Cover not available

Article published In: Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 95–123

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Implicit argumentation and persuasion

A measuring model

 | University of Roma Tre
 | OLSI (Linguistic Observatory of Italian-speaking Switzerland) | Università della Svizzera Italiana
 | University of Salerno
 | University of Roma Tre
 | University of Roma Tre
 | University of Roma Tre
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00009.lom
Abstract
The paper provides evidence that linguistic strategies based on the implicit encoding of information are effective means of deceptive argumentation and manipulation, as they can ease the acceptance of doubtful arguments by distracting addressees’ attention and by encouraging shallow processing of doubtful contents. The persuasive and manipulative functions of these rhetorical strategies are observed in commercial and political propaganda. Linguistic implicit strategies are divided into two main categories: the implicit encoding of content, mainly represented by implicatures and vague expressions, and the implicit encoding of responsibility, mainly represented by presuppositions and topics. The paper also suggests that the amount of persuasive implicitness contained in texts can be measured. For this purpose, a measuring model is proposed and applied to some Italian political speeches. The possible social usefulness of this approach is showed by sketching the operation of a website in which the measuring model is used to monitor contemporary political speeches.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Implicit argumentation as a rhetorical device for persuasion: An evolutionary account
  • 3.Implicit encoding of content
    • 3.1Implicatures as content introduced by the addressee
    • 3.2Vagueness allows free interpretation
  • 4.Implicit encoding of responsibility
    • 4.1Presuppositions present their content as already agreed upon by addressees
    • 4.2Topics present their content as presently active in the addressees’ attention
  • 5.Can the impact of persuasive implicit strategies in texts be measured?
  • 6.Text analysis: Confronting political speeches in pairs
    • 6.1Comparability of texts
    • 6.2General results: Extension and impact of implicit strategies
    • 6.3In further detail: Distinctive features of implicitness of content
    • 6.4Practical applications and social utility
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Aslanidis, Paris. 2016. “Populist Social Movements of the Great Recession.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 2131: 301–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bredart, Serge and Karin Modolo. 1988. “Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion.” Acta Psychologica 671: 135–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2003. “Mitigation”. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 257–285. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Mezzi linguistici della mitigazione in italiano: risultati e prospettive di ricerca”. In: Grammatica e pragmatica, = Atti del XXXIV Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia – Roma, 22–24 ottobre 2009, ed. by Franca Orletti, Anna Pompei, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, 147–189. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow”. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “Information Flow in Speaking and Writing”. In The Linguistics of Literacy, ed. by Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima and Michael Noonan, 17–29. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten and Nick Chater. 2016. “The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 391:1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela. 2000. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danler, Paul. 2005. “Morpho-syntactic and textual realizations as deliberate pragmatic argumentative linguistic tools?” In Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century, ed. by Louis De Saussure, and Peter Schulz, 45–60. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erickson, Thomas D., and Mark E. Mattson. 1981. “From words to meanings: A semantic illusion.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2051: 540–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. “Why heuristics work”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 311, 20–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Space”. Studies in Language 611: 23–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. “Meaning”. The Philosophical Review 661: 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1986. L’Implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krebs, John R., and Richard Dawkins. 1984. “Animal Signals: Mind-reading and Manipulation”. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. by John R. Krebs, and Nicholas B. Davies, 380–402. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2011. “Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation”. Argumentation 25(2): 469–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a language game”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 81: 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1975. “Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report”. Cognitive Psychology 71: 550–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 1993. “Clausole a contenuto presupposto e loro funzione discorsiva in italiano antico”. Quaderni del dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze 41: 71–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. “Tratti linguistici della persuasione in pubblicità”. Lingua Nostra 2(3): 41–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009a. “Grice elettorale”. In Linguistica e Società. Studi in onore di Franca Orletti, ed. by Marilena Fatigante, Laura Mariottini, and Eleonora Sciubba, 172–184. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009b. