{"id":4783,"date":"2021-10-18T13:51:57","date_gmt":"2021-10-18T11:51:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4783"},"modified":"2025-06-17T08:38:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T06:38:07","slug":"common-place-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/common-place-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Common Place"},"content":{"rendered":"

INVENTION and COMMON PLACES<\/span><\/h1>\n

The term commonplace<\/em> corresponds to the Latin locus communis<\/em>, which translates the Greek topos<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Often reduced to a place<\/em> (locus<\/em>, pl. loci<\/em>), an inferential commonplace<\/em> is an inferential topic, or argumentation scheme<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 A substantive commonplace is an endoxon, that is, a formulaic expression of a common idea<\/em>. Traditional rhetorical invention specialized in the argumentative use of substantive commonplaces.<\/p>\n

1. Chapter Heads of Reality
\n<\/span><\/h2>\n

According to Aristotle’s Categories<\/em> (1b 25 sq.; Tricot, p. 5), events and reality are organized according to a basic ontology, whose ultimate components (categories) are:<\/p>\n

Person, Action, Time, Place, Manner, Cause or Reason<\/strong><\/p>\n

The parameters of this is a Western<\/em> ontology can vary from author to author.<\/p>\n

According to Benveniste (1966, ch. VI), these parameters, which are supposed to reflect reality, are also closely related to the Greek language, particularly the system of sentence complementation and to interrogative words.<\/p>\n

Category \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Question<\/p>\n

Person focus \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Who?<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Peter
\n<\/em>Kind of action \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What? <\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 met Paul
\n<\/em>Quantity\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How many times?<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 twice
\nPlace \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Where?<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 in Washington
\nManner\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 reluctantly
\nMedium \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How?<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 on Paul’s instigation
\n<\/em>Purpose, reason\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Why?<\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to discuss their business<\/em>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

The systematic use of this interrogative grid is a survey method for gathering and organizing information about any event.<\/p>\n

[Interrogatives] have already been recognized in different languages \u200b\u200bfor different purposes: such as, for speculative purposes, in\u00a0scholastic Latin: cur?, quomodo?, quando?<\/em> [why? how? when?<\/em>]; or for military purposes in German, where the tetralogy Wer? Wo? Wann? Wie?<\/em> is taught to all military recruits as the framework of information that every scout on a reconnaissance mission must be able to provide and report to their superiors. (Tesni\u00e8re 1959, p. 194).<\/p>\n

This method is known as \u201dFive Ws\u201d : Who? What?<\/em> Where? When?<\/em> Why?\u00a0<\/em>\u2013plus How?<\/em> How many?<\/em><\/p>\n

When applied to a particular field, these parameters correspond to words with\u00a0full lexical meaning<\/em>. For example, a classic guide to political decision-making includes questions such as:<\/p>\n

\u201cHonorable?<\/em> Will the proposed measure be honorable or embarrassing to us?<\/em><\/p>\n

See political arguments: two collections <\/a>and infra, the parameters for portraying human beings.<\/p>\n

In the Middle Ages, it guided confessors looking for sins, who were anxious not to overlook any (Robertson & Olson, 2017). We can speak of \u201cinquisitorial\u201d questions [1] , in the sense that an inquisition<\/em> is defined as an \u201cinvestigation, methodical, rigorous research\u201d (TLFi, Inquisitoire<\/em>). It is a cornerstone of ordinary Western thought.<\/p>\n

The same type of questions also guide moral evaluations. For example an act such as \u201chaving carnal intercourse\u201d is considered shameful if it is done \u201cwith forbidden persons\u201d (with<\/em> whom?<\/em>), or \u201cat the wrong time\u201d (when?<\/em>) or \u201cin the wrong place\u201d (where?<\/em>) (Aristotle, 1383b 15-20; RR p. 279).<\/p>\n

2. The Rhetorical \u201cTechnical\u201d Method
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

The distinction between rhetorical and non-rhetorical elements,\u00a0 i.e.\u00a0 between what belongs to \u201crhetorical technique<\/a>\u201d and what does not, is a key aspect of this method. This distinction is nonintuitive, and surprising a priori. This is most evident at the beginning of the rhetorical process, the inventio, or the research of arguments. The grid of questions remains\u00a0 operative, the radical change lies in how the answers are constructed.<\/p>\n

