying what politicians
intend to accomplish and to construct for themselves a positive picture in
order to, manipulatively, achieve their persuasive goals.
However, it seems that the manipulative use of language in the
political field has not been given enough attention, particularly, from a
pragmatic perspective. Consequently, this study attempts to pragmatically
investigate this kind of language use in certain political genres. These genres
are represented by British and American political debates. Such a kind of
debates is basically intended to persuade the audience with what is spoken
about, and consequently, gain those people's votes. `Manipulation' is one of
the means in doing so.
This implicates that the kind of manipulative strategies used for
achieving political goals in those encounters is central in the present study.
However, these strategies are numerous and of many kinds. Thus, to avoid
confusion the strategies of distraction, deferring, emotional effect, ignorance
preservation, and self-blame strengthening are called by this study as
Manipulative Strategies. This is deliberately done for the sake of
distinguishing them from the other manipulative pragmatic strategies used.
Precisely, as far as British and American political debates are
concerned, this study sets itself towards answering the following questions:
1. What pragmatic criteria are available, and thus, both British and
American political debates are considered as manipulative?
2. What are the manipulation types used by politicians in political
debates?
3. Which manipulation type(s) is/are most highly employed by
politicians in political debates?
13
4. What are the pragmatic strategies via which each manipulation type is
fulfilled?
5. What is the whole pragmatic structure of manipulation in
manipulative political debates?
6. What manipulative pragmatic strategies are used to attain each sub-
stage (component) of the whole pragmatic structure of manipulation in
political debates?
7. What are the manipulative strategies employed to achieve all the sub-
stages (components) in the entire pragmatic structure of manipulation
in political debates?
8. Which manipulative pragmatic strategies are highly resorted to by
politicians in political debates?
9. Which manipulative strategies are considerably resorted to by
politicians in political debates?
10. Concerning the manipulation types, are there transparent inter/intra
differences among British and American debaters?
11. With regard to the entire pragmatic structure of manipulation of both
British and American political debates, are there conspicuous
inter/intra differences that can be found?
12. As for the manipulative pragmatic strategies used by American
debaters in each debate on the one hand, and British debaters in each
debate on the other hand, can any noticeable inter/intra differences be
ascertained?
13. As far as the manipulative strategies used in each of those encounters
are concerned, are there discernible inter/intra differences?
14
1.2 Aims of the Study
The present study basically aims at answering the questions above as
follows:
1. Specifying the pragmatic criterion/criteria according to whose
presence a certain political debate is considered as manipulative.
2. Identifying the manipulation types used by politicians in political
debates.
3. Specifying the manipulation types most highly used by politicians in
political debates.
4. Figuring out the pragmatic strategies via which each manipulation
type is fulfilled.
5. Exhibiting the whole pragmatic structure of manipulative, whether
British or American, political debates.
6. Pinpointing the manipulative pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each
sub-stage (component) of the entire pragmatic structure of
manipulation.
7. Identifying the manipulative strategies employed to achieve all the
sub-stages (components) of the entire pragmatic structure of
manipulation.
8. Highlighting the manipulative pragmatic strategies highly resorted to
by politicians in political debates.
9. Specifying the manipulative strategies highly employed by politicians
in political debates.
10. Revealing transparent
inter/intra-differences that can be detected in
British and American debates in terms of the debater's employment of
manipulation types.
15
11. Displaying the conspicuous inter/intra-differences which present in
both British and American political debates in terms of the whole
pragmatic structure of manipulation.
12. Exposing the noticeable inter/intra-differences among British and
American debaters regarding the manipulative pragmatic strategies
used by them both.
13. Identifying discernable inter/intra-differences among British and
American debaters in terms of the manipulative strategies used by
them both.
14. Developing a pragmatic model for identifying the types of
manipulation and the pragmatic strategies used to fulfill each type; in
addition to another eclectic model to analyze the pragmatic structure
and strategies of the data under scrutiny.
1.3 Hypotheses
In relation to the aims mentioned above, it is hypothesized that:
1. Political debates are considered as manipulative according to the
presence of one or more of certain pragmatic criteria.
2. Several types of manipulation are resorted to by British and American
politicians in political debates.
3. Certain types of manipulation are highly used by British and
American politicians in political debates
.
4. Each manipulation type is achieved by means of certain pragmatic
strategies.
5. Manipulation is a process pragmatically structured of a number of
stages (components) with sub-stages (components).
16
6. Each sub-stage (component) in the entire pragmatic structure of
manipulation is achieved by means of manipulative pragmatic strategies.
7. All the sub-stages (components) in the entire pragmatic structure of
manipulation are achieved by means of manipulative strategies.
8. Certain manipulative pragmatic strategies score higher frequency of use
than others to achieve manipulative ends in political debates.
9. Certain manipulative strategies score higher frequency of use than others
to achieve manipulative ends in political debates.
10. Transparent
inter/intra-differences can be detected in British and
American debates in terms of the debater's employment of manipulation
types.
11. Conspicuous inter/intra-differences can be seen in British and American
debates in terms of the whole pragmatic structure of manipulation.
12. Noticeable inter/intra-differences can be ascertained in British and
American debates in terms of the debater's use of manipulative
pragmatic strategies.
13. Discernible inter/intra-differences can be found in British and American
debates in terms of the debater's use of manipulative strategies.
1.4 Procedures
To achieve the aims of this study and test its hypotheses, the following
procedures are adopted:
1. Reviewing the literature about manipulation in general, and its pragmatic
nature in particular.