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The “exaptation” of linguistic implicit strategies”. SpringerPlus 511: 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. La lingua disonesta. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, and Viviana Masia. 2014. “Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts”. Journal of Pragmatics 611: 161–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015. “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning”. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 465–487. Heidelberg-New York-Dordrecht-London: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Machetti, Sabrina. 2006. Uscire dal vago. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “La vaghezza linguistica come problema della pragmatica. Questioni teoriche e dati a confronto”. Esercizi filosofici 61: 195–213.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo. 2009. La Théorie Argumentative du Raisonnement. PhD dissertation, E.H.E.S.S. Paris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Didier Maillat and Louis de Saussure. 2016. “Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication”. In Verbal communication Handbooks of communicative science 31, ed. by Louis de Saussure and Andrea Rocci, 509–534. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1902. “Vague”. In J. M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrilli, Raffaella. 2016. La lingua politica. Lessico e strutture argomentative. Carocci, Roma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2011. “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics 131: 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo. 1988. “Significato e senso”. In Ricerche di semantica testuale, ed. by AA.VV., 71–120. Brescia: La Scuola.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2013. “Background relevance”. Journal of Pragmatics 591, 178–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur. Pour un point de vue subjectiviste”. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 291: 215–243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2007. Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara and Vittorio Girotto. 1995. “Relevance Theory explains the Selection Task”. Cognition 571:31–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance”. Mind and Language 25(4): 359–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. “Common ground”. Linguistics and Philosophy 251: 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values”. Theoria 3021: 96–118. Rep. in Idem, Logico-Linguistic Papers, London: Methuen, 1971, 75–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124–1131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2012. “Chitarre, violini, banjo e cose del genere”. In Per Tullio De Mauro, ed. by Anna M. Thornton and Miriam Voghera, 429–460. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Garassino, Davide, Nicola Brocca & Viviana Masia
2025. ChatGPT for President! Presupposed content in politicians versus GPT-generated texts. Applied Corpus Linguistics ► pp. 100156 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer
2025. Argumentation, Fallacies and Language. In The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies: An Experimental Approach [Argumentation Library, 46], ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Ziembicki, Daniel
2025. Questions as Elements of Argumentation in Political Debates. Argumentation 39:4 ► pp. 601 ff. DOI logo
Coppola, Claudia, Giorgia Mannaioli & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2024. Vagueness and ambiguity are very different (persuasion devices). In Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 347], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Giunta, Giulia & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2024. Teaching to manage implicit linguistic meanings. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Mannaioli, Giorgia, Alessandro Ansani, Claudia Coppola & Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri
2024. Vagueness as an implicit-encoding persuasive strategy: an experimental approach. Cognitive Processing 25:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Cimmino, Doriana, Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri & Laura Baranzini
2023. The dynamic contribution of implicit meaning to the context: Variability in real usage. Journal of Pragmatics 217 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Coschignano, Serena, Gosse Minnema & Chiara Zanchi
2023. Explaining the distribution of implicit means of misrepresentation: A case study on Italian immigration discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 213 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Younis, Ramy, Daniel de Oliveira Fernandes, Pascal Gygax, Marcin Koszowy & Steve Oswald
2023. Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persuasive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of rephrase. Journal of Pragmatics 210 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, Federica Cominetti & Viviana Masia
2022. The persuasive and manipulative power of implicit communication. Journal of Pragmatics 197 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2022. Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 191 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2022. Argumentation schemes, fallacies, and evidence in politicians’ argumentative tweets—A coded dataset. Data in Brief 44 ► pp. 108501 ff. DOI logo
Pano Alamán, Ana
2022. La libertad en el discurso político español en Twitter. Verba Hispanica 30:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2021. Manipulative Shallow Processing Induced by Presuppositions and Topics: Theoretical Perspectives and Experimental Evidence. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Implicit strategies aimed at persuading the audience in public debates. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:3 ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2025. Vagueness as an Implicitating Persuasive Strategy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 350], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue