Cover not available

Article published In: Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 124–147

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The Argument and the Honey Pot

A pragmatic account of fallacies of seduction

 | University of Fribourg
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00010.mai
Abstract
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
References (52)
References
Allott, Nicholas, and Paula Rubio Fernandez. 2002. “This Paper Fills a Much-Needed Gap.” In Actes de l’Atelier des doctorants en linguistique, ed. by Peggy Afuta, Adil El Ghali, and François Toussenel, 97–102. Paris: Université Paris 7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borkenau, Peter, and Anette Liebler. 1992. “Trait Inferences: Sources of Validity at Zero Acquaintance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (4): 645–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bornstein, Robert F., and Catherine Craver-Lemley. 2004. “Mere Exposure Effect.” In Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. by Rüdiger F. Pohl, 215–234. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boulat, Kira and Didier Maillat. 2017. "She Said You Said I Saw It with My Own Eyes: a pragmatic account of commitment. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrlemann-Tame, C. Laenzlinger (eds), Formal Models in the Study of Language. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 261-281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly. 1979. “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (8): 1387–1397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2013. Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dion, Karen, Elaine Walster, and Ellen Berscheid. 1972. “What Is Beautiful Is Good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (3): 285–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., Richard D. Ashmore, Mona G. Makhijani, and Laura C. Longo. 1991. “What Is Beautiful Is Good, but…: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype.” Psychological Bulletin 110 (1): 109–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erickson, Thomas A., and Mark E. Mattson. 1981. “From Words to Meaning: A Semantic Illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 201: 540–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffin, Angela M., and Judith H. Langlois. 2006. “Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or Is Ugly Bad?” Social Cognition 24(2): 187–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Alan E., and Christine Crofton. 1977. “What Is Good Is Beautiful.” Sociometry 40 (1): 85–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hackett, Renner C. 2004. “Validity Effect”. In Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, ed. by Rüdiger F. Pohl, 201–213. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Hans. 2018. “Fallacies”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), ed. by Edward N. Zalta, accessed on 31 March 2019. Retrieved from [URL]
Kaplan, Robert M. 1978. “Is Beauty Talent? Sex Interaction in the Attractiveness Halo Effect.” Sex Roles 4(2): 195–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiman, Tali, Noa Sher, Andrey Elster, and Ruth Mayo. 2015. “Accessibility Is a Matter of Trust: Dispositional and Contextual Distrust Blocks Accessibility Effects.” Cognition 1421: 333–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Dorothy Bishop. 2016. “Research Integrity: Don’t Let Transparency Damage Science.” Nature 5291: 459–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan, and Klaus Oberauer. 2013. “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax”. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier. 2013. “Constraining Context Selection: On the Pragmatic Inevitability of Manipulation.” Journal of Pragmatics 59(B): 190–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Les manipulations du discours de séduction: éclairage pragmatique.” E-rea, 15(1), accessed on 31 March 2019. Retrieved from: [URL].
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 348–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Constraining Context: a Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Manipulation.” In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, ed. by Christopher Hart, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2013. Biases and Constraints in Communication: Argumentation, Persuasion and Manipulation. (Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 59, Part B).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber. 2017. The enigma of reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A., and Dan Sperber. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve and Didier Maillat (eds). 2018. Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017. Volume 11 and 21. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickrell, Jacqueline E., Daniel M. Bernstein, and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 2004. “Misinformation Effect.” In Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, ed. by Rüdiger F. Pohl, 345–361. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pohl, Rüdiger F. (ed.). 2016. Cognitive Illusions: a Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgment and Memory. Second edition. New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reder, Lynne M., and Gail W. Kusbit. 1991. “Locus of the Moses Illusion: Imperfect Encoding, Retrieval, or Match?” Journal of Memory and Language 291: 633–654.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salkind, Neil. 2008. Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 113–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorlin, Sandrine. 2017. “Vers une théorisation du discours séducteur.” E-rea, 15.1, accessed on 31 March 2019. Retrieved from [URL].
Sperber, Dan. 2010. “The Guru Effect.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1(4): 583–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1987. “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 101: 697–754. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language 251: 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara, and Vittorio Girotto. 1995. “Relevance Theory explains the Selection Task”. Cognition 571: 31–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thoresen, John C., Quoc C. Vuong, and Anthony P. Atkinson. 2012. “First Impressions: Gait Cues Drive Reliable Trait Judgements.” Cognition 124(3): 261–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thorndike, Edward L. 1920. “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology 4(1): 25–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 2006. “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse and Society 17(3): 359–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, and Peter Houtlosser. 2008. “Rhetoric in a Dialectical Framework: Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring.” In Dialogue and Rhetoric, ed. by Edda Weigand, 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: the Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1987. Informal fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Media argumentation: dialectic, persuasion, and rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2004. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts”. In Pragmatics, ed. by Noel Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woods, John. 1995. “Appeal to Force”. In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 240–250. Philadelphia, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Sorlin, Sandrine
2025. Persuasion, Manipulation, Seduction. In Manipulation, Influence and Deception, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2025. (Re)framing Persuasion. In Manipulation, Influence and Deception, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue