The Argument and the Honey Pot
A pragmatic account of fallacies of seduction
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
halo 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Pragmatics for manipulation: Context-Selection Constraint
- 2.1Relevance-theoretic pragmatics
- 2.2Manipulation in relevance-theoretic pragmatics
- 2.3Manipulation as a Constraint on Context Selection
- 2.4CSC and cognitive biases
- 3.Seduction, cognitive bias and argumentation: The halo effect
- 3.1Authority for Two
- 3.2Seduction ad carotam
- 3.3Seduction and cognitive biases
- 4.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References