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.
{"title":"Aggression and disagreement in public communication","authors":"Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00096.lom","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00096.lom","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The persuasive effectiveness of implicit strategies, associated\u0000 with reduced epistemic vigilance, may lead to their exploitation in conveying\u0000 doubtful information in advertisement and propaganda. In political\u0000 communication, presuppositions tend to specialize for the conveyance of\u0000 questionable opinions and self-praise, while implicatures reveal a preferential\u0000 association with face-threatening contents in general, where implicitness can\u0000 allow speakers to count less evidently as offenders, at the same time being able\u0000 to convey contents that can discredit the opponent.\u0000 In public debates, speakers do not necessarily aim at convincing\u0000 the opponent, but at shaping the beliefs of the public at home. In Italian\u0000 broadcast political debates, implicatures and presuppositions are used exactly\u0000 with this function. Confirming this pattern, participants in public debates\u0000 often “intercept” the opponent’s implicatures and make them explicit in order to\u0000 reduce the persuasiveness effected by their being implicit. Sometimes this also\u0000 offers the opportunity to provide explicitations that are different from the\u0000 original implicature, caricaturizing the position of the opponent with a\u0000 strawman effect.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141372011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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 selective 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 presupposition – 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.
{"title":"The evidential dimension of implicitly conveyed disagreement in\u0000 political debates","authors":"Viviana Masia","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00097.mas","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00097.mas","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The idea that manipulation relies more heavily on implicit than\u0000 on explicit communication has been the plank of several earlier and recent\u0000 debates on argumentation and speaker roles in interactions. The present\u0000 contribution will inquire into the selective nature of the use\u0000 of implicit communication in political discourse; notably, analyzing the\u0000 distribution of presuppositions and implicatures in two political debates, it\u0000 will be argued that the use of these two implicit communicative devices – and,\u0000 particularly, that of presupposition – is likely to correlate\u0000 with the expression of disagreement, notably through aggressive and blasting\u0000 contents, more often than with other content types. This tendency will be\u0000 accounted for by considering the evidential meaning presuppositions and\u0000 implicatures add to an utterance, which contributes to modulating both speaker’s\u0000 commitment to truth and source identification on the part of the receiver. Data\u0000 also show that, when face-threatening contents are exchanged, presuppositions\u0000 epitomize by far the most preferred strategy in both debates.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141371039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president.
{"title":"“So I know how to do this”","authors":"Menno H. Reijven","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00098.rei","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with\u0000 each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is\u0000 managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to\u0000 defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some\u0000 political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme –\u0000 which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct\u0000 critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to\u0000 become president.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 91","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141374787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The introduction to this special issue provides an overview of the notion of disagreement in relation to argumentative practices and presents the rationale for investigating disagreement management in argumentative discourse from a pragmatic perspective. It describes how existing accounts of disagreement in argumentation have focused on limited instances of the phenomenon, both in terms of its pragmatic embedding (which has predominantly focused on assertive speech acts) and of its scope (which usually covers the normative dimension of argumentative quality). The contributions to this special issue are then presented and contextualised within this broader topic to expound how each of them addresses key pragmatic aspects of disagreement management in argumentative discourse.
{"title":"Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement","authors":"Jennifer Schumann, Steve Oswald","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00094.sch","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00094.sch","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The introduction to this special issue provides an overview of the notion of disagreement in relation to\u0000 argumentative practices and presents the rationale for investigating disagreement management in argumentative discourse from a\u0000 pragmatic perspective. It describes how existing accounts of disagreement in argumentation have focused on limited instances of\u0000 the phenomenon, both in terms of its pragmatic embedding (which has predominantly focused on assertive speech acts) and of its\u0000 scope (which usually covers the normative dimension of argumentative quality). The contributions to this special issue are then\u0000 presented and contextualised within this broader topic to expound how each of them addresses key pragmatic aspects of disagreement\u0000 management in argumentative discourse.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 44","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141374027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Accusations of trolling (deceiving participants about one’s communicative intention, conducted for amusement, Dynel 2016; Hardaker 2013) and bad faith (dishonestly denying a speaker’s committing meaning, de Saussure and Oswald 2009; Oswald 2022) abound in digitally mediated communication. The labels chosen by posters significantly impact the outcome of discussions, as accusations of trolling tend to result in more abrupt settlements of disputes compared to accusations of bad faith. However, proving these deceptive activities can be challenging for posters. As a result, they often substantiate the “bad faith” label by mentioning in their accusations what they perceive as strategies indicating their interlocutors’ bad faith. In this paper, I examine 161 accusations of trolling and bad faith gathered from a forum. The analysis draws on Hardaker’s (2010, 2013) research and proposes a comparison of the strategies mentioned in these accusations. The aim is to describe the ways in which posters justify the label they opt for when confronted with deceptive activities.
