Palavras-chave
Speech acts
Audience design
Speaker's responsibilities disguisement
Como Citar
Resumo
In recent years, scholars have vividly debated over the definition and features of dogwhistles. As Jennifer Saul has widely argued in her works, political dogwhistles are powerful tools of manipulation. However, the current debate still lacks a convincing definition of dogwhistles, which sometimes are treated like spy codes while, at other times, they are labelled as instances of hate speech, as in Santana (2019). Instead, I propose a definition of dogwhistles that is based on the analysis of the audience design of utterances. I claim that dogwhistles are speech acts designed to secretly change the conversational role of a subset of the audience. Furthermore, they qualify as forms of disguisement - and not concealment, as claimed by the received view - that violate two important conversational responsibilities of the speaker (Clark and Carlson 1992).
Referências
ALMOG, J., LEONARDI P. The Philosophy of David Kaplan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009.
ANDERSON, L., LEPORE, E. Oxford Handbook of Applied Philosophy of Language, Oxford, Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
AUSTIN, J. L. How to do things with words, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1962.
BEAVER, D., ROBERTS, C., SIMONS, M., TONHAUSER, J. “Presupposition, conventional implicature, and beyond: a unified account of projection”, in N. Klinedinst and D. Rothschild (eds.) (2009), pp. 1-15.
BROWN, P., LEVINSON, S. C. Politeness: Some universals in language use, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
CAMP, E. “Insinuation, Common Ground, and the Conversational Record”, in D. Fogal, D. W. Harris, M. Moss (eds.) (2018), pp. 40-66.
CLARK, H. Arenas of language use, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 205-47, 1992.
CLARK, H., CARLSON, T. “Hearers and speech acts”, Language, 58, 2, 1982. Repr., in H. Clark (1992) pp. 205-47.
CLARK, H., SCHAEFER, E. “Concealing one’s meaning from overhearers”, Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 2, 1987. Repr. in H. Clark (1992), pp. 275-97.
CLARK, H., SCHAEFER, E. “Dealing with Overhearers”, in H. Clark (ed.) (1992), pp. 248-74.
COLE, P., MORGAN, J. L. Speech Acts, Cambridge, Mass.: Academic Press, 1975
DRAINVILLE, R., SAUL, J. “Visual and Linguistic Dogwhistles”, in L. Anderson. and E. Lepore (eds.) (forthcoming).
FOGAL, D., HARRIS, W. D., MOSS, M. New Work on Speech Acts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.
FOX, C., SAUNDERS, J. Media Ethics, Free Speech, and the Requirements of Democracy, New York, Routledge, 2018.
GRICE, H. P. “Meaning”, Philosophical Revie, 66, 3, pp. 377-388, 1957.
GUTZMANN, D., TURGAY, K. Secondary Content: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Side Issues, Leida, Brill, 2019.
HENDERSON, R., MCCREADY, E. “Dogwhistles and the At-Issue/Non-At-Issue Distinction”, in D. Gutzmann and K. Turgay (eds.) (2019), pp. 222-45.
HOM, C. “Pejoratives”, Philosophy Compass, 5, 2, pp. 164-85, 2010.
KHOO, J. “Code words in political discourse”, Philosophical Topics, 45, 2, pp. 33-64, 2017.
KLINENDINST, N., ROTHSCHILD, D. Proceedings of Workshop on New directions in the theory of presupposition, Essli, 2009.
MENDELBERG, T. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001.
MURRAY, S. E. “Varieties of update”, Semantics & Pragmatics, 7, 2, pp. 1-53, 2014.
PINKER, S., NOWAK, M., JAMES, L. “The Logic of Indirect Speech” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 3, pp. 833-38, 2008.
SANTANA, C. “What’s wrong with dogwhistles”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 53, 3, pp. 387-403, 2019.
SAUL, J. “Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation, and Philosophy of Language” in D. Harris, D. Fogal, M. Moss (eds.) (2018a), pp. 360-83.
SAUL, J. “Immigration in the Brexit Campaign: Protean Dogwhistles and Political Manipulation” in C. Fox, J. Saunders (eds.) (2018b), pp. 21-37.
SAUL, J. “What is Happening to Our Norms Against Racist Speech?”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 93, 1, pp. 1-23, 2019
SAUL, J., “Racial Figleaves, the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible and the Rise of Donald Trump”, Philosophical Topics, 45, 2, pp. 97-116, 2017
SEARLE, J. “Indirect Speech Acts”, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.) (1975), pp. 59-82.
SEARLE, J. Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1969.
SIMONS, M., TONHAUSER, J., BEAVER, D., ROBERTS, C. “What projects and why”, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 20, pp. 309-327, 2010.
STALNAKER, R. “Common ground”, Linguistics and philosophy, 25, 5/6, pp. 701-21, 2002.
STANLEY, J. How Propaganda Works, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2015.
TESLER, M., SEARS, D. O. Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010.
TORICES, J. R. “Understanding Dogwhistles Politics”, Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 36, 3, pp. 321-339.
WILLIAMSON, T., “Reference, Inference and the Semantics of Pejoratives”, in J. Almog and P. Leonardi (eds.) (2009), pp. 137-58.
WITTEN, K. “Dogwhistle politics: the new pitch of an old narrative”, Unpublished manuscript, downloaded from academia.edu, 2014.» academia.edu
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia
Downloads
