Pragmatic Traps in Arabic False Advertisements

	Al-Noor Journal for Humanities
	https://jnh.alnoor.edu.iq/
Pragmatic Traps in Arabic False Advertisements     F  J AL-Neama1     and K H Ali2     1Al-Hamdaniya University,  2 University of Mosul, Iraq
Article information			Abstract
Article history: Received 3 May, 2024   Revised 6 April, 2024 Accepted 8 June, 2024			The present research paper investigates the Arabic deceptive language used by advertisers within a pragmatic framework. It sheds light on the issue concerning the tricks employed by advertisers that distort their advertisements in an attempt to affect their consumers' perceptions. Thus, it aims to identify the pragmatic traps in Arabic false advertisements. It is hypothesized that advertisers use false claims in their advertisements. It is also hypothesized that different pragmatic traps can be identified in false advertisements at the level of pragmatic aspects and theories. To achieve the aim of the study and verify its hypotheses, two independent models have been adopted for data analysis. The first one is concerned with identifying false advertisements. This model has been applied to 400 advertisement claims related to different types of products collected through an observation method from different sources. The second model is an eclectic one; it is concerned with identifying the pragmatic traps in false advertisements under the framework of Searle’s speech act theory (1979), Grice's cooperative principle theory (1975), Leech's politeness theory (1983), presupposition (1996), and deixis. After analyzing the data qualitatively. Finally, it is concluded that Arabic advertisements contain a specific type of deceptive advertisements which is false advertisements, and these false advertisements are presented differently through different strategies by advertisers. It is also concluded that different pragmatic traps can be identified in false advertisements at the level of pragmatic aspects and theories.
Keywords: Pragmatic, False Advertisements deceptive langue advertisers
Correspondence: [email protected]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.69513/jnfh.v2.i3.a4 ©Authors, 2024, College of Education, Alnoor University. This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

 

 

الخدع التداولية في الإعلانات العربية الكاذبة

 

فاطمة فاروق جاسم النعمة¹  وكمال حازم حسين علي²

 

¹ جامعة الحمدانية ، ²جامعة الموصل، العراق

 

ملخص البحث:

تبحث هذه الدراسة في اللغة العربية الخادعة التي يستخدمها المعلنون في إطار عملي. تلقي الضوء على المشكلة المتعلقة بالحيل التي يستخدمها المعلنون لتحريف إعلاناتهم في محاولة للتأثير على تصورات المستهلكين. وبالتالي ، تهدف إلى التعرف على الخدع التداولية في الإعلانات العربية الكاذبة. تفترض أن المعلنين يستخدمون ادعاءات كاذبة في إعلاناتهم كما تفترض انه بالامكان التعرف على خدع تداولية مختلفة في الإعلانات الكاذبة على مستوى النظريات التداولية. لتحقيق هدف الدراسة والتحقق من فرضياتها تم اعتماد نموذجين مستقلين لتحليل البيانات. الاول هو نموذج يختص بتحديد الادعاءات الكاذبة .تم تطبيق هذا النموذج على 400 إعلان يعود لأنواع مختلفة من المنتجات .تم جمع هذه الأعلانات من خلال طريقة المراقبة من مصادر مختلفة. النموذج الثاني انتقائي, و يهتم بتحديد الخدع التداولية في الإعلانات الكاذبة في إطار نظرية سيرل لأفعال الكلام (١٩٧٩) ، ونظرية المبدأ التعاوني لجرايس (١٩٧٥) ، ونظرية التهذب اللغوي (١٩٨٣) ، والافتراض المسبق (١٩٩٦) ، والاشارة المحورية. بعد تحليل البيانات نوعياً, خلصت الدراسة إلى أن الإعلانات العربية تحتوي على نوع معين من الإعلانات المخادعة وهي الإعلانات الكاذبة، ويتم تقديم هذه الإعلانات الكاذبة بشكل مختلف من خلال استراتيجيات مختلفة من قبل المعلنين لخداع المستهلكين. ويخلص أيضًا إلى أنه بالامكان التعرف على خدع تداولية مختلفة في الإعلانات الكاذبة على مستوى النظريات التداولية.

الكلمات المفتاحية: التداولية ،إعلانات كاذبة

 

1.Introduction

Communication around the world can be of various techniques, forms, means, and possibilities. An advertisement (henceforth ad) is an act of communication, more precisely it can be considered as one-way mediated communication (Fairclough, 2003 1) which is “directed to a non-answer hearer or reader” (Al-Hindawi and Al-Temimi,2012  (2) .The main aim for advertisers is to promote their products, ideas, and services in a way that convinces and attracts a large number of targeted consumers and they compete with each other in presenting as an attractive ad as possible . Recently, with the era of modernity, a lot of means of communication are spread widely around the world, especially with the emergence of the internet which is of great help for advertisers to do their job easier than before. Advertisers nowadays can use websites and exploit the different applications of social media like Facebook, Instagram, youtube, etc. in promoting their claims and exposing their products. It can be said that such means of communication have the advantage of simplifying the promotional act for advertisers, and through which ads can be overflowed to anyone in every single place (3). However, there are many different techniques can be used by advertisers with the purpose of getting the targeted consumers to either reinforce or change their attitude or behavior towards some products and brands. In this respect, advertisers can manipulate, control, convince, persuade, influence, inform and even deduce and deceive; thus, there is a variety in the level of what advertisers do (4). In particular, the deceptive language that is used in advertising communication is the concern of the current study.

2. Aim of the Study

The present study aims at identifying the pragmatic traps in Arabic False ads.

3. Hypotheses

The present study poses the following hypotheses:

1.Advertisers use false claims in their advertisements.

2.Different pragmatic traps can be identified in false ads at the level of the pragmatic aspects and theories.

4. Statement of the Problem

   In marketing context, particularly in the process of promotion, advertisers tend to manipulate the persuasive strategy and misrepresent certain ad. claims. Consequently, this misrepresentation can affect consumers' perception, processing, and comprehending of an ad. As a result, such ad. claims may be problematic; ordinary consumers may face problems in figuring out the appropriate interpretation of a given ad. claim and this is what advertisers aim to achieve when presenting their ad claims.

5. Deceptive Advertising

    In modern life, a variety of ads has been widely spread. Individuals are exposed daily to various types of ads intentionally and unintentionally. Ads in the modern era occupy a large space in each community. That's why ads have become an important tool and mean of communication that is indispensable in transmitting the information from advertisers to the target party. For advertisers, marketers, and sellers, the main goal is to win consumers' satisfaction and capture their attention by using special kinds of tactics, tools, and techniques through which they can convince and persuade them to buy the product. In this regard, advertisers often put great effort to make an ad as effective as possible.

    People usually are influenced by ads that are highly designed and well presented. They can be convinced easily by certain information, claims, or ideas whenever they are presented in a highly stylistic way, especially if they serve their needs and interests. However, in certain cases, in an attempt to raise their sales profits, advertisers present certain claims with an intention to deceive the targeted consumers (5). By doing so, they give rise to a specific type of ads to exist which are "deceptive ads".

6. Pragmatics in advertisements:

  The main core of the present study is concerned with deceptive ads. It deals with the deceptive concept from a linguistic and pragmatic point of view, particularly with the linguistic input that is asserted by many adverts to fulfill their intention to deceive consumers and concerned with the constituents of the deceptive advertising discourse that is designed in a highly stylistic way to be effective. The pragmatic approach is concerned with those elements which depend on extra-linguistic contextual information and the hearer's inference abilities. That's why “ads are rarely identified in isolation but rather identified in a context” (6). Understanding the linguistic representation of a specific advertised message is not merely a matter of decoding, thus a good interpretation of ads is best approached from pragmatic perspectives. In this respect, the deceptive language used in ads can be investigated within the aspects and theories of pragmatics like speech act theory, Cooperative principle theory (henceforth CP), Politeness theory, Presuppositions, and deixis.  

6.1 Speech act

   People usually perform different types of acts in their daily life, either physical or mental acts like walking, playing, writing, thinking, imagining, etc. In addition, another type of act can be performed by the use of language which is called a speech act (Dawson and Phelan, 2016 (7) which can be considered as a basic unit of linguistic interaction (8).