These questions can be answered a posteriori<\/em>, i.e., after a full documented investigation into the specifics of the case\u2013the kind of work a police investigator is supposed to do. The inspector does fieldwork, the rhetor as such does not. The rhetor can answer a priori<\/em>, on the basis of endoxa, or preconceived common ideas, that are \u201cruling ideas\u00a0\u00bb.
\nIn both cases, the collected material must be presented in a convincing discourse to the court and the public. Ultimately, it’s all a matter of language, the result of the concrete investigation makes all\u00a0 the difference. In any case, rhetorical discourse is particularly powerful in creating doubt and shifting the burden of proof.
\nWhen material data is scarce\u2014no witnesses, no contracts, not even a corpse\u2014the case must still be discussed and this is where rhetoric comes in, in full force, not necessarily to manipulate people, but to clarify the situation and circumscribe zones of doubt avoiding for example, the condemnation of an innocent person, for example.<\/p>\n

Giving undue prominence to stereotyped ideas in the construction of arguments, leads to strong and indignant criticism of rhetoric as a fallacious verbiage, <\/a>see ornamental fallacy <\/a>and \u00a75 below.<\/p>\n

Consider the argumentative question \u201cDid Mr. So-and-So commit this horrible murder?<\/em>\u201d
\n\u2014 The question Who?<\/em> \u201cWho is the defendant, Mr. So-and-So?<\/em>\u201d. The subtopic Which country?<\/em> provides the categorizing<\/a> information: \u201cMr. So-and-so is Syldavian,<\/em>\u201d and likewise for all questions about the person.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014 Endoxon about the Syldavians: The Syldavian category is associated with a set of defining endoxic predicates (\u201cthe Syldavians are like this<\/em>\u201d), each of which has a specific argumentative orientation.<\/p>\n

The Syldavians are peaceful \/ bloodthirsty people.<\/span><\/p>\n

These predicates provide an encyclopedic endoxic semantic definition of the Syldavian.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0The instantiation of the endoxic definition<\/a> supports the conclusion:<\/p>\n

The guilt of Mr. So-and-So is probable \/ improbable.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other topical questions about the same Mr. So-and-So will provide different, possibly contradictory, perspectives that the opponent can use.
\nSuch answers can help to organize a previous serious documentation, and a bunch of pre-established judgments\u00a0 regardless of the outcome of any detailed investigation of the matter<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3. Portrait Based on Commonplaces
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

Each of these questions can become the source of several sub-questions that can be developed considerably, to produce a detailed grid of investigation. The results produced by this technique depend entirely on the method of inquiry used to answer the questions. An armchair argument where the \u2018research\u2019 is based on common sense and commonplaces will produce commonplace conclusions.<\/p>\n

A rich set of detailed questions focuses on the key element of rhetorical scenarios: the person (Who?<\/em>). Quintilian distinguishes the following facets in order to identify a person and compose an a priori<\/em> rhetorical representation of that person, independent of any concrete information about the situation under discussion.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cBirth<\/em>,<\/strong> for people are generally considered to be similar in character to their fathers and forefathers, and sometimes derive motives for living an honorable or dishonorable life from their origins\u201d (Quintilian IO<\/em>, V, 10, 24\u2009).<\/p>\n

To answer the subquestion \u201cBirth?\u201d, the inquiry about the family gathers information such as \u201che comes from a well-known honorable family<\/em>\u201d, or \u201chis father was condemned.<\/em>\u201d The first piece of information provides arguments that allow one to apply rules such as \u201clike father, like son<\/em>\u201d, or \u201che is a chip of the old block<\/em>\u201d,leading to conclusions such as:<\/p>\n

He made a mistake, but his family provides all the necessary guarantees. Good blood cannot lie, he deserves a second chance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second piece of information leads to different conclusions:<\/p>\n

The father was convicted, so the son has a heavy inheritance. Bring me more information about him!<\/span><\/p>\n

