A pragma-linguistic study of suggestive ambiguity in selected political texts

Suggestive ambiguity is a strategy of defense and maneuvering as it provides the speaker both protection and function. To put it differently, it helps the speaker to say whatever he likes and at the same time gives his opponents and friends the interpretation they desire. This is possible due to the flexibility of the linguistic expressions that the speaker uses. To be more clear, the context of situation, peoples' background and world knowledge interact with the significance of the linguistic expressions reaching an allusive situation where two interpretations, positive and negative, are available to the addressees. Such situation enables the addressers to implicate different ideas or messages, accusations, inciting violence, etc. The present study hypothesizes that politicians rely primarily on suggestive ambiguity to fulfill their desires and that the addressees miscomprehend the intended meaning because of the allusive context invested by the addresser. To verify the hypothesis of the study, (10) selected political texts are analyzed in accordance to Walton's (1996) Taxonomy of ambiguity. The analysis reveals that suggestive ambiguity is a strategy of neutralizing stances and covering intentions and it is a way of elevating the political text by bending it to suit different tastes and crosses the boundaries of time and place.