    Speech act theory is one of the theories that is included within the framework of pragmatics since it requires an intention on the part of the speaker and inference on the part of the hearer respected to contextual factors; thus, it is inherently a pragmatic theory (9).

 

6.1.1 Searle's taxonomy of speech acts

    Searle (1979) (10) presents a special taxonomy of illocutionary acts which consists of five basic categories or types of illocutionary acts one can perform. The following are the categories of speech acts as suggested by (Searle 1979) (10)

1.Assertives:

  The aim of assertive speech acts is to commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition. Speech acts that have the sense of assertion include: complaining, boasting, concluding, deducing, explaining, describing, claiming, etc.

2.Directives:

  Directive speech acts are performed when the speaker attempts to get the addressee to do a specific action, as in requesting, asking, ordering, praying, commanding, permitting, questioning, challenging, begging, advising, etc.

3.Commisives:

   Commissive speech acts commit the speaker to do a specific action in the future, as with promising, offering, threatening, etc.

4.Expressives:

   Through expressive speech acts, people can express their feelings, as in thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating, deploring, etc.

5.Declarations:

   Performing declarative speech acts result in an immediate change in the status of the addressee. To successfully perform a specific declarative act, the speaker must have the authority and power to do so, as in declaring war, marrying, christening, and nominating.

  To perform a specific speech act successfully, speakers should fulfill certain conditions suggested by Searle (1969) (10). Searle (1969) (10) suggests a classification of four kinds of conditions:

 1.The propositional content condition: The content of the utterance should count as a given speech act.

2.The preparatory condition: It requires that the speaker should have beliefs in doing certain acts as well as to have the power and authority over the hearer.

3.Sincerity condition: It is concerned with the intention of the speaker or his psychological state.

4.Essential condition: It is what makes the hearer performs the act which is motivated by the speaker's intention.

6.2 The cooperative principle

Grice (1975  (11) demonstrates what people typically do when they use language to communicate with each other. He suggests that there is a principle of human interaction in general and this principle is an impulse towards cooperative behavior, he puts this with relation to language use in what he labeled "Cooperative principle".   Grice's CP entails “make your contribution such as is required at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (ibid). Grice then identifies four maxims through which people can follow to be cooperative in their communication behavior. These maxims have been presented in his famous study "Logic and Conversation" (ibid: 45, 46) as follows:

1.Maxim of quantity:

• Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
• Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

2.Maxim of quality:

• Do not say what you believe to be false.
• Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

3.Maxim of relation:

• Be relevant.

4.maxim of manner

• Avoid obscurity of expression.
• Avoid ambiguity.
• Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
• Be orderly.

   People can behave differently concerning these suggested maxims (Levinson,1983) (12). Accordingly, people either observe, float, violate, or opt-out of these maxims in their conversation (Grice,1975) (11). The matter of behaving according to these maxims is determined by the speaker himself. Whether observing, floating, violating, or even opting out these maxims, this is the speaker's choice, and there might be a specific goal that is wanted to achieve behind this choice. All four cases can be explained below:

1.Observing the maxims: By observing the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, or manner, interlocutors are likely to be cooperative with each other.

2.Floating of the maxims: It is so intentional on the part of the speaker and that the hearer is expected to be aware of this floating and the hidden

3. Violating the maxims: To violate the maxim is to fail to observe it. One might violate the maxim deliberately to serve specific needs and has the intention to mislead the hearer so as the hearer cannot realize that the maxim is being violated meaning of an utterance.

4.Opting out the maxims:

  Opting out is the last way in which the speakers go against the requirements of the maxims. Speakers may refuse to be cooperative in their discussion by proposing statements like No comment, nothing to say, or being silent.

6.3 Politeness:

   The concept of politeness, socially, refers to participants' behavior as how to be nice and shows respect and consideration for each other (13). Linguistically, politeness is concerned with speakers' choices for certain forms or expressions through interaction with each other in a certain social context(ibid). Those expressions help to make the conversation as effective as possible.   Leech (1983) (14) presents a pragmatic account of politeness by proposing the PP which is concerned with seeking concord and avoiding discord to maintain the social relationship. On the other hand, Leech bases his principle on two aspects which are:

1.Maximizing politeness expressions.

2.Minimizing impoliteness expressions.

