Go home (6 Jan 2021)
On dog whistles, multiple addressee groups and ambiguity in language use
The imperative go home represents a prominent part of a video message sent to the armed
assaulters on Capitol Hill by the then-President of the United States on 6 January 2021 via Twitter. The paper aims to investigate
to what extent this expression can be read as an ambiguous dog-whistle, and how an additional interpretation beyond the
conventional meaning ‘return to your private homes’ can be justified. It is precisely the hidden nature of the potential
additional message that illustrates a general issue of ambiguity research and pragmatics, i.e., the question of how plausible
utterance meanings can be identified. To approach these questions, the paper focuses on the general communicative setting, prior
communication between Trump and his supporters, and on linguistic features of the message (personal reference and semantic
frames). Different types of interpretative openness are discussed to refine the analyses, and a broad approach to ambiguity is
adopted that includes interpretations that are not (yet) conventionalised. The final part of the paper argues that the
simultaneous orientation to multiple addressee groups represents a key feature of Trump’s message, which is reflected by a
coexistence of different speaker instances. Comparing the example to classical examples of dog whistles, it will be classified as
an accomplice whistle. The case study highlights the importance of multiple addressing in media-based communication, and the
potential of linking ambiguity research and multiple addressing, considering different addressee groups with potentially strongly
diverging backgrounds, interests, and modalities of interpretation.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.
Go home (2021/01/06): A case of dog whistling?
- 1.1General features of dog whistles
- 1.2Pronominal personal reference and references to the out-group
- 1.3Semantic framing related to in-group and out-group
- 1.4Interim summary
- 2.Phenomena of interpretative openness, and different types of ambiguity
- 3.Interpretative openness in multiple addressing and across hearer groups
- 3.1Multiple addressing in Trump’s Rose Garden message
- 3.2Dog whistles and other types of multi-addressed communication involving a secret level
- Conclusion and outlook
- Notes
- Author queries
-
References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.