On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach

Abstract

This paper explores the interface between pragmatics and argumentation by considering the impact of different types of implicit meaning on different types of rhetorical effects. On the rhetorical front and drawing on classical rhetoric but going beyond the Aristotelian rhetorical triangle (ethos, logos, pathos), the paper discusses an open list of rhetorical effects affecting speakers, audiences, messages and the conversational flow of interaction. On the pragmatic front, the paper accounts for how specific features of different types of implicit meaning (presupposition, implicature and back-door speech acts) are likely to trigger specific rhetorical effects. In so doing, it discusses and justifies the need for and the feasibility of an experimental investigation of the rhetorical effectiveness of implicit meaning.

Visual Rhetoric in Election Posters

“…Highlighting the history of the candidate (since he was a parliament member in the previous round) in the caption: "bardawameen"(We will continue) is what is called by Amossy (2001, qtd. in Fernande andOswald, 2022), 'priori ethos' of the candidate enhancing his credibility. Moreover the caption instantiates substitution category whereby details have been replaced by generalizations: the slogan does not exactly specify any past or future micro actions; it remains a general, abstract statement aiming to add to the candidate's integrity and visual ethos.…”

Negotiating Implicit Meaning on the Internet: A Case Study

“…Studying implicit meaning through its negotiation is demonstrated to have an important potential; in fact, it makes it possible to empirically investigate the receiver"s behavior and therefore collect corpus-based evidence of perlocutionary effects of presuppositions, implicatures and other phenomena. The proposed focus on implicit meaning negotiation, which is replicable for all corpora including linguistic interactions (either spoken or written), is a fruitful experimental approach, in particular if related to the effects on Audience and on Conversational Dynamics (de Oliveira, & Oswald, 2023). It can also clarify the theoretical-descriptive nature of the implicit meaning and its linguistic triggers, although more robust data are necessary to this purpose.…”

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

“…We take the wealth of research on pragmatic meaning, which has resulted in rich typologies of implicit meaning, to be extremely relevant to the study of disagreement, in so far as different types of implicit meaning are likely to trigger different types of rhetorical effects. In their study of the rhetorical effects of various implicit meaning-making resources, de Oliveira Fernandes and Oswald (2022) provide a detailed discussion about different types of implicit meaning-namely implicatures, presuppositions, insinuations and dogwhistles-and how these different types of contents can affect argumentative discourse in terms of speaker image (ethos), audience response (pathos), the message itself (logos), and the conversational dynamics of the argumentative exchange. It is not difficult to imagine how the expression of disagreement, depending on the speaker's goals, may use different rhetorical advantages offered by diverse types of implicit meaning; for instance, a disagreement that is manifested through insinuation may be harder to attack or respond to, since (i) the speaker can always deny having meant it, and (ii) it puts extra pressure on its target, who might be compelled to defend themselves rather than dispute the truthfulness and relevance of the insinuated content, which might in turn be a rhetorically disadvantageous option for them.…”