    In this regard, Leech postulates six maxims that people need to follow as far as they can to apply this principle. The following are the suggested maxims that can be considered as a complement to Grice's maxims of his CP theory (Leech, 1983: (14):

1.Tact maxim: It is based on the cost-benefit scale which is concerned with: a. Minimize the cost to the hearer. b. Maximize the benefit to the hearer.

2.The Generosity maxim: This maxim is concerned with:

1. Minimizing benefit to self. b. Maximizing cost to self.

 3.The Approbation maxim: It is concerned with:

1. Minimizing dispraise of others. b. Maximizing praise of others.

4.The Modesty maxim: It is concerned with:

1. Minimizing praise of self. b. Maximizing dispraise of self.

5.The Agreement maxim: This maxim can be observed through:

1. Minimizing disagreement between self and other.
2. Maximizing agreement between self and other.

6.The maxim of sympathy: This maxim involves:

1. Minimizing antipathy between self and other
2. Maximizing sympathy between self and other

6.4 Presupposition:

     A presupposition is a kind of pragmatic inference that relies on the actual linguistic structure of a given sentence (Levinson, 1983:12). Yule (1996) (15) states that presupposition is “What is assumed to be the case prior to making any utterance”. According to Yule (1996), many types of linguistic forms are represented by words, phrases, or specific structures through which potential types of presuppositions can be identified. In this concern, Yule(1996), (15) distinguishes five types of presuppositions, namely: existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presuppositions, non-factive presupposition, and counterfactual presupposition.

6.5 Deixis:

 Deixis is a phenomenon of "pointing out via language" which means using certain linguistic expressions to point or to indicate some entities outside language . Birner (2013) (9) states four major types of deixis, namely personal deixis, spatial deixis, temporal deixis, and Discourse deixis.

7.Model of Analysis

  To fulfill the desired aim of the present study, two independent models have been adopted for the purpose of data analysis. The first model is concerned with identifying false claims in Arabic ads. Since there are no objective criteria in identifying false ads, four components are determined by the researchers as the cases that are deemed to be issues of false claims, namely: Exaggeration, unreasonable claims, unproven claims, and subjective claims.

   The second model consists of all theories and aspects of pragmatics like Searle’s speech act theory (10), Grice’s cooperative principle theory (1975) (11), Leech's politeness principle theory (1983) (14), presupposition (1996), and deixis; this eclectic model is concerned with identifying the pragmatic traps in misleading ads.

8. Data collection

  The data corpus of the present study consists of 400 ad. claims that have been collected randomly from two main different sources which are social media and outdoor media. Few of these ads. are claims written on certain products. The collected data is related to different types of products like cosmetics, fashion, food, and diet products, but it is mainly concerned with cosmetic products. Two means have been used to collect this amount of data. The researchers' phone cameras have been used to collect data from outdoor media. In addition, many screenshots have been taken to collect different types of data posted on social media.

9. Procedure of Analysis

   Based on the adopted model of identifying false claims, the false ads will be identified. Subsequently, according to the adopted model of identifying pragmatic traps, all the potential pragmatic traps will be identified in false claims. Accordingly, this process facilitates qualitative analysis.

10. Data Analysis and Findings

  The present section tackles analyzing the collected data qualitatively according to the four categories of false claims as well as identifying the potential pragmatic traps.

10.1 Exaggeration: One of the strategies that are adopted by most advertisers through their promotional activity is to exaggerate their claims. Advertisers deliberately attempt to give a highly exaggerated description to the quality or attributes of their products to the extent that it would not be matching the performance of the product itself. In addition, they sometimes join their claims with exaggerated numeric expressions as well. The following is an example of an ad including an exaggerated numeric expression:

(1) . طبيعي وفعال 100% Natural and Active 100%  

   This claim has been frequently used by advertisers in their promotional activity particularly when they promote certain cosmetic products. The advertisers deliberately present such a guarantee to express how the advertised products are highly effective and typical in the results that they achieve. Moreover, no evidence has been mentioned by the advertisers that proves the truth conditions of such claim; it is hard to verify the guarantee that is provided by the advertiser in this exaggerated way. The use of such exaggerated numeric expressions may result in problems for both advertisers and consumers. Consumers may be deceived and disappointed after getting unexpected results that don’t match the presented claim. Accordingly, advertisers can be accused of being dishonest and having no credibility as long as they present such nonfactual claims.

  An example related to the exaggeration in description can be presented as follows:

(2). الكريم المعجزة المعالج لكل أنواع الشعر من أستعمال فوري واحد

   The miracle cream for treating all hair types from one immediate use

   This ad claim has been observed through promoting a specific hair treatment product on Instagram. Exaggeration in describing the exposed product has been committed three times by the advertiser. First, he describes this treatment cream as a miracle to imply how one can get perfectly unbelievable results by using it. Second, the advertiser states that this cream has the ability to treat all hair types. Behind this generalization, he implies that this cream works effectively with anyone who uses it regardless the different hair problems that one might suffer from, because, as the advertiser claims, this cream treats whatever problems consumers may have with their hair. Third, the advertiser apparently exaggerates describing his advertised product by claiming that this cream can achieve the desired results and treat all hair problems from one immediate use. It can be said that this cream may be effective in reducing certain hair problems but this is hard to be achieved from one immediate use particularly if the problem that the consumer suffers from is very complex. However, all hair problems cannot disappear by using this cream or any other cream only one time because all hair problems often take a long time in order to be treated. Continuity of treatment is something very essential to get as satisfactory results as possible. With regard to this presented claim, the advertiser deliberately states an exaggerated claim, and since it is exaggerated so it is to be a nonfactual claim.

   According to the two above-mentioned claims, three pragmatic traps can be identified under the framework of speech act theory, CP theory, and Leech's pp theory. As a speech act, the above-mentioned claims are considered as assertive speech acts. The pragmatic trap behind such assertive speech acts is represented by the advertiser's intention not to fulfill the sincerity condition due to the nonfactual claims that have been presented by the advertiser deliberately to deceive consumers. Those nonfactual claims result in another pragmatic trap which is represented by violating the maxim of quality. According to CP theory, the advertisers seem to be uncooperative in their communication with their targeted consumers. Moreover, the praising sense that is implied behind the above two assertive claims results in violating one of Leech's PP maxims, more precisely, it causes a violation in the modesty maxim because advertisers maximize praising their displayed products by the use of exaggeration in describing their attributes. Violation of the modesty maxim represents the third pragmatic trap that is identified in the above-mentioned claims.

10. 2 Unreasonable Claims

   In Arabic written deceptive ads, unreasonable claims have been presented by many advertisers in promoting specific products, offers, or services, etc. Examples related to unreasonable claims are analyzed in the present section to identify the potential pragmatic traps they may have. Throughout the following example, the advertiser states an unreasonable claim to promote the prices inside his mall:

(3). نبيع كل شيء بخسارة We sell everything with a loss

   This ad claim has been observed printed on a big poster hanging on a certain mall specialized in selling women's clothes. By stating such an ad claim, the advertiser tends to deceive his targeted consumers by making them believe that inside this mall they can find satisfactory prices in a sense they can be less than other prices one may find in other malls; thus consumers may assume that everything being offered inside this mall may not cost them too much to buy. In other words, it can be said that behind this claim the advertiser tends to reduce the value of his profit and implicitly minimize the cost to his consumer. However, this claim can be unreasonable with having a sense of contradiction in that if the advertiser, as he claims, sells everything with loss then he should stop doing so and close his mall, rather he continues doing so although no profit has been gained. Accordingly, it is to be said that regardless the level of prices and the quantity that is being sold daily in this mall, profit can be achieved inevitably beside any marketing activity. That's why this claim has a sense of falsity so it is to be identified as an untrue claim.

  This claim contains three pragmatic traps which can be identified by three interpretive tools which are represented by speech act theory, CP theory, and politeness theory.

  Starting with speech act theory, the presented claim is identified as an assertive speech act by which the advertiser asserts to his consumers that he gains no profit besides his marketing activity. But this assertive act hasn’t been performed appropriately because one of the felicity conditions has not been fulfilled which is the sincerity condition. That's to say, the intention behind presenting such a nonfactual claim is to deceive consumers; that's why the assertion sense of this speech act is misfired and this is the first pragmatic trap of this claim.

  When an individual says what is to be false, he seems to be uncooperative by violating the quality maxim. The same is with the presented claim, the advertiser violates the maxim of quality by asserting such a nonfactual claim. This violation is the second pragmatic trap that is identified in this claim.

 With regard to Leech's PP, it has been noticed that one of the PPs' maxims has been observed which is the generosity maxim in that the advertiser minimizes benefit to himself by claiming that he sells everything with loss and maximizes the benefits to consumers by implying that everything they want to purchase may not cost them too much. Being polite by observing the generosity maxim results in a trap through which consumers can be deceived.

10.3 Unproven Claims

These are claims that are presented without any existing evidence that may prove them. Unproven claims can be further explained when advertisers give the advertised product a certain classification as if it is built on a certain study that is not be provided by the advertisers through their promotional activity as in the following example:

(4). الغسول رقم واحد عالميا The lotion number one universally

  This ad claim has been presented by the advertiser on his Instagram account to promote a specific brand of lotion used by women for keeping their skin pure and fresh. What qualifies such a claim as being false is the absence of the evidence that proves this claim. That's to say, no previous statistical studies have been presented by the advertiser as evidence to support and prove that this advertised lotion is universally number one. By doing so, the advertiser intends to raise the value and the quality of the advertised product as well as to deceive his consumers.

  However, the presented claim holds two pragmatic traps. The first one can be identified according to speech act theory and the second one can be identified under the framework of CP theory. As a speech act, this claim is considered as an assertive speech act by which the advertiser tends to make his words fit the world. Due to the deceptive intention behind presenting such an unproven claim, the advertiser misfires the sincerity condition that’s why it will be an insincere assertive speech act. Misfiring the sincerity condition will result in a trap by which the advertiser tends to deceive consumers.

  According to CP theory, since this claim has been presented without any existing evidence, the quality maxim has been deliberately violated by the advertiser. Thus, he is not cooperative in his communication with his targeted consumers. Accordingly, the pragmatic trap is represented by the violation of quality maxim through which the advertiser aims to achieve his deceptive goal.

10.4 Subjective Claims

   Subjective claims are claims that have a high level of subjectivity to the extent that they cannot be verified by consumers so that the advertisers exploit this point in presenting nonfactual claims. For example:

(5). أسعارنا أرخص من أي مجمع، شرط أقل سعر بالموصل 

Our mall's prices are cheaper than any other mall, in no way, the lowest prices exist in Mosul.      

    This ad claim has been written at the end of a specific ad discourse that is posted by the advertiser on his Facebook account. It has been noticed that this claim is not concerned with promoting a specific product; the advertiser ignores mentioning anything related to the quality, attributes, or performance of his products. Rather, in his promotion, the advertiser is concerned with promoting the level of prices related to all products being offered inside his Mall. In an attempt to minimize their cost, some consumers are usually interested in purchasing low-priced products, that’s why the advertiser deliberately uses the two comparative adjectives "cheaperارخص، " and "lowestأقل، " to indicate that all products in his mall are with low price in order to attract as many consumers as possible .However, classifying such a claim as a false claim has two reasons. On one hand, this claim cannot be ever proved by the advertiser because the advertiser can't check the prices of all other malls that exist in Mosul. In this sense, this comparison has been made subjectively by the advertiser. Accordingly, this subjectivity prevents consumers to verify the validity of such a claim to the extent it cannot be ever verified by consumers. However, the advertisers usually take the advantage of being communicated indirectly with their consumers in presenting deceptively such subjective claims which neither can be proved by the advertiser and nor can be believed and verified by consumers.

  In terms of speech act theory, the presented claim with its two statements represents a declarative speech act. Throughout the first statement, the advertiser informs his consumers that prices inside his mall are cheaper than any other mall, then he asserts his claim by stating that his mall prices are lesser than any other mall exists in Mosul. Due to the subjectivity that both presented speech acts have, the advertiser is insincere, because by this subjectivity he tends to deceive his consumers. Accordingly, the sincerity condition that has not been fulfilled is the first pragmatic trap that can be identified in this claim.

  According to CP theory, due to presenting such a nonfactual claim to deceive consumers, the advertiser violates the maxim of quality. This violation is the second pragmatic trap that this claim has.

