Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First ArticlesPolitical language gaffes and the importance of Hearer’s meaning
Drawing on Hansen and Terkourafi’s (2023) model of Hearer’s meaning, the paper discusses cognitive mechanisms through which hearers interpret political language gaffes (e.g. former U.S. President Trump’s “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”). The paper approaches political language gaffes as dependent on a high degree of blending between textual-and-discursive frames and social-world frames. The dataset analysis demonstrates how a Hearer’s difficulty in interpreting a gaffe-y utterance can shift Hearer’s focus (a) from one frame element (e.g. speaker, hearer, effect of utterance on hearer) to another, and (b) from a discursive frame to a social-world frame. The paper demonstrates how, while looking to pinpoint the contextual relevance of an utterance, a Hearer can simultaneously shift focus and vary the scope of cognitive structures from which Hearer can derive meaning. The paper also suggests how analyses of political language gaffes can contribute to research on sociopragmatic topics such as Speaker’s accountability, pragmatic competence, pragmatic failure, non-propositional effects, etc.
Keywords: political language gaffe, ‘covfefe’, Hearer’s meaning, relevance, frame analysis
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: From ‘covfefe’ through ‘Thighland’ to ‘the leader of Turkey’
- 2.The object of analysis: ‘A political language gaffe’
- 3.Theoretical background: ‘Hearer’s meaning’
- 4.The study
- 4.1Rationale
- 4.2Respondents
- 4.3Procedure and questionnaire
- 4.4Dataset
- 5.Data and discussion
- 5.1Main data
- 5.2Data on first verbalized responses
- 5.3Data on additional comments
- 5.4Data concerning bodily reactions
- 6.Conclusions
-
References
References (38)
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn, and Alison Hall. 2012. “Implicature and Explicature.” In Cognitive Pragmatics, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid, 47–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, Raymond W., Julia Kushner, and Rob Mills III. 1991. “Authorial Intentions and Metaphor Comprehension.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20 (1): 11–30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Herbert H. Colston. 2020. “Pragmatics Always Matters: An Expanded Vision of Experimental Pragmatics.” Frontiers in Psychology 111: 1619. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gil, José María. 2019. “A Relational Account of Communication on the Basis of Slips of the Tongue.” Intercultural Pragmatics 16 (2): 153–183. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, and Marina Terkourafi. 2023. “We Need to Talk about Hearer’s Meaning!” Journal of Pragmatics 2081: 99–114. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haugh, Michael. 2013. “Speaker Meaning and Accountability in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 41–56. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hutchby, Ian. 2016. “Infelicitous Talk: Politicians’ Words and the Media Ecology in Three British Political Gaffes.” Journal of Language and Politics 15 (1): 667–687. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kádár, Dániel. 2017. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kádár, Dániel, and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1 (1): 50–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2012. “Sociopragmatics and Cross-cultural and Intercultural Studies.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 599–616. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2014. “A Response to the Paper “Metaphor Interpretation and Motivation in Relevance theory” by Huaxin Huang and Xiaolong Yang.” Journal of Pragmatics 601: 274–278. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2019. “The Interplay of Prior Experience and Actual Situational Context in Intercultural First Encounters.” Pragmatics and Cognition 26 (1): 112–134. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maillat, Didier. 2023. “On the Manifestness of Assumptions: Gaining Insights into Commitment and Emotions.” Pragmatics 33 (3): 460–485. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. “Optimal Relevance as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 251: 20–45.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzarella, Diana, and Edoardo Vaccargiu. 2024. “Communication: Inferring Speaker Intentions or Perceiving the World? Insights from Developmental Research.” Journal of Pragmatics 2211: 123–136. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McVittie, Chris, and Andy McKinlay. 2019. “‘Alternative facts are not facts’: Gaffe-announcements, the Trump Administration and the Media.” Discourse & Society 30 (2): 172–187. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. “Pragmatics, Propositional and Non-propositional Effects: Can a Theory of Utterance Interpretation Account for Emotions in Verbal Communication?” Social Science Information 48 (3): 447–464. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, Ibáñez, Francisco José, and María Sandra Peña Cervel. 2023. “Structural Similarity in Figurative Language: A Preliminary Cognitive Analysis.” Lingua 2901, 103541. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sheinheit, Ian, and Cynthia Bogard. 2016. “Authenticity and Carrier Agents: The Social Construction of Political Gaffes.” Sociological Forum 31 (4): 970–993. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Timpe-Laughlin, Veronika, Ashley Green, and Oh Saerhim. 2021. “Raising Pragmatic Awareness: A Think-aloud Study.” System 981: art. 102470. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tincheva, Nelly. 2019. Language gaffes (Linguistic, Discursive and Cognitive Aspects of ‘Language Bloopers’). Sofia: Polis Publ.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2021. “Blurring the Boundaries between Real Worlds, Discourse Worlds and Text Worlds.” Slavia Meridionalis 211: art. 2381. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2022. “Political Speeches: Conceptual Metaphor Meets Text Worlds and Gestalt Psychology’s Shifts in Profiling.” In Figurativity and Human Ecology, ed. by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov, and Nelly Tincheva, 85–106. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
. 2023. “‘Narrative structure’, ‘rhetorical structure’, ‘text structure’: A Conceptual Complex Meets Text- and Discourse-world Profiling Shifts.” English Text Construction 16 (1): 30–58. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verschueren, Jef. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 31–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yus, Francisco. 2017. “Contextual Constraints and Non-propositional Effects in WhatsApp Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 1141: 66–86. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)