Chilton Chapter 1 and 2

[Eunju Bang]

My last message didn't go through for some reason and I got kicked out when I
tried to send the message I wrote. This is going to be shorter than the other
one.

First of all, I liked the Chilton much better than Wodak and Reisigl. He is
clear and getting to the point.

In Chapter 1, Chilton tries to give us definition of micro and macro level of
politics and the relationship between politics and language. It is a necessary
step, but his citing Aristotle is so classic. His conclusion is that politics
are not possible without language.

In Chapter 2, Chilton wants us to give background knowledge of different
perspectives of language and thought. He gives three examples, but it is not
clear what HE believes. He introduces Grice's cooperative principle, but what
he wants to promote here is reciprocal altruism--I don't know it's his term or
from somewhere else--which means people who are engaged in conversation assume
that the other would be as much cooperative as they could do and not lie or
just say what they don't mean to. While they have this CP in mind--I think
it's more unconscious and kind of built-in capacity which is more like a
prerequisite if you believe language is mainly for communication--they still
have meta-representation ability that can detect if the other is telling a
lie. I think Chilton is missing something, though. I don't know if you are
familiar with game theory, but I think game theory better explains this. Game
theory is based on what each person's pursuing of their best interest can
influence on their choice of behavior. People do this using their logic so
it's not something they do impulsively. As you all know, in reality we do not
always cooperate each other in the conversation. We use subtle ways to mock
someone, or use sarcasm, etc. Sometimes, we don't even notice while someone
actually mocks at us, and come home with uneasy feeling about the conversation
knowing something is wrong but not exactly what is wrong. This can be a little
extreme, but we all know that conversation is not always cooperative. It is
conceivable that people have this "reciprocal altruism" in mind, but I don't
think that's the major player.

My question for the Ch. 1 and 2 is: if this meta-representation is something
all humans share, how can we explain that some people are more gullible than
others? Furthermore, how can't people detect politicians' lies or government's
propaganda?

Have a good weekend,

Eunju