Linguistic weapons of mass persuasion

My early undergraduate study as a foreign language major plunged me into linguistics, semantics and phonetics — collectively referred to as rhetorical devices. I found these tools enhanced the importance of the underlying communication architecture of the languages I studied. Throughout my career as I progressed to higher levels of leadership, these rhetorical devices continued to influence my communication acumen.

The experience taught me that a sphere of influence radiates outward from what and how we are communicating. Developed and nurtured shared language enhances communication and collaboration whether it’s between individuals or across larger communities. Linguistic “weapons of mass persuasion” are agnostic; they work well for the principled individual and, unfortunately, the fraudster. The difference lies with intent of purpose.

What is rhetoric?

“Rhetoric,” wrote the Greek philosopher Plato, “is the art of enchanting the soul.” According to another great Greek thinker and Plato’s student, Aristotle, rhetoric is “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion.” Thomas B. Farrell writes in “The Norms of Rhetorical Culture” (Yale University Press, Aug. 30, 1995) that “Rhetoric is an acquired competency, a manner of thinking that invents possibilities for persuasion, conviction, action, and judgments.”

The existing culture and the quality of our relationships and conversations shape how we use language and vocabulary. Our vocabulary grows with age, education and even our vocation. The occasion, audience and purpose for that communication influence our language styles and vocabulary choices.

Manipulative communication

A different type of persuasion and influence, however, creates a hidden, masked layer of linguistic information that can be difficult to separate from valid information content. Manipulative communication occupies a position between two extreme endpoints: legitimate, truthful information and a lie.

Manipulation occurs when a listener can’t discern the speaker’s hidden intentions behind what they actually said. A similar parallel can occur in written communication, primarily opinion pieces and editorials. Linguistic manipulation compels a listener to perceive communication uncritically while it creates illusions and misperceptions that (1) influence audience emotions and (2) encourage them to take actions that are advantageous for the speaker.

Let’s look at several prominent persuasive and manipulative language tactics we encounter daily.

Doublespeak

One tool of rhetoric can lead to negative results when used to deceive, mislead and misinform an audience: doublespeak.

When we hear doublespeak, which is the complete opposite of plain and simple truth, we usually recognize it for what it is — especially coming from politicians and spokespersons.

Doublespeak distorts or obscures the truth of a statement. Sometimes it softens the impact a message will have on an audience, but more often it camouflages the truth by misrepresenting reality.

Linguists have identified 10 categories of doublespeak: euphemism, jargon, gobbledygook, minimization, exaggeration, repetition, association, diversion, meaningless promises and labeling.

Euphemism

Euphemism is by far the most widely used form of linguistic manipulation. Other word choices replace direct vocabulary to create a message that’s more agreeable or less painful to an audience. We’ve all heard about “revenue enhancement strategies.” That’s a euphemism for tax increases.

Corporate doublespeak, which we might read or hear in quarterly earnings reports, appears as common, trite euphemisms. Weather-related euphemisms (e.g., “headwinds,” “maelstrom,” “perfect storm”) are often used to disguise performance failures responsible for poor financial results. But such wordplay may only initially slow down a company’s stock price slide as investors and analysts parse the communication.

Political theater embraces all categories of doublespeak, particularly in presidential debates. The Beguilement and Sophistry Index (also known as the B.S. Index), a brainchild of Doris Minin-White, is one measure of the number of times doublespeak appears per 1,000 words in a speech or debate. (See “Political Speech, Doublespeak, And Critical Thinking Skills In American Education,” Doris Minin-White, Hamline University, fall 2017.)

Minin-White writes that “We, as part of a democratic society, are influenced by public discourse. Our politicians are aware of the persuasive power of political language and they use it to camouflage their intentions and agendas. It seems to me that the art of rhetoric, which is based on logical reasoning, has been gradually replaced by the art of beguilement. In other words, the art of Doublespeak.”

Relative deprivation

Sharing language with others affects a variety of perceptions and perspectives and influences social, cultural and political discourse. Removing that shared-language ability by purposely distorting it and redefining it for the benefit of a sub-group can negatively influence how we perceive others and how others perceive us. This can happen in situations that some social scientists believe are caused by what they call relative deprivation.

Relative deprivation occurs when an individual or group feels deprived of or entitled to something, tangible or intangible, that another individual or group has. The group that sees itself as deprived often uses exclusive vocabulary or distorts social, political and cultural definitions. This is one way for splinter groups to assert some power and in turn meet their needs. [See “Power Basis Theory: A Psychoecological Approach to Power,” by Felicia Pratto, I-Ching Lee, Judy Y. Tan, and Eileen V. Pitpitan, and “Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT),” toolshero.]

Outsiders usually fail to understand the newly created vocabulary and often dismiss or disregard it. Why? Because the brain looks for familiarity and pattern recognition, which is the path of least resistance to cognition. Unfamiliarity breeds disinterest.

Rhyme-as-reason

The rhyme-as-reason effect is a theory that says people are more likely to believe statements that rhyme over those that don’t. Rhyming versions of text or speech are neurolinguistic hooks that create a sense of trust among readers and listeners. The idea is deeply embedded in our thought process.

We all know what someone means when they say that something has “no rhyme or reason.”

Vocabulary and communication that rhymes or otherwise amuses the brain’s linguistic center with repetition is often easier to remember and more likable, original, persuasive and trustworthy. [See “Rhyme as reason in commercial and social advertising,” by Petra Filkuková and Sven Hroar Klempe, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(5), 423–431, Wiley Online Library, July 10, 2013.]

People attach more validity to aesthetic vocabulary when they have difficulty deciding the legitimacy of the message content.

During O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, Simpson’s attorney Johnny Cochran admonished the jury about the glove and stocking cap found at the crime scene: “If it does not fit, you must acquit.” Cochran’s closing-argument phrase is memorable, persuasive and powerful. Said any other way, the phrase would have lacked the necessary linguistic — and persuasive — impact. (See “The Rhyme-as-Reason Effect: Why Rhyming Makes Messages More Persuasive,” Effectiviology.)

The Ben Franklin aphorism “a stitch in time saves nine” is more memorable, likable, easier to recall and more persuasive than “a single stitch made early prevents more having to be made later.” The same is true with “birds of a feather flock together,” compared to “birds of a feather flock conjointly.”

The brain has evolved to minimize cognitive processing; it abhors any processing that requires too much effort. When that happens, we lose interest, don’t remember and aren’t persuaded. The rhyme-as-reason effect condenses messaging and facilitates listener recall because of its simplicity.

The verbal use of such linguistic devices in your speeches, presentations of all kinds, and business negotiations helps the cognitive function of the audience’s brains remain active and engaged — and an engaged audience is more receptive to influence and persuasion.

Antimetabole

Antimetabole (an-tee-meh-TAB-oh-lee) is another neurolinguistic hook for increasing your influence with others. It’s a figure of emphasis in which the words in one phrase or clause are repeated in reverse grammatical order in the next phrase or clause, in an A-B-B-A pattern. “It is better to debate an issue that doesn’t get settled than to settle an issue that doesn’t get debated” and “if you fail to plan, you plan to fail” are unforgettable aphorisms (another linguistic tool) using antimetabole. Such linguistic devices condense meaning and context into memorable insights that, when recalled by the brain’s associative memory, repeatedly connect your audience to you and your message.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy interjected a famous and oft-repeated antimetabole when he said in his inauguration address: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Linguistic markers of powerlessness

Spoken language is the most-used medium for persuasive communications. (See “The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion,” by Kevin Blankenship and Thomas Holtgraves, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, March 2005.) Linguistic style, including speech rate, language intensity and speaker dynamics, plays a key role in what’s communicated and how it’s communicated. Linguistic markers of powerlessness are rhetorical expressions that detract from influence and persuasion. It’s the difference between powerless and powerful language.

Powerless language includes such rhetorical features as vocalized hesitations (“uh … um … you know …”), disclaimers, hedges (possibly, likely, probably, presumably, so to speak, seems, appears), excessive formal grammar, tag questions (statement followed by a question, as in “the agency director is in a meeting, isn’t she?”) and others.

Powerful language doesn’t include these features, and as a result has a perceived higher credibility and greater acceptance of a persuasive position.

Research has shown that powerless language generates negative impressions of a speaker’s sociability (attractiveness, likability) and dents their credibility, power and competence. (See “A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communicator intentions,” by James J. Bradac and Anthony Mulac, Communication Monographs, June 2, 2009.)

Know your audience because message complexity, even when using elements of powerful language, can detract from your efforts to influence or persuade — as can the perceptions of you as speaker and your message.

Exclusionary language hinders influence

Outstanding leaders, con artists and fraudsters all practice intelligent influence through the language they use. But it’s the objective or intent of the influence that labels it either ethical or manipulative. Leaders in all disciplines must be more mindful of the dangers of unethical or manipulative language and the impact it has on society.

Overt verbal evasiveness impedes, confuses and deceives to make informed decisions by others near impossible. Such exclusionary language will alienate your intended audience. And in the spirit of the rhyme-and-reason effect, “If you confuse, you lose.”

Donn LeVie, Jr., CFE, CEA, is a Fraud Magazine staff writer and a presenter and leadership positioning/influence strategist at ACFE Global Fraud Conferences since 2010. He’s president of Donn LeVie Jr. STRATEGIES, LLC, where he leads the Leadership Excelerator Blueprint coaching program and speaks on executive influence techniques and situational influence strategies. His website is donnleviejrstrategies.com. Contact him at donn@donnleviejrstrategies.com.