2. Surveying relevant pragmatic theories in relation to the nature of
political debates to establish an eclectic model that can be used in
analyzing the data under scrutiny.
17
3. Randomly selecting data as representative examples of both British and
American political debates to be analyzed by means of the two models
developed by this study.
4. Analyzing the data under scrutiny by means of the models developed for
this purpose.
1.5 Limits of the Study
The present study is restricted to scrutinizing the pragmatic aspects of
manipulation, i.e., as it is related to pragmatic theories of Speech Act,
politeness, impoliteness, relevance, CI, argumentation, persuasion, deixis
strategic maneuvering, and pragma-rhetoric in British and American political
debates. The British debates are restricted to three Prime Minister Nominees:
Cameron, Brown, and Clegg. The American debates involve those between the
American Presidential Candidates: Bush- Kerry Biden Ryan. This means
that each American debate is restricted to two Presidential Candidates.
1.6 Value of the study
This study can be of value to those who are interested in the field of politics
and pragmatics. Besides, the findings can be made use of in applied linguistics,
especially by textbooks writers and pedagogic teaching and learning.
18
CHAPTER TWO
2. Manipulation and its Pragmatic Nature
This chapter concerns itself first, with providing a background about
the notion of manipulation in general through defining the term
`manipulation', discussing what a manipulative discourse means, and
specifying manipulation types, motivations, and some other related concepts.
Then, it manifests the relationship between this notion and pragmatic
theories in order to reveal its pragmatic nature.
2.1 Manipulation: Notion and Theory
To trace back the historical development of manipulation, it seems that
the term has first been defined by Goodin (1980) as "intentionally and
directly influencing someone's beliefs, desires and/or emotions such that he
falls short of the manipulator's ideals for belief, desire and/or emotion in
ways typically not in his self-interest or ways that are likely not to be in his
self-interest in the present context" (ibid: 59). He (ibid: 5) analyzes
manipulation as deceptive and covert influence of some sort (ibid).
Ware (1981: 149), like Goodin, defines manipulation as a kind of
covert influence; in his view, one feature of manipulation is that the
manipulated person either has no knowledge of, or does not understand the
ways in which the manipulator affects his choices (ibid).
Viewing manipulation as such makes it possible for many scholars to
see the whole process as a pragmatic one that achieves its goals without
evident detection of the communicative covert intention. In such
manipulative situations, as Tarasov (1990: 26) asserts, the speaker wittingly
chooses a form of an utterance which lacks direct clues of his
communicative intent. This can be recognized when the hearer cannot grasp
19
the speaker's hidden intentions behind what is actually being said. Hence,
the use of manipulation in this way breaches Grice's (1975, 1989) `quality'
maxim since the manipulator behaves insincerely to influence his
interlocutor without letting the latter notice that.
Rather than hidden effect, manipulation has been analyzed by some
theorists as a kind of defective persuasion. Mills (1995), for instance,
specifies that "what is distinctive about manipulation is that it purports to be
legitimate persuasion that offers good reasons, but in fact, bad reasons are
offered" (ibid: 111).
He (ibid: 112) also writes:
"a manipulator tries to change another's beliefs and desires by
offering him/her bad reasons, disguised as good, or faulty
arguments, disguised as sound; where the manipulator himself
knows these to be bad reasons and faulty arguments...
manipulation may then be understood as a kind of persuasion
manqué; as an attempt at internally directed and non-physically-
based influence that deliberately falls short of the persuasive ideal".
However, in some cases of manipulation, the manipulator changes the
hearer's beliefs and desires without offering reasons or arguments at all.
In a later work, Blass (2006) defines manipulation as a kind of
deception, by means of which, the manipulator attempts to influence his
target. Consequently, the former's behavior is used as a tool to achieve his
manipulative goals. The latter, in his turn, acts, unforced, in such a way that
the hearer (his target) does not discern the former's actions (ibid: 187). In
fact, this view of Blass (ibid) is a combination of those of Goodin (1980) and
Tarasov (1990) since it includes expressions such as `deception' and
`influence the target'.
As such, manipulation is definitely a form of deception due to its
covert nature. In language use, Blass (ibid) confirms that "it is quite
20
acceptable to say: "Can I persuade you to ..." But it is very odd to say
"Can I manipulate you to ..." This makes the hidden nature of
manipulation obvious (ibid: 188).
At most, Blass's definition of manipulation is based on McCornack's
(1992) earlier work of "Information Manipulation Theory" (henceforth,
IMT). This theory was first developed as an extension of the work of Paul
Grice (1975, 1989). According to this theory, Jacobs (1994: 22) suggests
that in order to persuade or deceive, the manipulator intentionally breaks one
(or more) of the conversational maxims (ibid).
As such, this theory brings to the forefront the idea that manipulation
has two forms: deception and persuasion. McCornack's (1992) work takes
Grice's theory to a new level and extends it to deceptive communication.
He (ibid: 223) states that manipulative messages are deceptive in that,
while they constitute deviations from the principles underlying
conversational understanding, they remain covert deviations. Hence, the
person who is being manipulated cannot know that the information is being
manipulated (ibid).
Thus, IMT, based on Grice's theory of conversational implicature,
proposes that `manipulation of information' falls within the framework of
`deception', so that false implicatures are generated (Jacobs, 1994: 200). It
argues that "in ordinary conversations, individuals monitor the information
that they divulge along four various primary dimensions: amount, veracity,
relevance, and clarity (ibid: 19).
