Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 6:4 (2015) ► pp.502–516
Manipulation by deliberate failure of communication
Published online: 21 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.02azu
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.4.02azu
This work studies manipulative use of language that can be called “deliberate failure of communication”; I characterize this kind of manipulation and show that it can be found in the discourse of marketing experts and legal professionals. Relying on relevance theory, I show that manipulation of this kind takes advantage of what van Dijk calls the “context model” of the addressees. I exemplify two ways in which the context models of some of the discourse’s participants might be misused in order to manipulate them. One way is exemplified by a text from an advertisement, the other by a text from a criminal court file. I propose, finally, that the analysis supports van Dijk’s view that social, discursive, and epistemic inequalities reproduce one another in a kind of vicious circle. It suggests, in van Dijk’s terms, that manipulation by deliberate failure of communication is a discriminatory use of language employed by elite groups in order to reproduce their social power.
References (18)
Azuelos-Atias, Sol. 2009. “The Rationality of Legal Argumentation”. Pragmatics and Cognition17 (2): 383–401.
. 2010. “Semantically Cued Unspoken Assumptions in the Legal Text”. Journal of Pragmatics421: 728–743.
. 2011. “On the Incoherence of the Legal Language to the General Public”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law241: 41–59.
Greenfield, Aryeh. 2001. Penal Law 5737–1977. Verbatim English translation incorporating all amendments up to and including amendment No. 63. Israel: A.G. Publication.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson.1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis”. Discourse and Society4 (2): 249–283.
. 2004. “From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis: A Brief Academic Autobiography”. Available at: [URL]
. 2012. “Knowledge, Discourse and Domination”. InPragmaticizing Understanding: Studies for Jef Verschueren, ed. byMichael Meeuwis and Jan-Ola Östman, 151–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2007. “Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry”. Pragmatics and Cognition15 (1): 203–225.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Azuelos-Atias, Sol & Ning Ye
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.
