Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement
Edited by Jennifer Schumann and Steve Oswald
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1] 2024
► pp. 41–65

Aggression and disagreement in public communication

Convincing third parties through implicit strategies

ORCID logo | Università Roma Tre , Italy

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.

Keywords: public argumentation, face-threatening acts, implicatures, presuppositions, manipulation, implicit content explicitation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Specialization of implicit strategies for pragmatic functions
  • 3.Epistemic vigilance and resources devoted to critical judgment are reduced by implicitness
    • 3.1Implicatures
    • 3.2Presuppositions
  • 4.Third parties as the real target in public debates
    • 4.1Implicatures
    • 4.2Presuppositions
  • 5.Intercepting the implicature as a needed defense against its persuasive power
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00096.lom
References
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 Netz 111: 66–79.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Petra
2008 Two Types of Definites: Evidence for Presupposition Cost, in Grønn, Atle (ed.), Proceedings of SUB12, Oslo, Oslo University, 66–80.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Petra, and Dietmar Roehm
2007 “Differential Effects of Saliency: An Event-Related Brain Potential Study.” Neuroscience Letters 4131: 115–120. 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
de Saussure, Louis
2013 “Background Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 591: 178–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Présuppositions discursives, assertion d’arrière-plan et persuasion.” In Rhétorique et cognition – Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives, ed. by Thierry Herman, and Steve Oswald, 279–311. Lausanne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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 Neurolinguistics 451: 13–35. 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
Ferreira, Fernanda, Karl G. D. Bailey, and Vittoria Ferraro
2002 “Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension”. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1): 11–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gigerenzer, Gerd
2008 “Why Heuristics Work.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(1): 20–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1982 “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space.” Studies in Language 611: 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Language 1481: 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornby, Peter A.
1974 “Surface Structure and Presupposition.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(5): 530–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Behavior 211: 307–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Neuroscience 31(10): 1245–1256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
1986 L’Implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Carol, and Paul Kiparsky
1971 “Fact.” In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reading, ed. by Danny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jakobovitz, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Langford, J., and V. M. Holmes
1979 “Syntactic Presupposition in Sentence Comprehension.” Cognition 71: 363–383. 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 2/31: 41–51.Google Scholar
2009 La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
2016 “The ‘Exaptation’ of Linguistic Implicit Strategies.” SpringerPlus 5(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Bidirectional Reciprocal Reinforcement of Stereotypes and Implicatures in Persuasive Texts.” Italian Journal of Cognitive Sciences 1/2017 a 6. 11:, 63–78. (DOI logo)Google Scholar
2019 La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
2021 “Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence.” Frontiers in Communication 61: 610807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
2014 Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts. In Journal of Pragmatics 611: 161–184.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia
2020 “La comunicazione implicita come dimensione di variazione tra tipi testuali.” In Linguaggi settoriali e specialistici. Sincronia, diacronia, traduzione, variazione, ed. by Jacqueline Visconti, Manuela Manfredini, and Lorenzo Coveri, 113–120. Firenze: Cesati.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio
2015 “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 4, Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Capone, Alessandro
2017 “Presuppositions as Cancellable Inferences.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 9, ed. by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 465–487. Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 11: 348–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Neurolinguistics 421: 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, and Hugo Mercier
2018 “Saying, Presupposing and Implicating: How Pragmatics Modulates Commitment.” Journal of Pragmatics 1331: 15–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo
2009 “La Théorie Argumentative du Raisonnement.” Ph.D. Thesis in Social Sciences, Mention Cognitive Sciences, E.H.E.S.S, Paris.
2011 “On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 111: 85–113.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne
2011 “A Relevance-Theoretic Account of the Evolution of Implicit Communication.” Studies in Pragmatics 131: 1–19.Google Scholar
2017 Cognition and Communication in the Evolution of Language. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo
1988 “ Significato e senso ”. In AA.VV, Ricerche di semantica testuale. Brescia: La Scuola, 71–120.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905 “On Denoting.” Mind 14(56): 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J.
2002 “Context, Attention and Depth of Processing during Interpretation.” In Mind & Language 171: 188–206.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
2007 Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
2021 “ Presupposition and Implicature: Varieties of Implicit Meaning in Explicitation Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics 1821: 176–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Florian
2015 “Presuppositions vs. Asserted Content in Online Processing.” In Experimental Perspectives on Presupposition: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, ed. by Florian Schwarz, 89–108. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “False but Slow: Evaluating Statements with Non-referring Definites.” Journal of Semantics 33(1): 177–214.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian, and Sonja Tiemann
2017 “Presupposition Projection in Online Processing.” Journal of Semantics 34(1): 61–106.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind & Language 25(4): 359–393. 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
Stalnaker, Robert
2002 “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 251: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiemann, Sonja, Schmid, Mareike, Rolke, Bettina, Ackermann, Hermann, Knapp, Julia, Beck, Sigrid
2011 Psycholinguistic Evidence for Presuppositions: On-line vs. Off-line Data, In Reich, Ingo, Horch, Eva, Pauly, Dennis (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15, Saarbrücken, Universaar – Saarland University Press, 581–597.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman
1974 “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124–1131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar