Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Argumentation meets adapted cognition

Electronic data

  • Argumentation meets adapted cognition

    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

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: manipulation in media discourse on immigration

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Argumentation meets adapted cognition: manipulation in media discourse on immigration. / Hart, Christopher.
In: Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 59 , No. Part B, 12.2013, p. 200-209.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hart C. Argumentation meets adapted cognition: manipulation in media discourse on immigration. Journal of Pragmatics. 2013 Dec;59 (Part B):200-209. Epub 2013 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.005

Author

Hart, Christopher. / Argumentation meets adapted cognition : manipulation in media discourse on immigration. In: Journal of Pragmatics. 2013 ; Vol. 59 , No. Part B. pp. 200-209.

Bibtex

@article{89f557b84aa542018d8a2252aee9025b,
title = "Argumentation meets adapted cognition: manipulation in media discourse on immigration",
abstract = "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 {\textquoteleft}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.",
keywords = "critical discourse analysis, cognitive heuristics, immigration discourse, Argumentation, Manipulation, Heuristics and Biases",
author = "Christopher Hart",
note = "The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Pragmatics 59 (Part B), 2013, {\textcopyright} ELSEVIER.",
year = "2013",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.005",
language = "English",
volume = "59 ",
pages = "200--209",
journal = "Journal of Pragmatics",
issn = "0378-2166",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "Part B",

}

RIS

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 -