A positive contribution to the theory is made by Sahlman Canary
(1996: 18) who point out that IMT requires the breaching to be undetected
by the hearer and that it is quite enough for one maxim to be breached in
order to be considered as deceptive.
21
In fact, various attempts by many scholars to expound the notion of
manipulation within a linguistic framework can be recognized. Danler
(2005: 63), for instance, states that language use is subjective and that
everything, including manipulation, can be linguistically expressed. For this
reason manipulation, in his view, is inherent in `language in use' to a certain
degree (ibid).
Another clarification for the notion of manipulation is given by de
Saussure (2005) who points out that the literal meaning of the concept of
`manipulation' is "to operate or control by skilled use of the hands , and
sometimes to change the object's original shape"(ibid: 11). This means that
manipulating someone refers to `using him', i.e. having that person adopt
specific action, so that the manipulator's needs and interests, regardless of
his target's ones, are successfully achieved (ibid).
Nevertheless, the above description of manipulation might be fit for
abstract things, but not for people, he (ibid: 12) adds. The situation, when
dealing with human beings, is totally different in the sense that, a human
being has a cognition that makes him capable of pursuing his own interests.
That is why we find that a manipulator, as the first step, endeavors to
manipulate the cognitive aspects of his target using some strategies ranging
from persuasive, seek agreement, emotional, and the like (ibid).
In this regard, two views are introduced by de Saussure (2005: 136)
in relation to manipulative discourse. The first view holds that manipulative
discourse can be considered as a discourse type, thus, recognizable through
certain formal features. The second view considers manipulative discourse
as a language use type (ibid). Actually, his (ibid: 137) justification for the
former view is that; in case manipulative discourse is seen as a discourse
type, for instance, narration or play, either some linguistic forms can be
22
found only in manipulative discourses, or a unique type of structure
promotes manipulative discourses (ibid). However, whether this or that,
these features would provide a formal ground for identifying manipulative
discourse.
As a matter of fact, in spite of the existence of many recent views
concerning the notion of manipulation; earlier attempts in this regard can
also be recognized. In his attempt to clarify the concept of manipulation,
Wodak (2001), for instance, explicates that the most negative aspect of a
manipulative situation is revealed when the hearer is unable to understand
and to comprehend the real motives and intentions behind the manipulator's
words, or to have a prudence of that specific issue, to realize the
consequences of the aims and plans, expressed by the speaker (manipulator)
(ibid: 88).
Within the same stream, in an attempt to elaborate on Wodak's view,
Van Dijk (2006a: 361), distinguishes between positive and negative
manipulation. He (ibid) affirms that positive manipulation is only a part of
persuasion for, in persuasion, the listeners are free whether to accept or
reject the speaker's arguments, while in negative manipulation, addressees
are typically allocated a more passive role: they are seen as `victims' of
manipulation (ibid).
Moreover, he (ibid: 360) clarifies that manipulation is also viewed as
a communicative and reciprocal pursuit, in which manipulators exercise
control over the audience, almost against the latter's will and best interests.
This may justify why in daily usage, the concept of manipulation has
negative associations manipulation is bad because such a practice
violates social norms (ibid). This has lead Lillian (2008: 14) to argue that
23
receivers of manipulative utterances would be "unconscious of the linguistic
structures affecting their perceptions than are speakers/hearers of any other
forms of discourse''.
Manipulation may also imply the exercise of an illegitimate influence
by means of discourse. That is to say, manipulators make others believe or
do things that are in the interest of the speaker (manipulator), and against the
best interests of the hearer, as Handelman (2009: 4) claims.
Based on the above mentioned views on manipulation, more recent
attempts are made. Viewing manipulation, for instance, as a linguistic act
with great creative potential is what Asya (2013:1) assures. She (ibid: 2)
defines manipulation as "any verbal interaction regarded from the point of
view of its motivation and realized by the subject (speaker) and the object
(listener) of communication" (ibid). In this sense, manipulation may include
such key elements as "negative" intention of the speaker (manipulator) and
covert character of influence and masked layer of linguistic data that is not
easily segregated from informational content (ibid).
Another attempt in this regard is made by Coons Weber (2014:59)
who observe that manipulation carries especially strong connotations of
something sneaky and it characteristically happens unbeknownst to its
victim. According to them (ibid), manipulation is deceptively influencing
someone against his putative will (ibid: 9). They (ibid: 60) proceed by
asserting the unprecedented fact that what is distinctive about manipulation
as a form of influence is not that it involves distinctive means; i.e., covert
means of influence or bad arguments disguised as good arguments, but
rather, it has a distinctive effect on its target, that is to say, it plays on the
target's weaknesses or it influences him without improving his
understanding (ibid: 46).
24
Another view in an account of manipulation influence is adopted by
Faden Beauchamp (2014). They identify three distinct kinds of
manipulation:
1- Manipulation of options: this type refers to the fact that options in our
environment are modified by increasing or decreasing available options
or by gifts, browbeating or chastisements.
2- Manipulation of information: in which the person's perception of
options is modified by non-persuasively affecting the person's
understanding of the situation.
3- Psychological manipulation: in which the mental processes of a person
rather than those involved in understanding are influenced (ibid: 70).
On the basis of what has already been discussed, Manipulation can be
operationally defined by this study as a communicative pragmatic process in
which the speaker (manipulator) maliciously intends to influence, covertly,
the beliefs, desires, emotions or behaviors of the hearer (target), usually
against his best interests, by using certain manipulative and manipulative
pragmatic strategies.
2.2 Manipulation Parameters
The term `parameter', here, is used to refer to the four components of
manipulation in manipulative encounter. These parameters namely: the
target (hearer), intention, covertness and speaker's interest are considered to
be as the four manipulation prerequisites, without which, manipulation
process will be defeated.
25
2.2.1 The Target (Hearer)
Manipulation, as Rudinow (1978: 102) notes, is geared towards
affecting the addressee to act in such a direction that, under normal
circumstances, he would potentially oppose. Besides, a number of
manipulation strategies are employed in manipulation process to lead the
target to act in a way that is not compatible with his intentions, motivations,
and best interests. Generally speaking, it might be seen that the veteran
manipulator strives to pry, interfere, and influence the decision-making
process of the target by giving the latter an impression that he (the target)
chooses his actions freely and independently, as he (ibid: 106) appends.
Thus, the manipulator, in his attempt to achieve this manipulative end,
maneuvers his target so that the manipulator's goal represented by the
intentional action is perceived (Goodin, 1980: 8).
However, a manipulative situation can also be seen from another
perspective. For Phillips (1997: 18), manipulative interaction "invites a
meeting between two opposing positions: the manipulator's and the target's
ones." However, he (ibid) adds, the clash between these positions is mostly
indirect, unseen, covert, and undetectable. This effect is achieved by the
manipulator using `trickery', as an intrinsic feature of manipulation.
Additionally, morally doubtful means including appellation, misleading, and
intimidation, contribute to shape the elusive character of manipulation (ibid).
Such means are used, in Galasinski's (2000: 22) view, "if the target had
access to all information relevant in given communicative information, in
this case, manipulation would be impossible".
Based on these assumptions, the manipulator tries his best to
maximize preferences and minimize risk. In such a case, the target is obliged
to take the best available action according to his understanding of the
26
situation (Kelman, :2001: 153). In order to be successful, Baron (2003: 48)
specifies, the manipulator feeds the target false information. This can be
done via different manipulation strategies, for instance, `Manipulation by
means of lying' strategy does this in an obvious way; on the basis of which,
he (the target) makes choices he might not have made if he had known the
truth. `Pressuring' also, on the part of manipulator, gets the target making
choices he would not have made if he hadn't been pressured. Appeals to
emotions, needs and character flaws also count as manipulative strategies
because they devastate the rational judgment of the target (ibid).
As such, it seems that the essence of manipulation process is basically
withholding information and controlling it.
Moreover, viewed from the target's angle, hearers may be defined as
victims, as Van Dijk (2006: 375) believes, this means that in a way or
another, those hearers need to be recognized as lacking crucial resources to
resist, detect or avoid manipulation. Basically, this involves:
1. Incomplete or lack of relevant knowledge, thus, equivalent arguments
cannot be produced against false, incomplete or biased manipulative
assertions (ibid.).
2. Crucial norms, values and ideologies that cannot be denied or ignored;
3. Strong passions and traumas that make people vulnerable; and
4. Social ranks, professions, status, and the like that lead the elite individuals
conciliating full agreement for their arguments and claims (ibid).
Van Dijk (ibid) asserts that in a communicative event, the
aforementioned points represent typical prerequisites of the cognitive,
emotional and/or social situation. Moreover, they are part of the participants'
context models, i.e., steering their interactions and behaviors (ibid: 376). For
27
instance, if addressees in a manipulative situation feel afraid of the speaker,
their feeling of fear then will be revealed in their context models. This is
also applicable to their relative position as well as the speaker-hearer power
relation. Conversely, in order for manipulation to be successful, speakers
need to have a mental model of the recipients and their lack of knowledge,
their ideologies, emotions, earlier experiences, and so on ( ibid: 377).
Actually, one can see that this end could be achieved because, in a
manipulative situation (including the contextual factors), the manipulator's
spectrum of vision is larger than the target's; which means that the
manipulator knows more. Subsequently, the manipulator seeks to maneuver
the target to consider possible actions that he (the target) refuses to examine.
What has previously been said by Baron (2003), viz. the manipulator
affects the target's decisions by leading him to believe the elusive fact that
he (the target) chooses the best available alternatives preferable for him in a
given situation is asserted later on by Handelman (2009) as well. He (ibid:
15) confirms that the manipulator is able to achieve this effect via various
means or strategies, as such, by manipulating the target; the manipulator
covertly affects the target's decision-making process. In this case, the target
is unable to recognize that he/she is acting under the manipulative influence
of the speaker (ibid: 17).
As a matter of fact, it sounds that concealing relevant information in
order to attain a desired manipulative end represents an illusory free choice
on the part of the target in a manipulative situation. Nevertheless,
manipulation is not lying, for sometimes, a skillful manipulator yields a
plausible justification for a proposition which complies with an actual issue,
while the real motivation for his statement is not the one he manifests, but
28
rather, another concealed one, hence, the desired effect on the target is
inevitable.
A more recent viewpoint compatible with the previous ones is
presented by Coon Weber (2014: 35) who assure that manipulative
behavior is characterized by influencing target's choices in ways that
circumvent or subvert his/her rational decision-making processes, and that
undermine or disrupt the ways of choosing that the target himself would
critically endorse if he considered the matter in a way that is lucid and free
of error. Subsequently, the target, who believes that he chooses the best
available option freely and independently, is actually subjected to a hidden
interference in his judgment and critical thinking. As such manipulation
succeeds.
2.2.2 Intention
The second crucial parameter in the characterization of manipulation
is that it is always intentional on the part of the speaker; manipulation cannot
happen accidently, i.e., unintentionally. As Blass (2005: 12) confirms.
Consequently, in a typical manipulative situation, the manipulator's
covert intention cannot be grasped by the hearer; otherwise, manipulation
would be self-defeating. In other words, if the target recognizes the
manipulator's intention and comes to a certain conclusion, the whole process
would be confuted. Thus, there is no manipulation without the intention to
manipulate, and this criterion for de Saussure (2005: 28), is fundamental.
In fact, his (ibid) point of view is built on one of the several efforts that have
previously been exerted to clarify the notion of `intention' in a manipulative
situation. For instance, Dennet's (1989: 17) assumes that `intention' in a
manipulative situation works as follows:
29
First you decide to treat the object whose behaviour is to be
predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs
that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its
purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on
the same considerations, and finally you predict that this
rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its
beliefs.
The core idea here is that the individual acts compatible with his
goals and intentions. Therefore, actions are the key to find out hidden
intentions.
Moreover, the concept of intention receives an eminent interest in
many pragmatic theories. Relevance theory, for instance, as approached by
Sperber Wilson (1995: 80) admits two levels of speaker's intention that
the hearer should acknowledge so that the interpretive process takes place:
1- The relevance-theoretic idea of ostensive-inferential communication
which involves the hearer's need to identify the speaker's
communicative intention. In this case, the latter clarify his intended
stimulus for communicating something to the hearer. This identification,
thus, arouses the expectations of relevance; i.e., the expectations that the
utterance is sufficiently formatted to communicate relevant assumptions
at a lower interpretative cost, hence, inferential processing is allowed to
start (ibid).
2- The speaker's informative intention is represented by a set of assumptions
made by the hearer to reach at a full interpretation of the speaker's
communicated message. Thus, the speaker's utterance is not just
decoded, but rather, it is pragmatically enriched following a deductive
non-demonstrative scheme of information processing. Consequently, any
relevant proposition that is derived during the interpretative process is
included (ibid: 81).
30
The centrality of a deceptive intention in manipulation bridges the
gap between theories of argumentation and pragmatic accounts which
consider intention as a central aspect of communication, particularly in the
field of Gricean pragmatics, as Carston (2002: 113) assures.
According to Cummings (2004: 178) manipulation proceeds like any
other communicative exchange as an attempt on the part of the hearer to
retrieve the speaker's intention, but relies crucially on a mismatch between
The speaker's intention and the intention attributed to him by the target.
Since manipulation is taken to be covert, it would be paradoxical to assume
that it
is based on an implicature derived from an intention which is, by definition,
not meant to be communicated, let alone recognized; this would be
inconsistent with the core assumptions underlying contemporary pragmatic
research (ibid).
Intention, compatible with the previously mentioned views, is
considered by Maillat Oswald (2009: 12) as a speaker-oriented parameter.
Hence, some deliberate deceptive intention must be involved in
manipulation. Actually, this parameter, together with covertness, has a
pivotal role in manipulation process in the sense that there is no
manipulation if there is no intention that must remain covert in all cases.
2.2.3
Covertness
The other intuitive and widespread view on manipulation holds that in
order to succeed, the manipulative attempt must remain covert. Manipulation
will absolutely fail if spotted, as Maillat Oswald (2009:8) assume.
31
According to them (ibid: 9), a quick review of some elements that
may remain covert in a manipulative message shows that many different
things can be deemed to be covert:
1. The overall manipulative intention: the transparency of the manipulative
attempt would seemingly compromise its success, making it crucial for the
manipulative intention to remain concealed (ibid: 23).
2. Local and basic linguistic strategies : a linguistic device relying for
instance on particular pronominal usages (e.g. us vs. them ) could aim at
surreptitiously
establishing
an
in-group/out-group
ideological
discrimination, which in turn may influence further beliefs and behavior
(ibid: 28).
3. Global strategies: these strategies aim at creating adequate psychological
and social conditions, such as controlled peer pressure or strategies
designed to increase the faith in the speaker (ibid).
4. Discursive strategies: a complex articulation of speech acts fulfilling a
specific function, e.g. a fallacious argumentative move may also require
being covert in order to succeed (ibid: 57).
Thus, it is obvious that a great many aspects of verbal communication
can remain covert by the manipulator.
2.2.4 Speaker's Interest
The last parameter of manipulation is that of speaker's interest. The
notion of interest has been highlighted by many researchers as one key
feature of manipulation. The claim is that manipulation is an intrinsically
goal-oriented phenomenon designed to satisfy speaker's interest (de Saussure
Schulz, 2005: 126).
32
de Saussure (2005: 119) also highlights the connection between
speaker's interest and the manipulative attempt:
...communication is manipulative when the speaker
retains some relevant information, or provides the
correct information in order for the hearer to conclude
that he should behave in a way which favours the
speaker's interests, without being aware of it.
This, for Van Dijk (2006: 360) means that manipulators make others
believe or do things that are in the interest of the manipulator and against the
best interests of the target.
2.3 Motivations for Manipulators
In an attempt to manifest the motivations for manipulation, Klaidman
Beauchamp (1987: 183) state that manipulation moves between two
motivating actions: coercion, on one end, represents a situation of complete
controlling, and persuasion which represents the lack of controlling, on the
other end. Coercion involves a severe threat of harm to the target who is, in
turn, unable to avoid it. Thus, it is always entirely dominant. This sets
coercion apart from persuasion which is never used to impose control over
the addressees (ibid).
