ORIENTING WORDS

A morpheme (a concept, an expression) is argumentative if, when inserted into an utterance,
– It does not alter the factual referential value of the utterance (it has no quantifying function).
– It changes the argumentative orientation of the utterance, i.e. the set of conclusions compatible with the utterance, that is, the set of propositions that can follow it.

Anscombre and Ducrot developed the semantic concept of an argumentative morpheme  (orienting word) is as an essential part of the Awl theory, see orientation reversal.
This concept has been applied to the linguistic description of « empty » words or « argumentative operators » such as the pair little / a little, and to « full » words such as the pair helpful / servile.

1. Anti-Oriented Words

The English pair helpful/servile and the French pair serviable/servile

Servile (Fr.) and servile (Eng.) both derive from the word serf, a type of slave in medieval times. Servile (Fr.) can be translated as servile (Eng.) and is a synonym for “submissive, obsequious, subservient.”

Serviable (Fr.) comes from the root [serv-], which is also found in the English word serviceable, plus the suffix -able in both languages. Service comes from the same root.
Serviable and serviceable are false friends. Their morphological similarity covers very different meanings:
– Serviceable (Eng.) refers to objects, etc., and means « suitable for use » (CD).
– Serviable (Fr.) refers exclusively to people and means a « kind, helpful person. »
In English, servile is the opposite of helpful.

Contrast between helpful and servile – Consider the statements (1) “Peter is helpful” and (2) “Peter is servile [submissive].” Do these two statements describe two different types of character and behavior, or one and the same attitude? Either position can be argued.

♦ Statements (1) and (2) describe two types of behavior. For example, helping your grandmother set the table is helpful, whereas offering to carry your boss’s small suitcase is submissive. Consequently, each behavior is assigned a different value; helpfulness is positive, while submissiveness is negative. To determine the nature of Peter’s behavior, one must examine its details and  context.

♦ It can also be argued that these two words describe one type of behavior viewed in two different ways. If I view the behavior positively I might say, « Peter is helpful. » I might judge the same behavior negatively, saying, « Peter is servile« . Reality says nothing about helpfulness or servility. This distinction originates not in reality, but in the speaker’s subjectivity, or the active structuring of perception, involving emotions and value judgments.

Statements (1) and (2) create opposite discursive expectations in the listener. Helpful is a recommendation, “A nice guy!”, while servile and submissive are rejections, “I can’t stand his ways. »

If the job involves interacting with someone specifically concerned with deferential behavior, then Peter is servile might also serve as an ironic recommendation, implying disapproval of both people: “they will make a nice couple.”

These opposing orientations correspond to the rhetorical phenomenon known as paradiastole, “The world is moving backwards; words have lost their meaning. The miser is thrifty, the unconscious is brave.” Normative theories of logical inspiration interpret this phenomenon as the expression of linguistic bias, see orientation reversal.

Antithetical designations — The opposition between discourse and counter-discourse is sometimes reflected in the word morphology, as in the previous case, see antithesis; derived words; ambiguity:

Disputation vs. disputatiousness.
Politician vs. politico.
Philosopher vs. philosophizer.
Scientific vs. scientistic.

In general, parties use different terms to refer to those at the center of the debate. You are the persecutor, I am the victim. He is the evil rich man, I am the poor but honest person. Your approach is scientistic while mine is scientific, see discursive object.

What criteria can I use to classify someone as a terrorist or as a resistance fighter? Is the resistance fighter a successful terrorist, and the terrorist the resistance fighter of a lost cause? Should their actions be considered (categorized) as a cowardly act of terrorism or as a heroic act of resistance? Are everyone’s hands dirty, and does everything depend on the speaker’s partisan preferences?
Accepted international conventions are needed. The systematic discussion dates back to the works of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, two landmark thinkers in the debate on the laws of war. The modern world has defined war crimes and crimes against humanity.

2. Adverbial Orientation Operators

2.1 Even

The adverb even is argumentative in the following statement:

(1) Leo has a bachelor’s degree and even a master’s degree.

This discourse “p, and even p1 ” is characterized by the relative position of p and p1 on an argument scale.

