Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Pragmatics 59 (Part B), 2013, © ELSEVIER.
Accepted author manuscript, 413 KB, PDF document
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Argumentation meets adapted cognition
T2 - manipulation in media discourse on immigration
AU - Hart, Christopher
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Pragmatics 59 (Part B), 2013, © ELSEVIER.
PY - 2013/12
Y1 - 2013/12
N2 - Critical discourse analysis has focussed extensively on argumentation in anti-immigration discourse where a specific suite of argumentation strategies has been identified as constitutive of the discourse. The successful perlocutionary effects of these arguments are analysed as products of pragmatic processes based on ‘common-sense' reasoning schemes known as topoi. In this paper, I offer an alternative explanation grounded in cognitive-evolutionary psychology. Specifically, it is shown that a number of argumentation schemes identified as recurrent in anti-immigration discourse relate to two cognitive mechanisms proposed in evolutionary psychology: the cheater detection and avoidance mechanism (Cosmides 1989) and epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al. 2010). It is further suggested that the potential perlocutionary effects of argument acts in anti-immigration discourse, in achieving sanction for discriminatory practices, may arise not as the product of intentional-inferential processes but as a function of cognitive heuristics and biases provided by these mechanisms. The impact of such arguments may therefore be best characterised in terms of manipulation rather than persuasion.
AB - Critical discourse analysis has focussed extensively on argumentation in anti-immigration discourse where a specific suite of argumentation strategies has been identified as constitutive of the discourse. The successful perlocutionary effects of these arguments are analysed as products of pragmatic processes based on ‘common-sense' reasoning schemes known as topoi. In this paper, I offer an alternative explanation grounded in cognitive-evolutionary psychology. Specifically, it is shown that a number of argumentation schemes identified as recurrent in anti-immigration discourse relate to two cognitive mechanisms proposed in evolutionary psychology: the cheater detection and avoidance mechanism (Cosmides 1989) and epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al. 2010). It is further suggested that the potential perlocutionary effects of argument acts in anti-immigration discourse, in achieving sanction for discriminatory practices, may arise not as the product of intentional-inferential processes but as a function of cognitive heuristics and biases provided by these mechanisms. The impact of such arguments may therefore be best characterised in terms of manipulation rather than persuasion.
KW - critical discourse analysis
KW - cognitive heuristics
KW - immigration discourse
KW - Argumentation
KW - Manipulation
KW - Heuristics and Biases
U2 - 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.005
DO - 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.005
M3 - Journal article
VL - 59
SP - 200
EP - 209
JO - Journal of Pragmatics
JF - Journal of Pragmatics
SN - 0378-2166
IS - Part B
ER -