ORIENTATION REVERSAL
The argumentative orientation of an utterance U towards a conclusion C is reversed when a slight change to its form, Ux, causes its argumentative value to switch from C to not C.
The argumentative orientation of an utterance can be redirected by substituting one morpheme for another. For example, consider the difference in meaning between the adverbs little and a little, see orientation; orienting words. The adverb precisely, can also produce a reversal of argumentative orientation, in one of its uses,
S1: — Peter doesn’t want to go out, he’s depressed.
S2: — Well, precisely.He would breathe the clean country air, it would clear his head.
The reversal of orientation is based on the literal content of what the S1 says. S2 replies to S1 “Your argument does not support your claim, it even points to the opposite. You give arguments against your own position.” S2 contradicts S1 using S1‘s own statement. his or her own saying. This typical response “to the letter” (ad litteram), serves a strategy of discourse destruction, see matter;; objection; refutation.
Classical rhetoric has identified many inversion phenomena with the same effect, such as irony.
« Everything is possible with the SNCF* » (*) , That is the best slogan you have ever found! (The SNCF is a French railway company).
A passenger said this to a train conductor when the train was stopped for two hours between stations.
The slogan is oriented towards “the SNCF can be incredibly positive and pleasant ”; the circumstances show that “the SNCF can be incredibly negative”.
Some of these strategies have been identified and named in classical rhetoric:
— Antanaclasis: Exploiting the different meanings of a term to reverse its argumentative orientation.
— Antimetabole: Inversion of an expression.
— Antiparastasis: Reversing the qualification of an action.
— Paradiastole: Reversing the orientation of a term by substituting a quasi-synonymous term or description:
1. Antanaclasis
Antanaclasis is the repetition of a polysemous or homonymous term or expression so that upon its second occurrence, the term has a different meaning and a different orientation than upon its first occurrence.
In other words, the signifier S0 has the meanings Sa and Sb. In its first occurrence S0 has the meaning Sa with the orientation Oa and, in its second occurrence it has the meaning Sb with the orientation Ob.
The resumption of the signifier S0 must occur within the same discursive unit, whether it be statement, a paragraph, a turn or a pair of turns. This can be done either by the same speaker within the same discursive unit, or by a second speaker within a second turn.
In a same-speaker intervention, antanaclasis introduces ambiguity because the same word is used to denote different things. In a syllogism, the antanaclasis actually introduces two terms under the cover of the same signifier S0. Thus, it produces a syllogism not of three but of four terms, i.e., a paralogism.
In interaction, the two meanings of the term are used in two successive turns of speech, the second of which invalidates the first. Antanaclasis is a kind of ironic echo and aggressive retaliation.
The word « tolerance » refers to a virtue, whereas the expression “house of tolerance”, refers to a legal, licensed, brothel.
S1: — A little tolerance please! (tolerance is a virtue)
S2: — Tolerance! There are places for that (tolerance allows vice).
In French une foire can mean “a fair”, a commercial exhibition; or “a mess”, a state of general noise and confusion.
S1: — We could not book a hotel for you, because they are all fully booked, due to the fair in town.
S2: — It seems that there is often la foire in town. Fr. foire = “mess”
In the example, the second term transforms the initial excuse into a reproach: “You can’t get organized.” This word-for-word restatement undermines S1’s speech.
The use of derived words makes such maneuvers possible. Anyone who finds their work alienating (as in “the work on the assembly line work alienates the workers”), is accused of being an aliéné (F), that is, a madman:
The ideological policeman of collectivism can say almost the same thing to an opponent: « For those who protest against alienation, our society has asylums for the insane. » Thierry Maulnier, [The Meaning of Words], 1976[1])
The reorientation of antanaclasis differs from that of the adverb precisely. This adverb takes a statement that is oriented toward a given conclusion, grants the statement (accepts the information), and transforms it in order to reach the opposite conclusion. In the preceding case, it could be, “Well, precisely, the fair was announced a long time ago, you should have taken precautions.” The antanaclasis does not take the excuse seriously, it disorients the discourse.
2. Antimetabole
Similar to antanaclasis, the antimetabole is a linguistic trick used to dismantle an opponent’s speech. The discourse is taken up and restructured syntactically in order to make it lose its orientation, or even to give it an opposite one.
Dupriez cites the permutation mechanisms « determined / determining » « N0 + N1=> N1 + N0 » which can be used ironically, for example, a discourse on “the life of words” can be destroyed by the affirmation of a preference for “the words of life” (Dupriez 1984: 53-54).
We do not live in a time of change, we live in a change of time.
These announcements (Fr. effets d’annonce) quickly become ineffective announcements (Fr. annonces sans effets)
See refutation; prolepsis; destruction; converse.
3. Antiparastasis
This term refers to the theory of stasis. An accusation is made against someone who fully admits to the accusation, and affirms the reason why he did it. Based on this, he rejects the blame.
L: — You killed him!
L: — At his request, I ended his suffering.
The first statement is an accusation: “Shame on you! You deserve to be condemned!” The second statement introduces an argument that cancels out the accusation: “What I have done is an act of devotion”, or even reverses the accusation: “What I have done deserves admiration, not blame », citing motives and good reasons.
This form of counterargument gives two opposiing orientations to the same fact. Antanaclasis is a pseudo-acceptance and an implicit reversal, while the antiparastasis explicitly reverses the negative orientation given to the fact by the opponent.
This defense strategy gives the speaker a militant or rebellious ethos. Situations based on radically opposed values have high dramatic potential. For instance, the confrontation between Antigone and Creon in Sophocles’s play Antigone examplifies such a situation of antiparastasis.
4. Paradiastole
The term paradiastole comes from a Greek word expressing a movement of expansion and differentiation. In a monologue, the paradiastole “establishes a system of nuance and precision, generally developed on the basis of parallel statements” (Molinié 1992, Paradiastole). The Latin term distinguo refers to a similar process. Paradiastole refines the definition of a concept or establishes a distinction between two similar concepts that the speaker believes should not be confused, for example “sadness is not depression”. In a dialogue, the paradiastole rejects a partner’s word as inadequate, and replaces it with a more contextually appropriate word, that reorients the discourse. Although depression and sadness are semantically similar, they can still be contrasted, as in:
L1: — I’m depressed. I need to see a psychiatrist.
L2: — No, you’re not depressed, you’re sad. Sadness is not a disease.
Discourse constantly builds up such anti-oriented pairs, see orienting words.
As we know, all lovers boast of their choice. The chatterer [is] good-humored, and the silent one maintains her virtuous modesty (Molière, [The Misanthrope], 1666[2])
(What is presented as) the true strongly negative description of a person as a chatterbox or a stupid person contrasts with how she appears to her lover, good-humored or maintaining her virtuously modest. The following example shows that this situation generalizes to discourse, where parladiastole no longer operates strictly between two terms, but between two discourses opposing two points of view.
L1: — He’s brave.
L2: — I would not say that. He knows how to face danger, okay, but it seems to me that to be really brave you also need a system of values, and a clear sense of what you’re fighting for. Maybe he is just a hothead?
Starting from a mere nuance, paradiastole can develop into a permanent opposition.
L1: — This is just ignorance.
L2: — No, it’s simply bad faith.
[1] Thierry Maulnier, Le sens des mots, Paris: Flammarion, 1976, pp. 9-10.
[2] Molière, Le Misanthrope, II, 4. Quoted from Molière, The Misanthrope. Ed. by, Girard KS: E. Haldeman-Julius, 1922. Pp. 26-27. https://archive.org/details/misanthropecomed00molirich (11-04-2017).