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



The idea that manipulation relies more heavily on implicit than on explicit communication has been the plank of several earlier and recent debates on argumentation and speaker roles in interactions. The present contribution will inquire into the nature of the use of implicit communication in political discourse; notably, analyzing the distribution of presuppositions and implicatures in two political debates, it will be argued that the use of these two implicit communicative devices – and, particularly, that of  – is likely to correlate with the expression of disagreement, notably through aggressive and blasting contents, more often than with other content types. This tendency will be accounted for by considering the evidential meaning presuppositions and implicatures add to an utterance, which contributes to modulating both speaker’s commitment to truth and source identification on the part of the receiver. Data also show that, when face-threatening contents are exchanged, presuppositions epitomize by far the most preferred strategy in both debates.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Lloyd B.
    1986 “Evidentials, Paths of Change, and Mental Maps: Typologically Regular Asymmetries.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. byChafe Wallace, and Joanna Nichols, 273–312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, Wallace, and Joanna Nichols
    (eds.) 1986Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, Nj: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: On the Close Relationship between two Different Categories”. Functions of Language16(1): 44–62. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  6. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh
    2014Pragmatics and the English Language. UK: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑39391‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dayter, Daria
    2014 “Self-Praise in Micro-blogging.” Journal of Pragmatics611: 91–102. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.021 [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Errico, Francesca, Isabella Poggi, and Rocco Corriero
    2014 “Aggressive Language and Insults in Digital Political Participation.” International Conferences ICT 2014: 105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. de Haan, Ferdinand
    1999 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries.” Southwest Journal of Linguistics18(1): 83–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. de Saussure, Louis, and Steve Oswald
    2009 Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française291: 215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, Ash
    2016 “Stance and Identity in Twitter Hashtags.” Language@Internet131. Available at : Stance and Identity in Twitter Hashtags – Language@Internet (languageatinternet.org).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferreira, Fernanda, and Nikole Patson
    2007 “The ‘Good Enough’ Approach to Language Comprehension.” Language and Linguistics Compass1(1–2): 71–83. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1971 “Verbs of Judging. An Exercise in Semantic Description.” InStudies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. byCharles J. Fillmore, and Terence D. Langendoen, 272–289. New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Friedman, Viktor
    1986 “Evidentiality in the Balkans. Macedonian and Albanian.” InEvidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. byWallace Chafe, and Joanna Nichols, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Garassino, Davide, Viviana Masia, and Nicola Brocca
    2019 “Tweet as You Speak. The Role of Implicit Strategies and Pragmatic Functions in Political Communications: Data from a Diamesic Comparison.” Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata2–31: 187–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 [1989] “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, Vol.91, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hintz, Daniel J., and Diane M. Hintz
    2017 “The Evidential Category of Mutual Knowledge in Quechua.” Lingua186–1871: 88–109. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hodges, Adam
    2020 “Plausible Deniability”. InLanguage in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies, ed. byJanet McIntosh, and Norma Mendoza-Denton, 137–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108887410.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108887410.009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kamio, Akio
    1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kiparsky, Carol, and Paul Kiparsky
    1971 “Fact.” InSemantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, ed. byDanny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jakobovitz, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Jayeon, and Xu, Weiai
    2018 “The more Attacks, the more Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter.” Public Relations Review44(2): 201–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
    2009La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2019La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2021 “Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics. Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence.” Frontiers in Communication, available at: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.610807
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.610807 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
    2014 “Implicitness Impact: Measuring Texts.” Journal of Pragmatics611: 161–184. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Masia, Viviana
    2017Sociobiological Bases of Information Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.9 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2020 “Presupposition, Assertion and the Encoding of Evidentiality in Political Discourse.” Linguistik Online102(2): 129–153. 10.13092/lo.102.6828
    https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.102.6828 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2021The Manipulative Disguise of Truth. Tricks and Threats of Implicit communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.322
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.322 [Google Scholar]
  31. Meibauer, Jörg
    2014 “A Truth that’s Told with Bad Intent: Lying and Implicit Content.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics28(1): 79–118. 10.1075/bjl.28.05mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.05mei [Google Scholar]
  32. Nuyts, Jan
    2015 “Subjectivity Between Discourse and Conceptualization.” Journal of Pragmatics861: 106–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  33. Récanati, François
    1987Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sbisà, Marina
    2007Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari, Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1973 “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic21: 447–457. 10.1007/BF00262951
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262951 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1974 “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” InSemantics and Philosophy, ed. byMunitz K. Milton, and Peter Unger, 471–482. New York: University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Willett, Thomas
    1988 “A Cross-linguistic Survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality.” Studies in Language12(1): 57–91. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  39. Yuan, Shupei, and Lu Hang
    2020 “It’s Global Warming, Stupid: Aggressive Communication Styles and Political Ideology in Science Blog Debates about Climate Change.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(4): 1003–1025. 10.1177/1077699020904791
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020904791 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): disagreement; evidentiality; implicit communication; manipulation; political discourse
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