Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 95–123

Implicit argumentation and persuasion

A measuring model

| University of Roma Tre
| OLSI (Linguistic Observatory of Italian-speaking Switzerland) | Università della Svizzera Italiana
| University of Salerno
| University of Roma Tre
| University of Roma Tre
| University of Roma Tre
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.
Keywords: implicit communication, manipulative discourse, political speech, implicatures, presuppositions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Implicit argumentation as a rhetorical device for persuasion: An evolutionary account
  • 3.Implicit encoding of content
    • 3.1Implicatures as content introduced by the addressee
    • 3.2Vagueness allows free interpretation
  • 4.Implicit encoding of responsibility
    • 4.1Presuppositions present their content as already agreed upon by addressees
    • 4.2Topics present their content as presently active in the addressees’ attention
  • 5.Can the impact of persuasive implicit strategies in texts be measured?
  • 6.Text analysis: Confronting political speeches in pairs
    • 6.1Comparability of texts
    • 6.2General results: Extension and impact of implicit strategies
    • 6.3In further detail: Distinctive features of implicitness of content
    • 6.4Practical applications and social utility
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00009.lom
References (47)
References
Aslanidis, Paris. 2016. “Populist Social Movements of the Great Recession.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 2131: 301–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredart, Serge and Karin Modolo. 1988. “Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion.” Acta Psychologica 671: 135–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2003. “Mitigation”. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 257–285. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 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. by Franca Orletti, Anna Pompei, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, 147–189. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Information Flow in Speaking and Writing”. In The Linguistics of Literacy, ed. by Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima and Michael Noonan, 17–29. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Morten and Nick Chater. 2016. “The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 391:1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Danler, Paul. 2005. “Morpho-syntactic and textual realizations as deliberate pragmatic argumentative linguistic tools?” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century, ed. by Louis De Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 45–60. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Erickson, Thomas D., and Mark E. Mattson. 1981. “From words to meanings: A semantic illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2051: 540–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. “Why heuristics work”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 311, 20–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space”. Studies in Language 611: 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. “Meaning”. The Philosophical Review 661: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1986. L’Implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Krebs, John R., and Richard Dawkins. 1984. “Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation”. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by John R. Krebs, and Nicholas B. Davies, 380–402. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2011. “Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation”. Argumentation 25(2): 469–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a language game”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 81: 339–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1975. “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report”. Cognitive Psychology 71: 550–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 1993. “Clausole a contenuto presupposto e loro funzione discorsiva in italiano antico”. Quaderni del dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze 41: 71–95.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Tratti linguistici della persuasione in pubblicità”. Lingua Nostra 2(3): 41–51.Google Scholar
. 2009a. “Grice elettorale”. In Linguistica e Società. Studi in onore di Franca Orletti, ed. by Marilena Fatigante, Laura Mariottini, and Eleonora Sciubba, 172–184. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
. 2009b. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
. 2016. “The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies”. SpringerPlus 511: 1–24.Google Scholar
. 2019. La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia. 2014. “Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts”. Journal of Pragmatics 611: 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015. “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning”. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 465–487. Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer.Google Scholar
Machetti, Sabrina. 2006. Uscire dal vago. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
. 2011. “La vaghezza linguistica come problema della pragmatica. Questioni teoriche e dati a confronto”. Esercizi filosofici 61: 195–213.Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo. 2009. La Théorie Argumentative du Raisonnement. PhD dissertation, E.H.E.S.S. Paris.Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Didier Maillat and Louis de Saussure. 2016. “Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication”. In Verbal communication Handbooks of communicative science 31, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Andrea Rocci, 509–534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1902. “Vague”. In J. M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Petrilli, Raffaella. 2016. La lingua politica. Lessico e strutture argomentative. Carocci, Roma.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2011. “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics 131: 1–19.Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo. 1988. “Significato e senso”. In Ricerche di semantica testuale, ed. by AA.VV., 71–120. Brescia: La Scuola.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2013. “Background relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 591, 178–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Louis and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur. Pour un point de vue subjectiviste”. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 291: 215–243.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2007. Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara and Vittorio Girotto. 1995. “Relevance Theory explains the Selection Task”. Cognition 571:31–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance”. Mind and Language 25(4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. “Common ground”. Linguistics and Philosophy 251: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values”. Theoria 3021: 96–118. Rep. in Idem, Logico-Linguistic Papers, London: Methuen, 1971, 75–95.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124–1131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2012. “Chitarre, violini, banjo e cose del genere”. In Per Tullio De Mauro, ed. by Anna M. Thornton and Miriam Voghera, 429–460. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Mannaioli, Giorgia, Alessandro Ansani, Claudia Coppola & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2024. Vagueness as an implicit-encoding persuasive strategy: an experimental approach. Cognitive Processing 25:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Cimmino, Doriana, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri & Laura Baranzini
2023. The dynamic contribution of implicit meaning to the context: Variability in real usage. Journal of Pragmatics 217 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Coschignano, Serena, Gosse Minnema & Chiara Zanchi
2023. Explaining the distribution of implicit means of misrepresentation: A case study on Italian immigration discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 213 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Younis, Ramy, Daniel de Oliveira Fernandes, Pascal Gygax, Marcin Koszowy & Steve Oswald
2023. Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persuasive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of rephrase. Journal of Pragmatics 210 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, Federica Cominetti & Viviana Masia
2022. The persuasive and manipulative power of implicit communication. Journal of Pragmatics 197 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2022. Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 191 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2022. Argumentation schemes, fallacies, and evidence in politicians’ argumentative tweets—A coded dataset. Data in Brief 44 ► pp. 108501 ff. DOI logo
Pano Alamán, Ana
2022. La libertad en el discurso político español en Twitter. Verba Hispanica 30:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2021. Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Implicit strategies aimed at persuading the audience in public debates. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:3 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.