This paper explores the interface between pragmatics and argumentation by considering the impact of different types of implicit meaning on different types of rhetorical effects. On the rhetorical front and drawing on classical rhetoric but going beyond the Aristotelian rhetorical triangle (ethos, logos, pathos), the paper discusses an open list of rhetorical effects affecting speakers, audiences, messages and the conversational flow of interaction. On the pragmatic front, the paper accounts for how specific features of different types of implicit meaning (presupposition, implicature and back-door speech acts) are likely to trigger specific rhetorical effects. In so doing, it discusses and justifies the need for and the feasibility of an experimental investigation of the rhetorical effectiveness of implicit meaning.

Background: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain disease characterized by multiple symptoms whose interactions and implications in the disease pathology are still unclear. This study aimed at investigating how pain, sleep, and mood disorders influence each other in FM, while discriminating between the sensory and affective pain dimensions. Methods: Sixteen female FM patients were evaluated regarding their pain, while they underwent—along with 11 healthy sex- and age-adjusted controls—assessment of mood and sleep disorders. Analysis of variance and correlations were performed in order to assess group differences and investigate the interactions between pain, mood, and sleep descriptors. Results: FM patients reported the typical widespread pain, with similar sensory and affective inputs. Contrary to controls, they displayed moderate anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Affective pain (but neither the sensory pain nor pain intensity) was the only pain indicator that tendentially correlated with anxiety and insomnia, which were mutually associated. An affective pain–insomnia–anxiety loop was thus completed. High ongoing pain strengthened this vicious circle, to which it included depression and sensory pain. Conclusions: Discriminating between the sensory and affective pain components in FM patients disclosed a pathological loop, with a key role of affective pain; high ongoing pain acted as an amplifier of symptoms interaction. This unraveled the interplay between three of most cardinal FM symptoms; these results contribute to better understand FM determinants and pathology and could help in orienting therapeutic strategies.

Introduction: Conspiracy believers often claim that they believe in conspiracy theories not on irrational grounds, as scholars often argue, but because of the real scandals and real conspiracies that have occurred in history. Methods: We tested whether reminding people of real scandals in the political, economic, or scientific domain and exposition to invented scandals (i.e., that did not occur) increase beliefs in conspiracy theories. A secondary research question was whether conspiracy beliefs positively relate to differentiating between real and invented scandals. Results: Our results showed that reminding people of real scandals and exposing them to invented scandals did not affect their conspiracy beliefs. Higher conspiracy believers were slightly better than lower conspiracy believers at recognizing invented scandals but somewhat worse at recognizing real scandals. Participants from left-wing political orientation were also marginally better than those with right-wing orientation at identifying real scandals. Discussion/conclusion: Reminding people of real and invented scandals did not have a short-term effect on conspiracist beliefs. This article supports the argument that conspiracy theories are not helpful for social critique, as higher believers in conspiracy theories were not better than lower believers at recognizing actual scandals.

Personal attacks, which might convey damaging accusations, can take either an explicit or an implicit form. When they are communicated implicitly, they are referred to as insinuations . Their implicit nature is said to allow speakers to evade responsibility, preserve their public image, or even conceal argumentative weaknesses. In previous studies, we found that insinuated ad hominem arguments supporting disagreement made speakers appear more persuasive and trustworthy than explicit ones. However, further exploratory analyses of our data revealed that the advantage of insinuated over explicit ad hominem arguments was either only present or more pronounced when the personal attack was fallacious. This distinction between explicitness and fallaciousness —and their possible interaction—had not been accounted for in earlier work. To investigate this interaction more systematically, we conducted four preregistered experiments examining the combined effects of explicitness and fallaciousness in ad hominem arguments. Results indicate that there is no significant interaction between fallaciousness and implicitness, regardless of whether the personal attack targets the proponent’s expertise or character. While the often-assumed persuasive benefits of insinuation do not consistently emerge—and may even undermine argumentative support in the context of disagreemen—insinuation confers social advantages, as the speaker is perceived as more trustworthy overall. Moreover, valid arguments are consistently preferred over fallacious ones—not only when it comes to supporting disagreement, but also in shaping how the speaker is perceived. This suggests that while pragmatic subtleties, such as insinuation, can enhance perceived trustworthiness, argumentative soundness remains a central criterion in both rhetorical and interpersonal judgments.