Cover not available

Article published In: La Référence Floue
Edited by Laure Gardelle and Frédéric Landragin
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 47:2] 2024
► pp. 315–348

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

Go home (6 Jan 2021)

On dog whistles, multiple addressee groups and ambiguity in language use

 | Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

This article was made Open Access under a CC BY 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the author.

Published online: 24 January 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00116.win
Abstract
The imperative go home represents a prominent part of a video message sent to the armed assaulters on Capitol Hill by the then-President of the United States on 6 January 2021 via Twitter. The paper aims to investigate to what extent this expression can be read as an ambiguous dog-whistle, and how an additional interpretation beyond the conventional meaning ‘return to your private homes’ can be justified. It is precisely the hidden nature of the potential additional message that illustrates a general issue of ambiguity research and pragmatics, i.e., the question of how plausible utterance meanings can be identified. To approach these questions, the paper focuses on the general communicative setting, prior communication between Trump and his supporters, and on linguistic features of the message (personal reference and semantic frames). Different types of interpretative openness are discussed to refine the analyses, and a broad approach to ambiguity is adopted that includes interpretations that are not (yet) conventionalised. The final part of the paper argues that the simultaneous orientation to multiple addressee groups represents a key feature of Trump’s message, which is reflected by a coexistence of different speaker instances. Comparing the example to classical examples of dog whistles, it will be classified as an accomplice whistle. The case study highlights the importance of multiple addressing in media-based communication, and the potential of linking ambiguity research and multiple addressing, considering different addressee groups with potentially strongly diverging backgrounds, interests, and modalities of interpretation.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Go home (2021/01/06): A case of dog whistling?
    • 1.1General features of dog whistles
    • 1.2Pronominal personal reference and references to the out-group
    • 1.3Semantic framing related to in-group and out-group
    • 1.4Interim summary
  • 2.Phenomena of interpretative openness, and different types of ambiguity
  • 3.Interpretative openness in multiple addressing and across hearer groups
    • 3.1Multiple addressing in Trump’s Rose Garden message
    • 3.2Dog whistles and other types of multi-addressed communication involving a secret level
  • Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Barrett-Fox, R. (2018). A King Cyrus President: How Donald Trump’s Presidency Reasserts Conservative Christians’ Right to Hegemony. Humanity & Society, 421, 502–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (2011). Indeterminacy in dialogue. Language and Dialogue, 1(1), 21–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language Style as Audience Design. Language and Society, 13(2), 145–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. & Maingueneau, D. (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2017). Ambiguity and Vagueness in Historical Change. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 292–318. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Detges, U. (2023). Does Reanalysis Need Ambiguity? In M. Bauer & A. Zirker (Eds.), Strategies of Ambiguity, 220–244. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things — Hearer/listener categories in polylogues. mediAzioni, 91, [URL].
(2017). Participation as audience design. In C. R. Hoffmann & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Pragmatics of Social Media, 61–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrich, V. (2023). Enduring Ambiguity. In M. Bauer & A. Zirker (Eds.), Strategies of Ambiguity, 15–34. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the Mind’s Ear: Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages. Language, 761, 546–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 111, 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. (1996). Les ambiguïtés du français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. (2010). Article défini, pronoms personnels de 3e personne et démonstratifs: approche comparée de l’accès à la référence. Anglophonia, 14(28), 33–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S. (2015). Personal pronouns: An exposition. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns, 1–23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardelle, L., Vincent-Durroux, L. & Vinckel-Roisin, H. (2023). Speakers, addressees and the referential process. In L. Gardelle, L. Vincent-Durroux & H. Vinckel-Roisin (Eds.), Reference. From conventions to pragmatics, 1–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Second-order empathy, pragmatic ambiguity, and irony. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language — Intersubjectivity and Usage, 19–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1977). Rahmen-Analyse: ein Versuch über die Organisation von Alltagserfahrungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J. & Abbott, B. (2019). Introduction. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), accessed 11 Nov. 2023. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haney López, I. (2014). Dog whistle politics: how coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 481, 41–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henderson, R. & McCready, E. (2018). How Dogwhistles Work. In S. Arai et al. (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence: JSAI-isAI Workshops, JURISIN, SKL, AI-Biz, LENLS, AAA, SCIDOCA, kNeXI, Tsukuba, Tokyo, November 13–15, 2017: revised selected papers, 231–240. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, I. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 27–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnsen, L. A. (2019). La sous-détermination référentielle et les désignateurs vagues en français contemporain. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2011). Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 507–535. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2001). L’ambiguïté en langue et en discours. In P. Bogaards, J. Rooryck & P. J. Smith (Eds.), Quitte ou double sens: Articles sur l’ambiguïté offerts à Ronald Landheer, 135–164. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). L’ambiguïté: définition, typologie. In L. Basset & F. Biville (Eds.), Les jeux et les ruses de l’ambiguïté volontaire dans les textes grecs et latins. Actes de la Table Ronde organisée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Lumière-Lyon 2 (23–24 novembre 2000), 13–36. Lyon: MOM Éditions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keshet, E. & Schwarz, F. (2019). De Re/De Dicto. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), accessed 11 Nov. 2023.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1991). Paul est bronzé versus La peau de Paul est bronzée. In H. Stammerjohann (Ed.), Analyse et synthèse dans les langues romanes, 109–134. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). L’anaphore associative. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. (1997). Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und ihrer Dynamik. In B. Frank, Th. Haye & D. Tophinke (Eds.), Gattungen mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit, 43–79. Tübingen: Narr. English translation (2023). Discourse traditions: on their status in language theory and on their dynamics. In E. Winter-Froemel & Á. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (Eds.), Manual of Discourse Traditions in Romance, 783–820. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch — Italienisch — Spanisch (2nd edn.). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language of immediacy — language of distance. Orality and Literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In C. Lange, B. Weber & G. Wolf (Eds.), Communicative Spaces. Variation, Contact, and Change. Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer, 441–473. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kühn, P. (1995). Mehrfachadressierung. Untersuchungen zur adressatenspezifischen Polyvalenz sprachlichen Handelns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 458–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, R. & Kosse, M. (2020). The Social Domain of Understanding: Ethnographically-Informed Frame Semantics of Dog Whistles. Paper presented at HDLS 14, November 2020. / [URL] (last accessed 19.05.2024).
Nølke, H. (2008). La polyphonie linguistique avec un regard sur l’approche scandinave. In J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks (Eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française — CMLF’08. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinkal, M. (1991). Vagheit und Ambiguität. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik/Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 250–269. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porzel, R. & Gurevych, I. (2002). Towards context-adaptive utterance interpretation. Proceedings of the Third SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 154–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posth, C. & Winter-Froemel, E. (2023). Interdiscursivity in French theatre: crossing linguistic and literary perspectives. In E. Winter-Froemel & Á. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (Eds.), Manual of Discourse Traditions in Romance, 751–766. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rabatel, A. (2008). Homo narrans. Pour une analyse énonciative et interactionnelle du récit. Vol. 11: Les points de vue et la logique de la narration. Vol. 21: Dialogisme et polyphonie dans le récit. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schole, G. (2021). Actualized Ambiguity at the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface. A Comparative Analysis of Spatial Reference in Spanish and German Dialogues. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sennet, A. (2023). Ambiguity. In E. N. Zalta, & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [URL] (last accessed 16.11.2023).
Sorlin, S. (2021). I will never concede: Donald Trump’s discourse of denial on Twitter (Nov. 4th 2020 — Jan. 8th 2021). Anglophonia. French Journal of English Linguistics, 311, 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trangerud, H. A. (2021). The American Cyrus: How an Ancient King Became a Political Tool for Voter Mobilization. Religions, 12(5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: Implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English. Theory and Description, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. (2019). Indefiniteness and Specificity. In J. Gundel & B. Abbott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reference (online edn., Oxford Academic, 14 Mar. 2019), accessed 11 Nov. 2023.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wieczorek, A. E. (2013). Clusivity. A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter-Froemel, E. (2013). Ambiguität im Sprachgebrauch und im Sprachwandel: Parameter der Analyse diskurs- und systembezogener Fakten. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 123(2), 130–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). Ambigüité et marges de l’interprétation en synchronie et en diachronie lexicales: entre innovation et mésinterprétation. In G. Achard-Bayle, M. Krylyschin, G. Kleiber & M. Guérin (Eds.), Les sciences du langage et la question de l’interprétation (aujourd’hui). Actes du colloque 2017 de l’Association des Sciences du Langage, 197–232. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). Introducing pragmatic ambiguity. On the diversity and ambivalence of ambiguity in discourse. In M. Bauer, F. Berndt & S. Meixner (Eds.), Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunst, 65–89. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Reinvestigating ambiguity and frequency in reanalysis: A two-step methodology for corpus-linguistic analyses based on bridging use exposure. Journal of Historical Syntax, 51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Achimova, Asya, Michael Franke, Martin V. Butz & Gareth J. Baxter
2025. The alignment model of indirect communication. PLOS One 20:5 ► pp. e0323839 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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