A pragmática dos dogwhistles: algumas questões
Resumo
Dogwhistles are communicative mechanisms for expressing subliminal meanings. In this paper, I take up the distinction, usual in the literature on the topic, between two types of dogwhistle: overt and covert, whereby in the latter, as opposed to the former, the preservation of the subliminal character of the message seems to be a necessary condition for the dogwhistle’s communicative success. I discuss various aspects of this distinction, arguing that both types of dogwhistle can be analysed as conversational implicatures bearing in mind, in particular, the canonical properties of cancelability and calculability.
Downloads
Referências
Camp, E. (2018). Insinuation, Common Gound, and the Conversational Record. In D. Fogal, D. Harris & M. Moss (Eds.), New Works on Speech Acts (pp. 40-66). Oxford University Press.
Frankfurt. H. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton University Press.
Garcia-Carpintero. M. (2001). Gricean rational reconstructions and the semantics/pragmatics distinction, Synthese, 128(1), 93-131.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Langton, R. (2012). Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography. In I. Maitra, & M. K. McGowan (Eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies over free speech (pp. 72-93). Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press.
Lopez, I. (2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press.
Mendelberg, T. (2001). The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton University Press.
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2007). Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass, 4(2), 665–679.
Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and Implicature. In S. Lappin, & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 168-202). Oxford University Press.
Saul, J. (2012). Lying, Misleading and What is Said. Oxford University Press.
Saul, J. (2018). Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation and Philosophy of Language. In D. Fogal, D. Harris, & M. Moss (Eds.), New Works on Speech Acts (pp. 360-383). Oxford University Press.
Stanley, J. (2015). How Propaganda Works. Princeton University Press.
Stokke, A. (2016). Lying and Misleading in Discourse. Philosophical Review, 125(1), 83-134.
Tesler, M., & Sears, D. O. (2010). Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America. University of Chicago Press.
Tirrell, L. (2012). Genocidal Language Games. In I. Maitra, & M. K. and McGowan, (Eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech (pp. 174-221). Oxford University Press.
Torices, J.L. (2021). Undestanding Dogwhistle Politics. Theoria, 36(3), 321-339.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2022 Linguística: Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto

Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0.