1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The persuasive effectiveness of implicit strategies, associated with reduced epistemic vigilance, may lead to their exploitation in conveying doubtful information in advertisement and propaganda. In political communication, presuppositions tend to specialize for the conveyance of questionable opinions and self-praise, while implicatures reveal a preferential association with face-threatening contents in general, where implicitness can allow speakers to count less evidently as offenders, at the same time being able to convey contents that can discredit the opponent.

In public debates, speakers do not necessarily aim at convincing the opponent, but at shaping the beliefs of the public at home. In Italian broadcast political debates, implicatures and presuppositions are used exactly with this function. Confirming this pattern, participants in public debates often “intercept” the opponent’s implicatures and make them explicit in order to reduce the persuasiveness effected by their being implicit. Sometimes this also offers the opportunity to provide explicitations that are different from the original implicature, caricaturizing the position of the opponent with a strawman effect.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00096.lom
2024-06-07
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brocca, Nicola, Davide Garassino, and Viviana Masia
    2016 “Politici nella rete o nella rete dei politici? L’implicito nella comunicazione politica italiana su Twitter.” Philologie im Netz111: 66–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Burkhardt, Petra
    2008 Two Types of Definites: Evidence for Presupposition Cost, inGrønn, Atle (ed.), Proceedings of SUB12, Oslo, Oslo University, 66–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Burkhardt, Petra, and Dietmar Roehm
    2007 “Differential Effects of Saliency: An Event-Related Brain Potential Study.” Neuroscience Letters4131: 115–120. 10.1016/j.neulet.2006.11.038
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.11.038 [Google Scholar]
  4. Christiansen, Morten, and Nick Chater
    2016 “The Now-or-Never Bottleneck: A Fundamental Constraint on Language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences391: 1–19. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
  5. de Saussure, Louis
    2013 “Background Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics591: 178–189. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014 “Présuppositions discursives, assertion d’arrière-plan et persuasion.” InRhétorique et cognition – Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives, ed. byThierry Herman, and Steve Oswald, 279–311. Lausanne: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Domaneschi, Filippo, Paolo Canal, Viviana Masia, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Valentina Bambini
    2018 “N400 and P600 Modulation in Presupposition Accommodation: The Effect of Different Trigger Types.” Journal of Neurolinguistics451: 13–35. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ducrot, Oswald
    1972Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Erickson, Thomas D., and Mark E. Mattson
    1981 “From Words to Meanings: A Semantic Illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior2051: 540–551. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90165‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferreira, Fernanda, Karl G. D. Bailey, and Vittoria Ferraro
    2002 “Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension”. Current Directions in Psychological Science11(1): 11–15. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
  11. Garassino, Davide, Viviana Masia, and Nicola Brocca
    2019 “Tweet as you Speak: The Role of Implicit Strategies and Pragmatic Functions in Political Communication: Data from a Diamesic Comparison.” Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (RILA)511: 187–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gigerenzer, Gerd
    2008 “Why Heuristics Work.” Perspectives on Psychological Science3(1): 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 Language611: 23–49. 10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.6.1.03giv [Google Scholar]
  14. Hertrich, Ingo, Mareike Kirsten, Sonja Tiemann, Sigrid Beck, Anja Whüle, Hermann Ackermann, and Bettina Rolke
    2015 “Context-Dependent Impact of Presuppositions on Early Magnetic Brain Responses during Speech Perception.” Brain and Language1481: 1–12. 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hornby, Peter A.
    1974 “Surface Structure and Presupposition.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13(5): 530–538. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80005‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80005-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Irwin, David E., Kathryn J. Bock, and Keith E. Stanovich
    1982 “Effects of Information Structure Cues on Visual Word Processing.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior211: 307–325. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(82)90637‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90637-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jouravlev, Olessia, Laura Stearns, Leon Bergen, Marianna Eddy, Edward Gibson, and Fedorenko, Evelina
    2016 “Processing Temporal Presuppositions: An Event-Related Potential Study.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience31(10): 1245–1256. 10.1080/23273798.2016.1209531
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1209531 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    1986L’Implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kiparsky, Carol, and Paul Kiparsky
    1971 “Fact.” InSemantics: An Interdisciplinary Reading, ed. byDanny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jakobovitz, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Langford, J., and V. M. Holmes
    1979 “Syntactic Presupposition in Sentence Comprehension.” Cognition71: 363–383. 10.1016/0010‑0277(79)90022‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90022-2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lewis, David
    1979 “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic81: 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  23. Loftus, Elizabeth F.
