Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 92–110

Chapter 4
Press releases of COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers

A critical view on promotion techniques

| University of Milan “La Statale”
Press releases dedicated to the creation of a new vaccine draw on a complex weave of information and promotion, including at times also elements of manipulation. This discourse-analytical study explores the recurrent motifs and arguments in a corpus of English-language press releases of three leading vaccine-manufacturers – AstraZeneca, Moderna and Gamaleya-RDIF in the period directly preceding the launch of active vaccination campaigns. The study applies the framework of (critical) discourse analysis with insights from argumentation theory and rhetoric. Two moves of the press release are compared: boilerplate descriptions, performing a mixed informative-promotional function, and citations, to which an explicitly promotional role is attributed. The findings identify a number of common leitmotifs with a partial overlap between boilerplates and citations, especially concerning the safety issue. The latter is explicitly mentioned only in citations, i.e. with reduced accountability for the company. Boilerplates explore enthymemes for persuasive and argumentative purposes to convince the audience of the vaccine validity. Moderna and AstraZeneca use convergent techniques of persuasive argumentation, whereas RDIF at times glides towards argumentative fallacies and manipulative strategies.
Keywords: promotion, persuasion, manipulation, press release, boilerplate description, citation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Press release as a genre
  • 3.Research questions and theoretical-methodological framework
  • 4.Corpus description and study design
  • 5.Findings
    • 5.1Boilerplate descriptions: About the company
    • 5.2Boilerplate descriptions: About the vaccine
    • 5.3Citations and attributions
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (39)
References
Amossy, R. (2005). The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Practices of Argumentation (pp. 87–98). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis. Argumentation, 23, 313–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle (2005). Poetics and Rhetoric, E. Garver (Ed.). Barnes & Noble.
Autzen, C. (2014). Press releases – the new trend in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 13(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, P. (2021). The lightning-fast quest for COVID vaccines – and what it means for other diseases. Nature (London), 589(7840), 16–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barel-Ben David, Y., Garty, E. S., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists. PloS One, 15(1), e0222250–e0222250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Gallimard.Google Scholar
Catenaccio, P. (2008). Press releases as a hybrid genre: Addressing the informative/promotional conundrum. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 18(1), 9–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degano, C. (2012). Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Corpora. An Integrated Approach, Arcipelago Edizioni.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and Power, 3rd edition. Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garzone, G. (2014). News production and scientific knowledge: exploring popularization as a process. In G. Bongo & G. Caliendo (Eds.), The Language of Popularization: Die Sprache der Popularisierung (pp. 73–107). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gravells, J. (2017). Semiotics and Verbal Texts How the News Media Construct a Crisis (1st ed. 2017.). Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klass, G. (2019). Boilerplate and Party Intent. Law and Contemporary Problems, 82(4), 105–137.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (pp. 380–402), Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, E. (2021). Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D. (2013). Constraining context selection: On the pragmatic inevitability of manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 190–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Les manipulations du discours de séduction : éclairage pragmatique. E-rea: Revue d’etudes anglophones. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, D. & Oswald, S. (2013). Biases and constraints in communication: Argumentation, persuasion and manipulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 137–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nettel, A. L., & Roque, G. (2012). Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation. Argumentation, 26(1), 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Packard, V. (1958). The Hidden Persuaders. Pocket Book.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (2011). A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication. Studies in Pragmatics, 13, 1–19.Google Scholar
Santulli, F. & Degano, C. (2022). Agreement in Argumentation. A Discursive Perspective. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J., Zufferey, S. & Oswald, S. (2021) The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives. Argumentation 35, 361–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1986). Fictional worlds. In M. Coulthard (Ed.) Talking about Text: Studies Presented to David Brazil on his Retirement. Discourse Analysis Monographs No. 13 (pp. 43–60). University of Birmingham English Language Research.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6), 701-721.Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria, 30, 96-118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Bott, L., Adams, R., Venetis, C. A., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., & Chambers, C. D. (2016). Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News. PloS One, 11(12), e0168217–e0168217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation 27 (1), 49-70.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: the Pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilfond, B. S., Zabrowski, J., & Johnson, L. M. (2019). The Limitations of “Boilerplate” Language in Informed Consent: Single IRB Review of Multisite Genetic Research in Military Personnel. American Journal of Bioethics, 19(4), 81–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, J. & Walton, D. (1989). Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1982. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar