The Definition and Typological Model of a Dogwhistle

Abstract

A formal, speaker-based definition for the linguistic trope known as a 'dogwhistle' is provided. This definition is supported by an 11-part typological model for distinguishing dogwhistles from similar linguistic tropes (i.e., puns, innuendo, inside jokes) and other speech acts. The model is applied to many data examples from a variety of sources. The model allows for data input, filtering against the criteria, and classification of the speech act as a dogwhistle or not. Additionally, the model can highlight how well the data example adheres to certain criteria. This informs interpretations about whether the speech act is a successfully constructed dogwhistle as well as provide possible reasons for failed dogwhistles. This analysis deepens our understanding of political and social discourse and the ways

An account of overt intentional dogwhistling

“…This, of course, is not new, as Witten (2008), and Saul (2018) after her, have pointed out that OIDs are specializations of a more general phenomenon, that of covert messaging. What is novel in our account is that the distinctive way in which OIDs achieve their goal in political communication (via perspective signaling and positioning message) can be explanatorily derived from the way addressees are constructed in political discourse, as developed in Sect.…”

“…Here we face a methodological point concerning theorizing about OIDs in general, namely that we may use only examples of OIDs that have been discovered as such, and whose use as OIDs may have become publicly known (cfr. Witten (2008)). We will assume, for the sake of the argument, that at the time of the example (that is, 2016) the use of 'big pharma' to express an anti-vaxxer perspective was not completely spread out.…”

“…In this regard, we should note, with Witten (2008), that the communicative situation in which OIDs arise already comprises two different sets of contextual assumptions, or common grounds, that are readily accessible, for the purposes of deniability: the common ground or assumptions the speaker shares with the larger audience (CG A ), and the common ground or shared assumptions that presumably unify the OID audience (CG O I D ). 28 An OID trades on the existence, or presumption of existence, of shared assumptions within the OID audience in order to pass concealed messages to them.…”

“…Witten (2008) has a very interesting account of how the common ground of the different communities of practice that may constitute an OID audience may be exploited by the speaker in order to issue an OID directed at them. We find her explanation in consonance with our view of this kind of OID.…”

Models as Dogwhistles

“…Santana's approach, though not defined in terms of perlocutionary effects, captures a key feature of dogwhistles that distinguishes them from other, more ordinary cases in which a speech act produces multiple effects or interpretations. This is because Santana points out that a critical function of a dogwhistle is to provide plausible deniability to a speaker for an interpretation that might constitute a norm violation when heard by the wrong audience (see also Fear 2007;Witten 2023;Quaranto 2022;cf. Saul 2018;Drainville and Saul, forthcoming).…”