There is a certain [conclusion] r which determines an argument scale where p1 is [a stronger argument] than p [for the conclusion c]. (Ducrot 1973, p. 229)

In other words, some even statements are inherently argumentative. They are oriented toward a conclusion, c, that can be recovered from the context. These statements coordinate two arguments p and p1 which both support the conclusion c, and hierarchize those two statements, presenting p1 as stronger than p.

Statement (1) is argumentative.
– It coordinates the arguments “Leo has a bachelor’s degree” and “Leo has a Master’s degree.”
– Both are directed toward the conclusion that “Leo can teach some mathematics.” Statement (1) considers the latter argument, “Leo has a Master’s degree,” to be a stronger argument than the former, « Leo has a Bachelor’s degree, »  for this same conclusion. This gradation can be represented on an argument scale as follows:

The relative positions of p and p’ on this scale depend on the speaker.

We had a great meal, we even had cheese pasta.

Other gourmets may not consider macaroni and cheese to be an essential part of a great meal.

2.2 Too

The theory of scales is governed by the “plus … plus …” principle: the higher you are on the scale, the closer you are to the conclusion. However, this principle leads to an apparent paradox.
For example, « you reluctantly bathe in water that’s twenty-two degrees, you’d be happier bathing in water that’s twenty-five degrees, thirty degrees, or even warmer degree. The hotter the water, the better. Therefore, you really should try bathing directly in the cauldron. » The progression is intended as a joke.

Too inverts the argumentative orientation:

S1       — It’s cheap, buy it.
S2       — It’s too cheap.

But sometimes it reinforces this orientation: S1       — It’s expensive, too expensive, don’t buy it

2.3 Almost / hardly

Almost is a paradoxical word. “Almost P” presupposes not-P and argues as P. If I say « Today, Leo was almost on time« , then I acknowledge the fact that he was not on time. Nevertheless, you could say:

Excuse him, he was almost on time. He should not be punished.

In other words, “almost on time” is co-oriented with “on time”. The argumentative orientation of an almost utterance might be rejected by a rigid superior, who refuses the positive framing being imposed on him. The superior applies the topos of the strict meaning of the law:

Therefore, you confirm that he was not on time. The sanction will be applied.

This co-orientation of P and almost P does not apply to predicates referring to the crossing of a threshold. For example, when transporting a critically ill patient, for example, the nurse might urge the ambulance driver: “Hurry up, he is almost dead,” but the nurse would not say, “Hurry up, he is dead.” However, in an alternative scenario–say a rather laborious assassination–the killer might say to his accomplice, “Hurry up! He’s almost dead, and you still haven’t found anything to wrap his body in.” A fortiori, he might say “Hurry up! He is dead.”

Substituting « hardly » for « almost » reverses the argumentative orientation of the statements in which they appear.

You’re almost cured, you can join our party!
I’m hardly cured, I can’t join your party.

The appeal to the strict meaning can be opposed to the thresholds raised by almost and hardly.

2.4 Little / A Little

These two adverbs give opposite argumentative orientations to the predicates that they modify.

(1) There is now little faith in market mechanisms.
(1′) There is now a little faith in market mechanisms.

(2) He has eaten a little, he feels well.
(2′) He feels unwell, he has eaten little.

(1) is oriented towards “there is no confidence at all”, while (1′) is oriented towards “confidence.” In (2) little and a little are not quantifiers that refer to different amounts of faith or food (a little trust being more than little trust). They give opposite orientations to what is essentially the same quantity.

3. Adjectives as Orientation Operators

Adjectives can alter the argumentative strength or the orientation of a sentence.

De-realizing operators are defined as follows:

A lexical word Y is de-realizing with respect to a predicate X if and only if the combination XY is on the one hand is not perceived as contradictory, and, on the other hand, reverses or reduces X’s argumentative strength. (Ducrot 1995, pp. 147)

Consider the following statements (Ducrot 1995, pp. 148–150)

He is a relative, and even a close one.
He’s a relative, but a distant one.

Close is a realizing operator (id., p. 147). “They are close relatives” is co-oriented with “They are relatives,” towards conclusions such as “They know each other well.”
They are located on the corresponding argument scale as follows:

Distant is a de-realizing operator. The sentence “He is a distant relative of mine” can be oriented toward “We don’t know each other well”, i.e., it has an opposite orientation to “He is a relative of mine.”

It can also be oriented toward “We know each other well”, similar to “He is a relative of mine”, but with less force: