Curative or beauty treatment? Language and manipulation in leaflets of medical devices
-
Magdalena Zyga
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to examine the mechanisms of potential (cognitive) manipulation used in the leaflets of selected medical devices. The assumption is that in the texts under analysis some of the Gricean conversational maxims are violated in an attempt at discursive manipulation or can be perceived as violated by the reader, which is favoured by activation of certain idealized cognitive models (ICMs). For the purposes of the study leaflets of four antifungal medical devices – their English- and German-language versions – are examined. The theoretical basis is mainly centred on the Gricean notion of implicature and the contemporary theory of conceptual metaphor and metonymy. The texts are analysed at relevant sub-tiers (for instance metaphor-metonymy conceptual tier) of particularly the sectional and conceptual tier. The examination of the selected leaflets reveals that the texts evoke certain ICMs whose presence seems to result – in 3 out of 4 leaflets – from, to a large extent, the intention to at least bend some Gricean maxims. Hence, the reader might be under the impression that the product does something that is not explicitly promised.
References
Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view, 7–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.28.02barSuche in Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2005. Manipulation, memes and metaphors. In Louis de Saussure & Peter Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century, 15–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.17.03chiSuche in Google Scholar
Clausner, Timothy C. & William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2014. The development of the theory of metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Linguistica Silesiana 35. 119–151.Suche in Google Scholar
Feyaerts, Kurt. 1999. Metonymic hierarchies. The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 309–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.4.18feySuche in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Suche in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. London: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Gavins, Joanna. 2007. Text world theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748629909Suche in Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech acts, 4–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Suche in Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1993. Pragmatics and rhetoric: A collaborative approach to conversation. In Herman Parret (ed.), Pretending to communicate, 173–195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110847116.173Suche in Google Scholar
Jäkel, Olaf. 2002. Hypotheses revisited: The cognitive theory of metaphor applied to religious texts. Metaphorik.de 2. 20–42. https://www.metaphorik.de/de/journal/02/hypotheses-revisited-cognitive-theory-metaphor-applied-religious-texts.html (accessed 13 March 2002).Suche in Google Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja. 2010. Speaker activity and Grice’s maxims of conversation at the interface of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 3345–3366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.008.Suche in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald. 2009. Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Review of Pragmatics I. 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909x12535267111651.Suche in Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald. 2011. Constraining context: a pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.43.04maiSuche in Google Scholar
Maillat, Didier. 2013. Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics 59. 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 1985. Whose Language? A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbcs.3Suche in Google Scholar
Mooney, Annabelle. 2004. Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Möck, Andrea. 2013, May 10. Hilft Naloc gegen Nagelpilz? [Does naloc help against nail fungus?] Arznei-telegramm [medicinal telegram]. https://www.arznei-telegramm.de/html/htmlcontainer.php3?produktid=046_01&artikel=1305046_01k (accessed 10 January 2017).Suche in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe. 2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In Gitte Kristianses, Michel Achard, René Dirven & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives, 147–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg. 2007. Metonymy. In Dirk Geeraerts, Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 236–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zoltan Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.4.03radSuche in Google Scholar
Rummelhart, David E. 1980. Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce & William F. Brewer (eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education, 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781315107493-4Suche in Google Scholar
Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar
Sorlin, Sandrine. 2016. Language and manipulation in House of Cards. A pragma-stylistic perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-55848-0Suche in Google Scholar
Sorlin, Sandrine. 2017. The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics 121. halshs-01629082 (accessed 3 May 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara & Vittorio Girotto. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 57. 31–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00666-m.Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication & cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Werth, Paul. 1994. Extended metaphor – a text-world account. Language and Literature 3(2). 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709400300201.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. 2006. Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar
Leaflets of preparations:
Excilor Pen, Oystershell NV (last revised in July 2014).
Naloc, Moberg Pharma AB (last revised in August 2013).
Nailexpert, Omega Pharma Belgium NV (last revised in January 2012).
Myfungar, Polichem S.A. (last revised in November 2011).
Amorolfine, Chanelle Medical (last revised in January 2012).
Loceryl Nagellack, kohlpharma GmbH (last revised in April 2011).
Ciclopoli, Polichem S.A. (last revised on October 2017).
RejuveNail, A. Menarini New Zealand Pty Ltd (last revised in March 2017).
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The voiceless in The Voice: A multimodal critical discourse analysis
- Gestures of closure: A small stories approach to museumgoers' texts
- A contrastive study of engagement resources between English spoken and written texts
- Curative or beauty treatment? Language and manipulation in leaflets of medical devices
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The voiceless in The Voice: A multimodal critical discourse analysis
- Gestures of closure: A small stories approach to museumgoers' texts
- A contrastive study of engagement resources between English spoken and written texts
- Curative or beauty treatment? Language and manipulation in leaflets of medical devices