    1975 “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report.” Cognitive Psychology71: 550–572. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90023‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
    1993 “Clausole a contenuto presupposto e loro funzione discorsiva in italiano antico.” Quaderni del dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze41: 71–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1995 “Tratti linguistici della persuasione in pubblicità.” Lingua Nostra2/31: 41–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2009La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2016 “The ‘Exaptation’ of Linguistic Implicit Strategies.” SpringerPlus5(1): 1–24. 10.1186/s40064‑016‑2788‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2788-y [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017 “Bidirectional Reciprocal Reinforcement of Stereotypes and Implicatures in Persuasive Texts.” Italian Journal of Cognitive Sciences1/2017 a 6. 11:, 63–78. (10.12832/87356)
    https://doi.org/10.12832/87356 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2019La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2021 “Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence.” Frontiers in Communication61: 610807. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.610807
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.610807 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
    2014Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts. In Journal of Pragmatics611: 161–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
    2020 “La comunicazione implicita come dimensione di variazione tra tipi testuali.” InLinguaggi settoriali e specialistici. Sincronia, diacronia, traduzione, variazione, ed. byJacqueline Visconti, Manuela Manfredini, and Lorenzo Coveri, 113–120. Firenze: Cesati.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2015 “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 4, Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  34. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Capone, Alessandro
    2017 “Presuppositions as Cancellable Inferences.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 9, ed. byKeith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 465–487. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics11: 348–370. 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  36. Masia, Viviana, Paolo Canal, Irene Ricci, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, and Valentina Bambini
    2017 Presupposition of New Information as a Pragmatic Garden Path: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Journal of Neurolinguistics421: 31–48. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, and Hugo Mercier
    2018 “Saying, Presupposing and Implicating: How Pragmatics Modulates Commitment.” Journal of Pragmatics1331: 15–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mercier, Hugo
    2009 “La Théorie Argumentative du Raisonnement.” Ph.D. Thesis in Social Sciences, Mention Cognitive Sciences, E.H.E.S.S, Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011 “On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning.” Journal of Cognition and Culture111: 85–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Reboul, Anne
    2011 “A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication.” Studies in Pragmatics131: 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rigotti, Eddo
    1988 “Significato e senso”. In AA.VV, Ricerche di semantica testuale. Brescia: La Scuola, 71–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Russell, Bertrand
    1905 “On Denoting.” Mind14(56): 479–493. 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanford, Anthony J.
    2002 “Context, Attention and Depth of Processing during Interpretation.” InMind & Language171: 188–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sbisà, Marina
    2007Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2021 “ Presupposition and Implicature: Varieties of Implicit Meaning in Explicitation Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics1821: 176–188. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.027
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.027 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schwarz, Florian
    2015 “Presuppositions vs. Asserted Content in Online Processing.” InExperimental Perspectives on Presupposition: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, ed. byFlorian Schwarz, 89–108. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑07980‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_4 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 “False but Slow: Evaluating Statements with Non-referring Definites.” Journal of Semantics33(1): 177–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schwarz, Florian, and Sonja Tiemann
    2017 “Presupposition Projection in Online Processing.” Journal of Semantics34(1): 61–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & 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]
  51. Strawson, Peter F.
    1964 “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values.” Theoria3021: 96–118. Rep. in Idem, Logico-Linguistic Papers, London: Methuen 1971, 75–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Stalnaker, Robert
    2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy251: 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tiemann, Sonja, Schmid, Mareike, Rolke, Bettina, Ackermann, Hermann, Knapp, Julia, Beck, Sigrid
    2011 Psycholinguistic Evidence for Presuppositions: On-line vs. Off-line Data, InReich, Ingo, Horch, Eva, Pauly, Dennis (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15, Saarbrücken, Universaar – Saarland University Press, 581–597.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00096.lom
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00096.lom
Loading

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