The paper focuses on the semantics and pragmatics of dogwhistles, namely expressions that send one message to an outgroup while at the same time sending a second (often taboo, controversial, or inflammatory) message to an ingroup. There are three questions that need to be resolved to understand the semantics and pragmatics of the phenomenon at hand: (i) What kind of meaning is dogwhistle content—implicature, conventional implicature, etc.; (ii) how do (some but not all) hearers recover the dogwhistle content, and (iii) how do expressions become endowed with dogwhistle content? These three questions are interrelated, but previous analyses have emphasized answers to a subset of these questions in ways that provide unsatisfactory answers to the others. The goal for this paper is to take stock of existing accounts, while showing a way forward that reconciles their differences.
[1]
Heather Burnett,et al.
Sociolinguistic interaction and identity construction: The view from game‐theoretic pragmatics
,
2017
.
[2]
Penelope Eckert,et al.
Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School
,
1989
.
[3]
J. Rickford,et al.
Language and linguistics on trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond
,
2016
.
[4]
Christopher Potts.
The logic of conventional implicatures
,
2004
.
[5]
Christopher Potts.
The expressive dimension
,
2007
.
[6]
Edouard Machery,et al.
Expertise and Intuitions about Reference
,
2012,
THEORIA.
[7]
E. McCready.
Varieties of conventional implicature
,
2010
.
[8]
Justin Khoo,et al.
Code Words in Political Discourse
,
2017
.
[9]
S. Stich,et al.
Semantics, cross-cultural style
,
2004,
Cognition.