  The third pragmatic trap can be identified with regard to Leech's PP. By using certain words such as "cheaperارخص ،" and "lowest اقل، ", the advertiser observes the tact maxim by maximizing the benefit and minimizing the cost to his consumers. Moreover, another maxim has been observed which is the generosity maxim by which the advertiser tends to minimize the benefit and maximize the cost to himself. Accordingly, observing these two maxims in presenting such a false claim results in a pragmatic trap by which the advertiser intends to deceive his consumers.

 Throughout the word "our prices أسعارنا", the advertiser uses an implicit deictic expression which is represented by the personal deictic " we, نحن" which can be considered as a trap, in a sense that the advertiser associates this claim to himself to deceive consumers.

  The data that has been analyzed results in many findings. To deceive consumers, advertisers tend to present false ads by following certain strategies in designing their claims. According to the pragmatic traps that have been identified in false claims, it has been found that when advertisers tend to deceive consumers by performing a specific type of speech act, their sincerity condition is not considered; this condition almost has not been fulfilled by advertisers in the deceptive context. Accordingly, this may result in many insincere speech acts; the insincerity in performing a specific speech act leads to a pragmatic trap as it is noticed throughout the qualitative data analysis.

   Concerning CP theory, it has been observed that advertisers are not cooperative with their consumers when making deceptive promotions. They violate maxim of quality. By doing so, their claims may result in many implications which can be of a great chance to be exploited by advertisers to make a pragmatic trap to deceive consumers. 

   As far as Leech's PP theory is concerned, it has been observed that in a certain context, advertisers may observe the PP while in other contexts this principle has been violated particularly with those ads that have a sense of praising. Thus, it can be said that behaving differently towards this principle may achieve deception but the observation or the violation of this principle may differ in the level of deception they achieve.

   According to presuppositional traps, it has been found that when advertisers design their claims linguistically, they don't too much consider such a type of traps; such traps may not be as effective as other types of traps.

  It has been observed also that there are certain claims certain personal pronouns which are used by advertisers in an attempt to make a specific reference either to their consumers or to themselves. In terms of deixis, these personal pronouns are called person deictic expressions which are concerned with referring to a specific individual in a certain context. These person deictic expressions have been identified in false ads as traps adopted by advertisers to deceive consumers.

11.Conclusion

     Based on the analysis of the data, it can be concluded that:

1. Arabic ads contain a specific type of deceptive ads which is false ads, and these false ads are presented by advertisers through different strategies to deceive their consumers.
2. Different types of pragmatic traps can be identified at the level of pragmatic aspects and theories.

References

1.Berner  B.G.  Introduction to Pragmatics. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.2013.

2.Al-Hindawi  F, and Al-Temimi, S.   Pragmatic Structure and Pragmatic Strategies of Commercial Advertisements. J College of Human Sci. 2012;13:1-42.

3.Fialova L. The Language of Advertising : An Analysis of A Technology Company Advertisements. Diploma thesis, Masaryk University.2017.

4.Miyazaki A. How Do Marketers Manipulate Us?2020.https://www.youtube. com/watch?v= lpX m0q94pWc.

5.Danciu V.  Manipulative Marketing: Persuasion and Manipulation of The Consumer Through Advertising. Theoretical and Applied.2014.

6.Tanaka  K.  Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan. London and New York : Taylor & Francis Routledge.1994.

7.Dawson H C and Phelan, M.  Language Files : Materials For an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Columbus. The Ohio State University Press. 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.Griffiths, P. (2006) An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

9.Birner  B  J.  Introduction to Pragmatics.UK. Wiley-Blackwell.2013.

10.Searl  J R. Expression and Meaning : Studies in The Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1979.

11.Grice P.  Logic and Conversation. In: Cole and Morgan eds. Syntax and Semantics 3 : Speech acts New York: Academic Press.1975.;pp: 41-58.

12.Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.Chapman S. Pragmatics.US. Palgrave. Economics. XXI (2(591).2011;pp:19-34.

14.Leech G. Principle of Pragmatics. Longman: London and New York.1983.

15.Yule   G. Pragmatics. Oxford and New York: Oxford university press.1996.

 

 

Article View: 248

PDF Download: 99