{"title":"Justifying the accusation","authors":"Diane Liberatore","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00095.lib","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00095.lib","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Accusations of trolling (deceiving participants about one’s\u0000 communicative intention, conducted for amusement, Dynel 2016; Hardaker 2013) and bad faith (dishonestly denying a speaker’s\u0000 committing meaning, de Saussure and Oswald\u0000 2009; Oswald 2022) abound\u0000 in digitally mediated communication. The labels chosen by\u0000 posters significantly impact the outcome of discussions, as accusations of\u0000 trolling tend to result in more abrupt settlements of disputes compared to\u0000 accusations of bad faith. However, proving these deceptive activities can be\u0000 challenging for posters. As a result, they often substantiate the “bad faith”\u0000 label by mentioning in their accusations what they perceive as strategies\u0000 indicating their interlocutors’ bad faith.\u0000 In this paper, I examine 161 accusations of trolling and bad\u0000 faith gathered from a forum. The analysis draws on Hardaker’s (2010, 2013) research and proposes a comparison of the\u0000 strategies mentioned in these accusations. The aim is to describe the ways in\u0000 which posters justify the label they opt for when confronted with deceptive\u0000 activities.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141375059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Canada, which has two official languages, sexual violence and impropriety have been identified as problems in the military for at least 25 years (see Duval-Lantoine 2022). In the military’s efforts to address these problems, the institutional language has been identified as problematic (Deschamps 2015; Arbour 2022). This paper addresses the labels for sexual violence and impropriety in Canadian English and French using large corpora of language data: the Corpus of Historical American English, the Corpus of Contemporary Amerian English, the enTenTen20 corpus, the frTenTen20 corpus, the Strathy Corpus, and the Canadian Hansard. Findings show differences between the most widely used labels in American and Canadian data and between English and French. This raises questions about the labels adopted by the Canadian military and the extent to which sexual violence and impropriety can be addressed without a critical review of the language in use.
{"title":"The language of sexual violence and impropriety","authors":"Rachelle Vessey","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00110.ves","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00110.ves","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In Canada, which has two official languages, sexual violence and impropriety have been identified as problems in\u0000 the military for at least 25 years (see Duval-Lantoine 2022). In the military’s efforts\u0000 to address these problems, the institutional language has been identified as problematic (Deschamps 2015; Arbour 2022). This paper addresses the labels for sexual\u0000 violence and impropriety in Canadian English and French using large corpora of language data: the Corpus of Historical American\u0000 English, the Corpus of Contemporary Amerian English, the enTenTen20 corpus, the frTenTen20 corpus, the Strathy Corpus, and the\u0000 Canadian Hansard. Findings show differences between the most widely used labels in American and Canadian data and between English\u0000 and French. This raises questions about the labels adopted by the Canadian military and the extent to which sexual violence and\u0000 impropriety can be addressed without a critical review of the language in use.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141381982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper aims to unveil the most frequent discursive practices of aggressive language addressed at three female Spanish politicians on X (formerly Twitter) and the themes around which these practices revolve. Isabel Díaz-Ayuso, Irene Montero, and Yolanda Díaz were selected for analysis. A mixed-methods analysis of 1,500 randomly retrieved posts was conducted. Aggressive language aimed at delegitimizing the politicians was manually coded based on existing taxonomies. A data-driven taxonomy was obtained with the most frequently involved themes to assess gender-based representations. Quantitative findings pointed to interindividual differences that were qualitatively analyzed. Aggression towards Yolanda Díaz was conveyed through insults and negative comments questioning her intelligence, physical appearance, and political affiliation. Replies to Isabel Díaz-Ayuso questioned the morality of her decisions regarding social issues. At the same time, Irene Montero received more insults and sexist negative comments focusing on her sexuality and subordination to male figures.
