The effect of transparency on a three-cycle model of manipulative discourse
Rana A. Saeed Almaroof
Al-Buraimi University College, OmanAbstract
It is assumed that manipulative discourse can carry various types of messages on the continuum of sincerity, such as: truth, persuasion (argumentation), deception and manipulation. These different intended meanings can cause variations within the ‘transparency factor’. The transparency factor is controlled by specific social and pragmatic factors. Generally speaking, manipulative discourse is far away from transparency because it entails the use of implicit strategies and processes to achieve a final goal. The highly transparent type of discourse is the testimony where the speaker’s intention is to present truth that is supported by explicit strategies and processes. Within this continuum, there is the persuasion where the speaker’s intention is to convince the addressee without exerting any power upon the receiver. Other types, such as coercion and deception, may show a lower degree of transparency because they are used to mislead the hearer with or without the use of the social effect such as ‘power’. Accordingly, a theoretical framework which treats manipulation as a three-cycle of the meaning-making process is proposed. It is assumed that this model helps in classifying manipulative texts into different types based on the transparency factors. The aim of this study is to provide a theoretical framework that can be adopted by researchers to analyze types of discourse in terms of transparency taking into consideration the speaker, the text itself and the hearer. All these factors in the three-cycle model help in shaping the degree of transparency that a text may show.Keywords:
manipulation, transparency, deception,, testimonyReferences
Blass, Regina. 2005. Manipulation in the speeches and writings of Hitler and the NSDAP from a relevance theoretic point of view. In: L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, 169-190. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Danler, Paul.2005. Morpho-syntactic and textual realizations as deliberate pragmatic argumentative linguistic tools. In: L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, 45-60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Emeka-Nwobia & Ngozi U.2016. Political manipulation in Nigerian presidential discourses. British Journal of English Linguistics 4(4). 12-23.
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Graham, Peter J. 2006. Can testimony generate knowledge? Philosophica 78. 105-127.
Ilie, Cornelia. 2005. An integrated approach to the analysis of participant roles in totalitarian discourse. In: L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, 191-211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kamil, Salwa Ibrahim, and Fareed Hameed Al-Hindawi. 2017. The Pragmatics of Manipulation in British and American Political Debates. Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald. 2009. Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2). 348-370.
Morler, Edward E. 2006. The Leadership Integrity Challenge: Assessing and Facilitating Emotional Maturity. Tel Aviv-Yafo: Sanai Publishing.
Portis, Edward Bryan, Adolf G. Gundersen, and Ruth Lessl Shively (eds.) 2000. Political Theory and Partisan Politics: Matter the Body Itself. Albany: SUNY Press.
Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. Towards a typology of manipulative processes. In: L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, 61-83. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
de Saussure, Louis. 2005. Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics: Preliminary hypotheses. In: L. de Saussure and Peter J. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, 113-146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Sorlin, Sandrine. 2016. Language and Manipulation in House of Cards: A Pragma-stylistic Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, Teun A.2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3). 359-383.
Vadia, Kata. 2016. Critical discourse analysis in progress: the power, ideology and manipulation identification (PIMI) model. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány 16, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18460/ ANY.2016.1.004