As for manipulation, it can run from coercion to persuasion Thus, a
sequence including the two motivating actions is suggested (ibid: 188).
Their (ibid) continuum is based on the ``level of controlling'' that the
manipulator holds at the time of manipulation. Accordingly, the broad
concept of `manipulation' can be seen as moving between the two extremes
of coercion and persuasion (ibid: 189).
33
Bange (1992), unlike Klaidman Beauchamp (1987), sees the
manipulator's goals as the motivating action. He (ibid: 207) describes a
manipulative action claiming that: "an individual's manipulative behaviour
in a given situation is an action when it can be interpreted accordingly to an
intention to realize a goal that provides the motivation for it".
Manipulators, particularly politicians, for Ilie (1998: 208), have both
overt and covert motivations, as well as the required institutional means, for
generating specific discursive recontextualisation role, redistribution,
specific topic reperspectivisation, and audience feedback remodeling.
Manipulators, in fact, do not think in the first place about being
truthful or not, but they choose between expressing and withholding a
message, whether truthful or not, that, if believed by the target, should have
desired effects. These effects should be desirable for him, but they are also
desirable for the manipulator and they are the very motivation for his
communication (Sperber, 2000b:4).
On the manipulator's side, Blass (2005: 193) clarifies; his motivation,
to involve cognitive effort, is based on the assumption that he will be able to
achieve cognitive effects on the part of the target who is motivated to
involve processing effort because he anticipates obtaining positive cognitive
effects. Manipulators, according to Kantor (2006: 98), can also have various
possible motivations, including but not limited to:
1. the need for their own purposes and personal gains to be advanced
whatever it costs others;
2. the indigence of manipulators for attaining and enhancing their feeling of
power and superiority over others;
34
3. the massive desire, on the part of manipulators, to raise their perception
of self-esteem; and
4. disparaging others through considering the whole process of
manipulation as a game. This is due to the manipulators getting bored or
growing tired of their surroundings (ibid).
In line with Klaidman Beauchamp (1987), Handelman (2009: 22)
sees that different motivating actions are involved in manipulation. Such
actions are obviously designed to create some of the effects that appear in
coercive and persuasive interactions. Coercion, for instance, when utilized
by the speaker, is intended to affect that target's options by physically
limiting them; whereas persuasion, without physically limiting any of those
options, intervenes in the target's decision making, thus, he unconsciously
moves toward an existing option desired by the speaker. Accordingly,
coercion can be seen as primarily related to the physical dimension of the
target while persuasion pertains to how to affect his cognition (ibid: 23).
From the target's perspective, it seems that persuasion is a situation
in which freedom of choice exists; manipulation might result from faked
freedom of choice and coercion from the absence or limitation of freedom of
choice.
To attain the desired result, a rational manipulator, in ideal
manipulation process, must evaluate the level of control and the extent of
influence he has over the target. He, the manipulator, chooses his strategy
according to this evaluation. Choosing the most efficient manipulative
strategy refers to the physical dimension (control) and to the mental sphere
(influence) simultaneously (ibid: 25).
35
In the same reference, Handelman (ibid: 27) suggests to describe
manipulation as a mode of deception. This description emphasizes certain
similarities between deception and manipulation. However, it is preferred to
give `deception' another more flexible terminology that is of `misleading'
that is usually considered to be a third motivating action for manipulation.
Coercion and persuasion are motivating actions that hardly contain
misleading elements, while deception involves almost complete intentional
misleading. Manipulation, which is a broad concept, can contain different
levels of misleading and, therefore, is located between the extremes.
Figure (1) below schematizes the efficient motivator who is operating in
ideal manipulative circumstances. It is composed of three variables: level of
control, level of influence, and level of misleading. The extremes are
coercion (maximum control), persuasion (maximum influence), and
deception (maximum misleading). Manipulation, which combines different
levels of control, influence, and misleading, is located in a triangular plane
between the extremes:
F
T
man
and
hold
2.4
M
that
faci
emo
A
cruc
all l
proc
Figure (1) T
The descri
nipulator w
d evaluatio
ds over the
4 The Ce
Manipulat
t compel
ilitate cre
otions and
Among all
cial for th
linguistic
cess of ma
The Three L
iption sug
will select
on of the
e target.
entral M
tion, accor
the liste
eation of
d making h
l these me
he manipu
ones, fuzz
anipulation
Levels and
ggests tha
t the moti
level of c
echanis
rding to A
ener to p
f illusions
him fulfill
chanisms,
ulator to ob
ziness, in a
n.
36
Extremes o
at in ideal
ivating str
control an
sms of M
Asya (201
perceive v
s and m
actions be
as she (ib
btain sinc
a wide sen
of Motivatio
l manipula
rategy acc
nd the ext
Manipula
13: 4), is b
verbal me
mispercepti
eneficial fo
bid: 150) s
cere conse
nse, plays
on in Mani
(Handelm
ative circu
cording to
tent of inf
ation
based upo
essages un
ions impa
for the man
states, ling
nt. More
an impor
ipulation Pr
man, 2009
umstances
his estim
fluence th
on mechan
ncritically
acting tar
nipulator.
guistic one
specificall
rtant role i
rocess
9: 29)
s, the
mation
hat he
nisms
y and
rget's
es are
ly, of
in the
37
These ideas are based on previous ones introduced by other scholars.
In this regard, for instance, the concept of fuzziness has been previously
explained by Stalnaker (2002: 25). For him (ibid), fuzziness is not only
about vague terms, complicated sentences and overuse of metaphors. One of
the most important mechanisms used within manipulative discourses is the
creation of a global fuzziness, where even parts of the discourse that seem
clear and simple lead to interpretative problems for the addressee (ibid).
Besides, Rocci (2005: 115) specifies simplification and fallacies as
other manipulation mechanisms. In his view, simplistic, and usually
inductive and false arguments violating logical rules, and which create
unmotivated generalisations, can be considered as contributing to the global
fuzziness or confusion of the discourse, in spite of the fact that they are
intended to imply a particularly clear and wise thinking (ibid).
In many other cases, he (ibid: 222) points out, the trouble does not
arise from simplification and fallacies but from obscure, vague, metaphorical
and mystical expressions. The target faces a conundrum: one the one hand,
his natural ability to understand clearly is defeated; and, on the other hand,
he is keened to believe in the manipulator's word, because of these non-
propositional (emotional) effects, combined with the constant request, on the
manipulator's side, to have faith in him.
From a social perspective, there are social devices implied in manipulative
communication, such as group pressure, which can lead the target to
overcome a first impression about the problematic properties of the
utterances, as Chelccea (2006: 8) states.
One more word should be said about emotional appeals in
manipulation. Quite often, the discourse is accompanied by other emotional
devices than prosody and intonation. Emotions are also triggered by devices
38
at the level of the general attitude of the speaker, and relative to the
propositional contents of the utterances, as when the manipulator speaks
about concepts that call for fear and hope (Richard Perloff, 2010: 71). In
other words, the target perceives the manipulator's emotion, fallacious or
real, which seems fair and motivated, since the manipulated person belongs
to a group assumed to be integrated in a common fate with the manipulator,
as such, the emotion either comes to be shared by the target or a related
emotion is triggered (ibid: 77)
In fact, the aforementioned mechanisms of manipulation process
seem to imply the utilization of certain pragmatic manipulation strategies
subsumed according to manipulation types to be totally accomplished. And
this is the main concern of the following subsection.
2.5 Manipulation Types
Handelman (2009: 45) illustratively specifies that the speaker's
manipulative behavior pertains to indirectly interfere in the decision-making
of the target, usually without his / her approval. In fact, manipulation is not
exactly coercion, persuasion or deception. This elusive phenomenon is
settled in the gray area among these three motivating actions.
The vagueness
of manipulation enables the process to appear in almost infinite forms and
under many different guises. (ibid)
According to this view, manipulation has been taxonomized into
different types, each with its own strategies. As far as this study is
concerned, the following types are of basic interest.
39
2.5.1 Verbal Manipulation
Verbal manipulation is considered by Gardner (2006: 48) as using certain
words, voice inflections and tones to control the person someone addresses.
It seems that the basic premise is simple. However, there is a great deal of
intricate human behavior involved in an effective verbal manipulation.
The distinction between verbal manipulation and alternative non-
manipulative means by which speakers may get their hearers to engage in a
particular course of action or to believe the truth of certain propositions, for
Maillat Oswald (2009: 348), is fairly intuitive because of the
heterogeneous nature of manipulation.
In earlier works, the importance of verbal manipulation parameters,
namely: the aim of verbal communication, communicative intention, reason,
and motivation, has been asserted by many scholars. In this respect, Goodin
(1980: 13) points out that in order to discriminate verbal manipulation, one
has to analyze such parameters.
However, a more recent view of verbal manipulation is given by Asya
(2009: 1). She newly characterizes verbal manipulation as a complex,
multistage and phase-by-phase process (as in case of informational
propaganda and politics),or it can be a singular, relatively simple act of
influencing the target in the course of interpersonal communication. In
accordance with Asya's (ibid) aforementioned point of view about
manipulation, it seems that manipulation can be either a process with
various stages or a product with a single stage. As far as this study is
concerned, the process approach will be adopted.
As for the types of verbal manipulation, two types are included:
40
1. Syntactic Manipulation
This represents the first type of verbal manipulation. Syntactic
manipulation provides language users with a wide range of possibilities to
express themselves. As such, Nordlund (2003:9) holds the view that
different syntactic choices may evoke different reactions from the hearer as
to questions of blame or credit, truth, reliability, etc...
In earlier attempts, syntactic manipulation has received similar
attention, which made Beard (2000: 30) list some of the most commonly
used syntactic devices such as: transitivity, active and passive voice,
modality, nominalization, permutation, initialization, innuendo and utterance
context. However, it is worth mentioning here that such a type of
manipulation, in spite of the fact that it is extensively used by politicians in
manipulative political debates; corresponds to syntactic studies rather than
pragmatic ones. As such, it is out of the concern of this study. As far as
pragmatic manipulation is concerned, the syntactic type is mentioned just to
show how manipulators make use of syntactic devices to pragmatically
achieve their manipulative goals.
2. Lexical-Semantic Manipulation
This is the second type of verbal manipulation. It refers to the use of
words with emotional or cultural loading. Just as Anderson (1996: 128)
specifies, language is not free of values, thus, the words used are loaded with
emotions and attitudes, some of which are positive or what are called (plus
words), while others are negative or (minus words). Moreover, Anderson
Furberg (1996: 135) in their turn make a distinction between emotionally
loaded words and value loaded words. The former linguistically expresses
41
how the speaker actually feels about someone or something while implicitly
state whose feeling is expressed. The latter implies that certain feeling or
attitude is justified, but it does not really exist (ibid). Manipulative
utterances, therefore, may contain both positive and negative words that help
reinforcing the hearer's attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and emotions. This
depends on how language is used by manipulators to achieve certain aims. In
sum, lexical-semantic manipulation is seen as a manipulation type resorted
to by manipulators (by using positive and negative words) to achieve
pragmatic aims. As such, this type of manipulation, just as syntactic
manipulation, represents how semantic devices are made use of by
manipulators (in this regard, politicians) to fulfill manipulative pragmatic
ends. Accordingly, this type of manipulation will not be tackled in detail,
and hence will be excluded from the model intended to be developed by this
study for data analysis.
