Abstract
Politicians select their words meticulously, never losing sight of their ultimate communicative goal. Sometimes, their objective may be that of not being fully understood by a large portion of the audience. They can achieve this by means of dogwhistles; linguistic expressions that, in addition to their literal meaning, convey a concealed message to a specific sub-group of the audience. This paper focuses on the distinction between overt and covert dogwhistles introduced by J. Saul (2018). I argue that, even if the distinction successfully captures a genuine divide within the category of dogwhistles, the account proposed by Saul to explain the distinction is unsatisfactory. In response to this state of affairs, I illustrate how the distinction between overt and covert dogwhistle can be refined and illuminated by incorporating it into the 'Simple Theory' of dogwhistles advanced by J. Khoo (2017).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-38 |
| Number of pages | 38 |
| Journal | Manuscrito |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 22 Dec 2023 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Political communication
- Dogwhistles
- Khoo
- Hate Speech
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A simple theory of overt and covert dogwhistles'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver