This chapter discusses a variety of presentation formats involving grids, which we tend to scan left to right, top to bottom. Some grids are scalar, structuring a graded sequence of experiences (for instance, formality of language, in Tuxedo Winnie the Pooh memes), or even correlating two scales as in the Political Compass meme we discuss. Others involve contrasts (as in Drake vertical grids), or structure discourse exchanges and narrative sequences in grids (among our examples here is the Anakin and Padmé meme). These different uses of grids allow Meme Makers to present and confront different behaviours, stances and attitudes which Meme Viewers take as prompts to construe a coherent, typically ironic, viewpoint from.

This chapter outlines the reasons why a linguistically oriented book-length analysis of memes is a necessary step. It also previews the main theoretical tools to be used and highlights the ways in which this book differs from other books on memes. It includes a preview of the remaining chapters of the book.

This chapter provides a commentary on the studies published in this volume. It identifies a range of common themes across the different chapters, including the importance of context in shaping strategies of persuasion, the role of indirectness and implicature in persuasion and manipulation, and the importance of the affective and interpersonal dimensions of persuasion. At the same time, the commentary also points out some of the limitations of traditional tools of discourse analysis for understanding how persuasion and manipulation work in the complex networked context of digital media. To address these shortcomings, an ecological approach to manipulation, influence, and deception is proposed, drawing on recent work in sociology, media studies, science and technology studies, and ‘ecological pragmatics’. Three aspects of online discourse are discussed in light of this ecological perspective, namely: inter(con)textuality, iterability, and metadiscursivity. The chapter ends with a discussion of the implications of an ecological approach to persuasion, manipulation, and deception for teaching critical literacies.

It is perhaps one of the most prominent assumptions of rhetorical guidebooks and trainers that abdominal breathing leads to better, e.g., more charismatic and persuasive speech performances. However, recent phonetic evidence was not consistent with this assumption: trained speakers (males more than females) primarily intensified chest breathing when they switched from a matter-of-fact to a charismatic presentation style – and this disproportionate intensification of chest breathing also came with a more charismatic voice acoustics. The present perception experiment builds on these recorded speeches and their acoustic results. We test whether significant correlations would emerge between the acoustic and respiratory measures on the one hand and listener ratings on the other. Twenty-one listeners rated all recorded speeches in individually randomized orders along two 6-point Likert scales: resonance of the voice and charisma of the speaker. Results show significant positive correlations of perceived speaker charisma with f0 variability, f0 range, f0 maximum, and spectral emphasis. Moreover, resonant-voice ratings were positively correlated with both abdominal and chest breathing amplitudes. By contrast, perceived speaker charisma only correlated positively with chest but not with abdominal breathing amplitudes. We discuss the implications of our results for public-speaking training and outline perspectives for future research.

Disinformation and the spread of false information online have become a defining feature of social media use. While this content can spread in many ways, recently there has been an increased focus on one aspect in particular: social media algorithms. These content recommender systems provide users with content deemed ‘relevant’ to them but can be manipulated to spread false and harmful content. This chapter explores three core components of algorithmic disinformation online: amplification, reception and correction. These elements contain both unique and overlapping issues and in examining them individually, we can gain a better understanding of how disinformation spreads and the potential interventions required to mitigate its effects. Given the real-world harms that disinformation can cause, it is equally important to ground our understanding in real-world discussions of the topic. In an analysis of Twitter discussions of the term ‘disinformation’ and associated concepts, results show that while disinformation is treated as a serious issue that needs to be stopped, discussions of algorithms are underrepresented. These findings have implications for how we respond to security threats such as a disinformation and highlight the importance of aligning policy and interventions with the public’s understanding of disinformation.

This introduction sets the scene for the rest of the volume by surveying the main areas of existing communicative research on persuasion. Starting with the classic rhetorical approach, we describe the study of persuasive language on the level of microlinguistic features that often occur in discourse types such as politics or advertising. We then summarize the findings of persuasion research in classic pragmatics and discourse analysis, paying attention to such aspects as speaker’s credibility and expertness. We wrap up the discussion by deliberating on the work on malicious persuasion: propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, and the phenomena of filter bubbles and echo chambers. The chapter is concluded with the short outlines of the papers in the volume.

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the strategic use of negative evaluations in the Twitter campaigns by the Republican and Democratic candidate for the US presidency in 2020. The study combines a corpus-linguistic method (key semantic domain method) with Martin and White’s Appraisal framework to systematically capture and compare the dispersion, frequency and contextual use of negative evaluations by Joe Biden and Donald J. Trump. The study shows how corpus-linguistic methods can be usefully employed to systematize the quantitative and qualitative exploration of attitudinal evaluations in mid-size language corpora. Further, results indicate that Donald Trump’s targets and objects of negative evaluation in 2020 have broadened compared to his previous Twitter election campaign. This is likely to reflect Trump’s new official status as leader of the government, needing to defend his actions and decisions. In turn, Joe Biden’s negative evaluations on Twitter criticise such government policies with the principal aim to present Biden as a challenger of the status quo, fighting to create new jobs for the ‘ordinary man’. This constitutes a clear change in campaign policies of the Democratic party compared to their Twitter campaign for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In this chapter I argue that seduction is what makes it harder to tell the difference between persuasion – which cannot do away with seductive language in order to win over the other – and manipulation which plays on the addressee’s emotions or emotional needs (Baron, 2003). Seduction thus constitutes the weak spot of persuasive discourse through which manipulative tricks can penetrate. Manipulation is commonly defined as what can only be covert and is null and void if discovered; I will prove that this is not necessarily the case, especially when the addressee can perceive manipulation but is seduced by it anyway. What distinguishes persuasion from manipulation is the strength of the pressure put on the Hearer to acquiesce (Sorlin, 2017a). The role of seductive discourse as defined in this chapter is precisely to attenuate this pressure (on the surface) by using different linguistic, cognitive and pragmatic means that are detailed here and illustrated with an example drawn from the political TV series House of Cards (Netflix 2013—2018). My goal is to show that there is such a thing as a pragmatics of seduction, predicated on strategies of influence in precarious balance between persuasion and manipulation.

While a great deal of research has examined the form and format of extremist content and the expressions of hate speech that exist within far-right online communities, there has been less attention on why young men, the primary target audience, become motivated to engage with this kind of material. As a corollary, what is also missing from most accounts of radicalisation is a sustained discussion of how discourses of masculinity are leveraged in extremist spaces and how these discourses become part of an overarching system of persuasion, manipulation, and, ultimately, recruitment to extremist organisations. This chapter offers an analysis of data collected from r/The_Donald to examine how discourses of masculinity are exploited as a means of promoting and normalising extremist positions within the community. The chapter also shows how these discourses of masculinity are bound up with race and ethnicity, where particular raced and gendered configurations become valorised as ideal, normative, and desirable. Taking all of this together, I argue that closer attention to the nature of these gendered discourses can help us develop more effective interventions around deradicalization, as well as better informing public education campaigns, particularly those aimed at young men.

Alternative paralinguistic features (APF; e.g., capitalization, emoticons) are used in online hotel reviews to maximize positive or negative feedback. So far, little attention has been paid to a description of the use of APF in hotel reviews, and to the influence of APF on the reply strategies used and the way rapport is managed in review responses.

This paper presents a study on the use of APF and their rapport-related effects, using a Dutch-language Booking.com corpus of 1,465 interactions. We coded types and frequencies of APF in reviews as well as reply strategies (rapport-enhancing and defensive moves, intensifiers) in responses to reviews. These data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results indicate that APF are not uncommon in online reviews, and that they are more often used to intensify positive instead of negative feedback. Moreover, the results revealed a subtle influence of APF on how review-related interactions unfold in terms of rapport, in that a higher frequency of APF strengthening positive feedback is associated with a more enthusiast and persuasive stance in responses to these reviews, and that a higher frequency of APF strengthening negative feedback is associated with a more defensive, less rapport-enhancing stance in responses to these reviews.

As people communicate in new and advanced forms online, they are also increasingly engaging in persuasive processes. However, there is a dearth of knowledge about the processes and mechanisms of online persuasion. Our work explores how online persuasive comments are shaped by different communication contexts and linguistic features. We explore this connection by conducting a cross-context examination of four different contexts: two online datasets (standalone argument pairs and Yelp reviews) and two online discussion datasets (Wikipedia Article for Deletion discussions and the subreddit r/ChangeMyView). Analysing the similarities and differences across the resulting four contexts, we highlight how different online communication contexts may affect different linguistic features of a persuasive comment. Such insights could raise awareness and foster critical thinking thereby enriching online communication experiences.