2.5.2
Psychological Manipulation
This type is elucidated by Braiker (2004: 141) as a type of
psychological influence that aims to change the intuitive cognition or
behavior of others through duplicitous, deceptive, or even abusive strategies.
He (ibid: 132) adds, by advancing the interests of the speaker (manipulator),
usually at another's expense, such strategies could be considered
exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive. This is so because
psychological influence is generally perceived to be innocuous when it
respects the right of the influenced person to accept or decline and is not
unduly coercive (ibid). Successful psychological manipulation mainly
involves the manipulator's attempt to:
42
1. Conceal fierce intentions and behaviors.
2. Be full acquaintance with the psychological states of the target to
determine what strategies are likely to be the most influential (ibid).
Thus, it is quite obvious that what is crucial in a manipulative situation is
the fact that the goal of manipulators, whatever they themselves believe and
regardless of their particular psychological condition, is to convince the
hearer of a proposition or set of propositions that should be ruled out by
normal information processing and reality checking (ibid: 151).
Viewing it differently, Maillat Oswald (2009: 11) confirm that the
crucial psychological aspect of manipulation lies in the way it constrains the
hearer's interpretative processes. In this respect, an appropriate pragmatic
model of manipulation must be proposed to shift the focus on and account
for the cognitive (psychological) processes which underlie the interpretation
of a manipulative argument. That is to say, to propose a definition of
manipulation which is hearer-oriented not speaker-oriented (ibid).
In line with the aforementioned view, this type of manipulation is the one
via which the speaker manipulates hearer's beliefs, such as knowledge,
judgements, sentiments and ideologies which in turn control his actions and
this is the main concern of cognitive pragmatics . As such, it falls within the
scope of this work.
2.5.3 Other Classifications of Manipulation
Exhibiting other classifications of manipulation types in a separate
sub-section may bring to one's mind the following question: Why should
other classifications be exposed as such? In fact, the aforementioned types of
manipulation namely; verbal, syntactic, lexical-semantic and psychological
43
manipulation are classified according to the name of manipulation type due
to two reasons. First, no criteria are available under which each type is
named. Second, in each type, two or more scholars may share ideas and
bases on which the intended type of manipulation is named. In fact, this
justifies classifying manipulation types below according to the name of the
scholars who have taxonomized it as such. Each type is identified by one
scholar under different criteria and as follows:
2.5.3.1 Baron's (2003) Classification of Manipulation
Baron (2003) distinguishes three basic types of manipulation due to the
fact that manipulation varies in the forms it takes. As such, she (ibid)
classifies manipulation as follows:
1. Deceptive: this includes outright lying to the targets, including making
not only false promises to them, but also misleading them without
actually misrepresenting anything, such as by encouraging false
assumptions, or fostering self-deception that is advantageous to the
manipulator's ends, or getting the target to view things differently or
interpret the situation in a light favourable to the manipulator's purpose
(ibid: 40).
2. Pressure to acquiesce: this type of manipulation involves browbeating,
wearing down the other's resistance, and making someone agree to
something just to avoid further discomfort or embarrassment. Pressure
can also take the form of offering inducement: they give the target the
wrong sort of reason for opting in favour of the manipulator's proposals
(ibid: 43).
44
3. Emotional: this third type of manipulation includes eliciting an emotion
with the aim of making use of it. Typical emotions used to manipulate are
fear, sympathy, a sense of gratitude towards the manipulator, and feelings
of guilt if the target does not consent to what the manipulator wants (ibid:
44-45).
In her characterization of manipulation, Baron (ibid) states:
How much to steer others, which others, how, when, and
towards what end. And more generally, for what ends to
seek influence others' conduct... The manipulative
person is too ready to think it appropriate or
inappropriate for him to orchestrate things so as to lead
others to act as he
wants them to; and in those instances,
the manipulative person is too ready to employ means that
should not be employed
(ibid: 48).
Thus, manipulation, in her view, is a form of arrogance with regard to
the kind and degree of control one seeks to exercise over the choices of
others. As such, Manipulation, in Baron's view, makes use of traits or
dispositions common to most people, not necessarily weaknesses, together
with situational factors in which these traits come to look like weaknesses
(cited in Coons Weber, 2014: 32).
These traits are manipulated through various strategies such as,
maneuvers, appeals, and stratagems share a common feature of making the
manipulator achieve his intentional manipulative goals.
2.5.3.2 Handelman's (2009) Taxonomy
An alternative taxonomy to that of Baron's is given by Handelman
(2009), according to which, manipulation is classified into limiting and
Details
- Pages
- Type of Edition
- Erstausgabe
- Year
- 2017
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783960676317
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783960671312
- File size
- 21.4 MB
- Language
- English
- Institution / College
- University of Babylon – College of Education for Human Sciences / Department of English
- Publication date
- 2017 (March)
- Keywords
- Pragmatics Political speech Noam Chomsky Strategies of manipulation Barack Obama Donald Trump Mitt Romney David Cameron Nick Clegg Gordon Brown Presidential debate US politics British politics