{"title":"‘You are not empowered, you have neither character nor pride’","authors":"Maria Milagros Del Saz Rubio","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00109.del","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00109.del","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper aims to unveil the most frequent discursive practices of aggressive language addressed at three female\u0000 Spanish politicians on X (formerly Twitter) and the themes around which these practices revolve. Isabel Díaz-Ayuso, Irene Montero,\u0000 and Yolanda Díaz were selected for analysis. A mixed-methods analysis of 1,500 randomly retrieved posts was conducted. Aggressive\u0000 language aimed at delegitimizing the politicians was manually coded based on existing taxonomies. A data-driven taxonomy was\u0000 obtained with the most frequently involved themes to assess gender-based representations. Quantitative findings pointed to\u0000 interindividual differences that were qualitatively analyzed. Aggression towards Yolanda Díaz was conveyed through insults and\u0000 negative comments questioning her intelligence, physical appearance, and political affiliation. Replies to Isabel Díaz-Ayuso\u0000 questioned the morality of her decisions regarding social issues. At the same time, Irene Montero received more insults and sexist\u0000 negative comments focusing on her sexuality and subordination to male figures.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":"49 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140983785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study investigates users’ gendered attitudes towards Muslim Canadian politicians on Twitter with regard to intersectionality. Its purpose is to understand the tone and intersectional dimensions of Twitter users’ responses to Muslim Canadian politicians and the gendered responses to them. Therefore, we extracted all the available Twitter replies to 11 Muslim men and women politicians. Using a mixed method approach, we investigated how the public engages with Muslim politicians by focusing on intersectional characteristics. Results show that Muslim politicians are not directly under attack because of their religion unless they engage in public discussion of Islamic issues. Overall, both men and women politicians received higher numbers of negative replies than positive ones. Women received more personal replies while men received more professional ones. For both men and women politicians, personal attributes such as nationality, gender, and religion were used as a means for discriminating against them. However, we found that replies to women were more likely to be stereotypical and refer to characteristics of their identity and their appearance. The digital analysis shows, however, that men politicians were more trolled than their women counterparts and that the quality of attacks differed as well.
{"title":"Intersectionality and the gendered discussion around Muslim Canadian politicians on Twitter","authors":"Ahmed Al-Rawi, Mina Einifar, Wendy Chun","doi":"10.1075/jlac.00086.alr","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00086.alr","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study investigates users’ gendered attitudes towards Muslim Canadian politicians on Twitter with regard to intersectionality. Its purpose is to understand the tone and intersectional dimensions of Twitter users’ responses to Muslim Canadian politicians and the gendered responses to them. Therefore, we extracted all the available Twitter replies to 11 Muslim men and women politicians. Using a mixed method approach, we investigated how the public engages with Muslim politicians by focusing on intersectional characteristics. Results show that Muslim politicians are not directly under attack because of their religion unless they engage in public discussion of Islamic issues. Overall, both men and women politicians received higher numbers of negative replies than positive ones. Women received more personal replies while men received more professional ones. For both men and women politicians, personal attributes such as nationality, gender, and religion were used as a means for discriminating against them. However, we found that replies to women were more likely to be stereotypical and refer to characteristics of their identity and their appearance. The digital analysis shows, however, that men politicians were more trolled than their women counterparts and that the quality of attacks differed as well.","PeriodicalId":499828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of language aggression and conflict","volume":" 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135285719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：