LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hart, Christopher (2013)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: P300, Q100, L200
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.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Barrett, L., R. Dunbar and J. Lycett (2002). Human evolutionary psychology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
    • Chilton, P. (2005a). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 19-52.
    • Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31: 187-276.
    • Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 162-228.
    • Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Retrieved 20 June, 2008, http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html.
    • Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby (2000). Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In M. Lewis and M. J. Haviland-Jones (eds.), Handbook of emotions, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 91-115.
    • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
    • de Saussure, L. and P. Schulz (eds.) (2005). Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamin
    • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
    • Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41-58.
    • Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 113-28.
    • Hackett Renner, C. (2004). Validity effect. In R. F. Pohl (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 201-213.
    • Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basongstoke: Palgrave.
    • Hart, C. (2011). Legitimising assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration. Discourse Studies 13 (6):
    • Haselton, M. G. (2007). Error management theory. In R. Baumeister and K. Vohs (eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 311-12.
    • Haselton, M. G. and D. M. Buss (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 81- 91.
    • Henrich, J. and R. Boyd (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behaviour 19: 215- 241.
    • Hirschfeld, L.A. (1994). Is the acquisition of social categories based on domain-specific competence or on knowledge transfer? In L. Hirschfeld and S. A. Gelman (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 201-233.
    • Ihnen, C. and J.E. Richardson (2011). On combining pragma-dialectics with critical discourse analysis. In E.T. Feteris, B. Garssen and F.S. Henkemans (eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.231-244.
    • Kienpointer, M, and W. Kindt (1997). On the problem of bias in political argumentation: An investigation into discussions about political asylum in Germany and Austria. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 555-585.
    • Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Maillat, D. and S. Oswald (2011). Constraining context: A pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In C. Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 65-80.
    • Maillat, D. and S. Oswald (2009). Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragamtics 1: 348-370.
    • O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mystification and social agent absences: A critical discourse analysis using evolutionary psychology. Journal of Pragmatics 37(12): 1945-64.
    • Oswald, M.E. and S. Grosjean (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 79-96.
    • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. London: Penguin.
    • Reber, R. (2004). Availability. In R. F. Pohl (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 147- 164.
    • Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antiSemitism. London: Routledge.
    • Rigotti, E. (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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 61-83
    • Schaller, M. and S. Neuberg (2008). Intergroup prejudices and intergroup conflicts. In C. Crawford and D. Krebs (eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 401-14.
    • Schaller, M., J. H. Park and J. Faulkner (2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices. European Review of Social Psychology 14: 105-37.
    • Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Evolutionary psychology research methods. In C. Crawford and D. Krebs (eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 215-38.
    • Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In L. Hirschfeld and S. A. Gelman (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 39-67.
    • Sperber, D. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. In R. Viale, D. Andler and L. Hirschfeld (eds.), Biological and cultural bases of human inference. Malwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 177-190.
    • Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. and D. Wilson (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25 (4): 359-393.
    • Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
    • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35-57.
    • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124-1131.
    • Van Dijk, T. A. (2000a). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M. Reisigl and R. Wodak (eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches to critical discourse analysis. Vienna: Passagen Verlag. pp. 85-103.
    • Van Dijk, T. A. (2000b). The reality of racism: On analyzing parliamentary debates on immigration. In G. Zurstiege (eds.), Festschrift: Für die wirklichkeit. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. pp. 211-26.
    • Van Leeuwen, T. and R. Wodak (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discoursehistorical analysis. Discourse Studies 10 (1): 83-118.
    • Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17 (2): 359-383.
    • Van Eemeren, F.H and Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectic perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, R. H. Johnons, C. Plantin and C. A. Willard (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. London: Routledge.
    • Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. pp. 63-94.
    • Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies 8 (1): 179-90.
    • Wodak, R. and M. Sedlak (2000). 'We demand that the foreigners adapt to our lifestyle': Political discourse on immigration laws in Austria and the United Kingdom. In E. Appelt and M. Jarosch (eds.), Combating racial discrimination: Affirmative action as a model for Europe. Oxford: Berg. pp. 217-37.
    • Woods, J. (1992). Who cares about fallacies? In F.H. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation illuminated. Amsterdam: ISSA. pp. 23-48.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article