Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750



The paper provides evidence that linguistic strategies based on the implicit encoding of information are effective means of deceptive argumentation and manipulation, as they can ease the acceptance of doubtful arguments by distracting addressees’ attention and by encouraging shallow processing of doubtful contents. The persuasive and manipulative functions of these rhetorical strategies are observed in commercial and political propaganda. Linguistic implicit strategies are divided into two main categories: the implicit encoding of content, mainly represented by implicatures and vague expressions, and the implicit encoding of responsibility, mainly represented by presuppositions and topics. The paper also suggests that the amount of persuasive implicitness contained in texts can be measured. For this purpose, a measuring model is proposed and applied to some Italian political speeches. The possible social usefulness of this approach is showed by sketching the operation of a website in which the measuring model is used to monitor contemporary political speeches.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aslanidis, Paris
    2016 “Populist Social Movements of the Great Recession.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly213: 301–321. 10.17813/1086‑671X‑20‑3‑301
    https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-20-3-301 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bredart, Serge and Karin Modolo
    1988 “Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion.” Acta Psychologica67: 135–144. 10.1016/0001‑6918(88)90009‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90009-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Caffi, Claudia
    2003 “Mitigation”. InPragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. byMarina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 257–285. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 “Mezzi linguistici della mitigazione in italiano: risultati e prospettive di ricerca”. In: Grammatica e pragmatica, = Atti del XXXIV Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia – Roma, 22–24 ottobre 2009, ed. byFranca Orletti, Anna Pompei, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, 147–189. Roma: Il Calamo.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chafe, Wallace
    1987 “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. InCoherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. byRussell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  6. 1992 “Information Flow in Speaking and Writing”. InThe Linguistics of Literacy, ed. byPamela Downing, Susan D. Lima and Michael Noonan, 17–29. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.21.05cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.21.05cha [Google Scholar]
  7. Christiansen, Morten and Nick Chater
    2016 “The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences39:1–19. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
  8. Cresti, Emanuela
    2000Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Danler, Paul
    2005 “Morpho-syntactic and textual realizations as deliberate pragmatic argumentative linguistic tools?” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century, ed. byLouis De Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 45–60. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.17.04dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.04dan [Google Scholar]
  10. Ducrot, Oswald
    1972Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Erickson, Thomas D., and Mark E. Mattson
    1981 “From words to meanings: A semantic illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior205: 540–551. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90165‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gigerenzer, Gerd
    2008 “Why heuristics work”. Perspectives on Psychological Science31, 20–29. 10.1111/j.1745‑6916.2008.00058.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00058.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, Talmy
    1982 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space”. Studies in Language61: 23–49. 10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, Herbert P.
    1957 “Meaning”. The Philosophical Review66: 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1975 “Logic and Conversation”. InSyntax and Semantics vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    1986L’Implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Krebs, John R., and Richard Dawkins
    1984 “Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation”. InBehavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. byJohn R. Krebs, and Nicholas B. Davies, 380–402. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lewiński, Marcin
    2011 “Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation”. Argumentation25(2): 469–497. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9227‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9227-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewis, David
    1979 “Scorekeeping in a language game”. Journal of Philosophical Logic8: 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  20. Loftus, Elizabeth F.
    1975 “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report”. Cognitive Psychology7: 550–572. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90023‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
    1993 “Clausole a contenuto presupposto e loro funzione discorsiva in italiano antico”. Quaderni del dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze4: 71–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1995 “Tratti linguistici della persuasione in pubblicità”. Lingua Nostra2(3): 41–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009a “Grice elettorale”. InLinguistica e Società. Studi in onore di Franca Orletti, ed. byMarilena Fatigante, Laura Mariottini, and Eleonora Sciubba, 172–184. Milano: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2009bLa struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2016 “The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies”. SpringerPlus51: 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2019La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
    2014 “Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts”. Journal of Pragmatics61: 161–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2015 “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning”. InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 465–487. Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Machetti, Sabrina
    2006Uscire dal vago. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2011 “La vaghezza linguistica come problema della pragmatica. Questioni teoriche e dati a confronto”. Esercizi filosofici6: 195–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mercier, Hugo
    2009 La Théorie Argumentative du Raisonnement. PhD dissertation, E.H.E.S.S.Paris.
  32. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2011 “Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences34(2): 57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  33. Oswald, Steve, Didier Maillat and Louis de Saussure
    2016 “Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication”. InVerbal communication Handbooks of communicative science3, ed. byLouis de Saussure and Andrea Rocci, 509–534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    1902 “Vague”. InJ. M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Petrilli, Raffaella
    2016La lingua politica. Lessico e strutture argomentative. Carocci, Roma.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Reboul, Anne
    2011 “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics13: 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Rigotti, Eddo
    1988 “Significato e senso”. InRicerche di semantica testuale, ed. byAA.VV., 71–120. Brescia: La Scuola.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. de Saussure, Louis
    2013 “Background relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics59, 178–189. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. de Saussure, Louis and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur. Pour un point de vue subjectiviste”. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française29: 215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sbisà, Marina
    2007Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara and Vittorio Girotto
    1995 “Relevance Theory explains the Selection Task”. Cognition57:31–95. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00666‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00666-M [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance”. Mind and Language25(4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 “Common ground”. Linguistics and Philosophy25: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  44. Strawson, Peter F.
    1964 “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values”. Theoria302: 96–118. Rep. in Idem, Logico-Linguistic Papers, London: Methuen 1971, 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman
    1974 “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science185(4157): 1124–1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  46. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Voghera, Miriam
    2012 “Chitarre, violini, banjo e cose del genere”. InPer Tullio De Mauro, ed. byAnna M. Thornton and Miriam Voghera, 429–460. Roma: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error