The saying \u201cthe son of the miser is a spendthrift<\/em>\u201d contradicts the previous conclusion. If the father has a vice<\/em>, the doxa does not attribute the corresponding virtue <\/em>to the son, but rather the same vice<\/em> or an opposite one.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2002\u2009\u201cNation?<\/em>\u201d<\/strong> (ibid<\/em>.) and \u201cCountry?<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (ibid., 25). The answers will introduce national stereotypes: \u201cIf he is Spanish<\/em>, he is proud, if he is British<\/em>, he is phlegmatic.\u201d These conclusions, \u201che is proud, he is phlegmatic<\/em>\u201d, can be useful for the ensuing discussion,\u00a0 \u201cHe is Spanish, so he is proud. He certainly reacted strongly to this personal attack.<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cSex?<\/em> –<\/strong> For you would more readily believe a charge of robbery with regard to a man, and a charge of poisoning with regard to a woman\u201d (ibid.) The prejudiced investigator will follow the commonplace suggestion: he will tend to look for a woman in the second case. A French book, \u201cThe Famous Poisoners<\/em>\u201d (Les Empoisonneuses C\u00e9l\u00e8bres)<\/em>, is devoted exclusively to famous female<\/em> poisoners.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u2009\u201cAge?<\/em>\u201d, \u201cEducation?<\/em>\u201d, \u201cBodily constitution<\/em>?<\/strong> – For beauty is often used as an argument for libertinism, and strength for insolence. Contrary qualities are used to justify for contrary conduct\u201d (id.<\/em>, 25-26). In other words, \u201cHe is handsome, he must be a libertine<\/em>\u201d is more credible, and considered as more probable<\/a> than \u201cHe is handsome, therefore he must live an austere life.<\/em>\u201d If A<\/strong> is stronger than B<\/strong>, then \u201cA<\/strong> is more aggressive than B<\/strong>\u201d is likely. Therefore, if A<\/strong> and B<\/strong> fought, \u201csurely, A<\/strong> attacked B<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00bb In other words, A<\/strong> bears the burden of proof. These conclusions can be reversed by applying the paradox of plausibility: \u201cActually, B<\/strong> must have attacked A<\/strong>, because he knew that the evidence will be against A<\/strong>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cWealth<\/em>? –<\/strong> For the same charge is not equally credible in reference to a rich man and a poor man, in reference to one who is surrounded with relations, friends and clients, and to one who is destitute of all such support\u201d (id.<\/em>, 26). Commonplaces associated with social roles and positions come under this category. For example, an elderly man from the country, sitting on a bench in the setting sun, will certainly have deep thoughts about the present state of affairs, see rich and poor<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cNatural disposition<\/em> –\u00a0<\/strong> for avarice, passion, sensibility, cruelty, austerity, and other similar affections of the mind, frequently either cause credit to be given or to be withheld from an accusation\u201d (id.<\/em>, 27). The murder was committed in a peculiarly cruel manner. Peter is cruel, therefore he is the murderer<\/em>, see circumstances<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cManner of living \u2013<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0for it is often a matter of inquiry whether a person is luxurious, or parsimonious, or mean\u201d (ibid.).<\/span><\/p>\n

The following questions refer to arguments based on desires and motives (ibid.):<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cWhat a person affects,<\/strong> whether he wishes to appear rich or eloquent, just or powerful\u201d (id.<\/em>, 28)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cPrevious doings and sayings<\/strong>\u201d (ibid.), are used to find motives<\/a> and precedents<\/a>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0\u201cCommotion of the mind,<\/strong> [\u2026] a temporary excitement of the feelings, such as anger, or fear\u201d (ibid.), see emotions<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 \u201cDesigns\u201d<\/strong> (id., 29)<\/span><\/p>\n

This set of commonplaces underlies portraits such as:<\/p>\n

A man in his thirties. Canadian. West Coast. Athletic. From a well-known and respected family. Has never finished law school. Very friendly with his neighbors. Lives a conventional life. Works in a pharmacy, with limited prospects for the future.<\/span><\/p>\n

This portrait could be read as a literary draft, as a police report. In any case, it is a set of potential premises.
\nDoxa-based argumentation uses pieces of information such as \u201cthe man is X<\/strong><\/em>\u201d, relies on the stereotyped categories attached to X’<\/strong>s, \u201cthe X<\/strong> are like this<\/em>\u201d, and concludes that \u201cthe man is like this.<\/em>\u201d See categorization<\/a>; cefinition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4. Literature of Characters<\/span><\/h1>\n

This topology has a derived argumentative function and a direct aesthetic-cognitive function. It builds a bridge between argumentation and literature by providing a technique for constructing\u00a0 portraits<\/span>, through the genre of \u201ccharacters\u201d, such as those of the Greek Theophrastus. We are no longer in the realm of ethos<\/em><\/a> as autofiction, but in the pure world of the ethopoeia<\/em>, that is, the vivid fictional representation of a \u201ccharacter\u201d<\/span>, such as \u00ab\u00a0the Miser\u201d or \u201cthe Garrulous Person\u201d through their conventional typical manners, discourse and actions. These decontextualized portraits can serve as authorized and respectable sources of information about the represented character and as preparatory exercises for real-life argumentation.
\nThis combination constitutes a coherent educational, aesthetic and cognitive process of controlled writing and thinking\u2014the very antithesis of any automatic writing.<\/p>\n

5. \u201cThis Noxious Fertility of Common Thoughts<\/em>\u201d (Port-Royal)<\/span><\/h1>\n

When based solely on linguistic associations and doxa-based knowledge, this technique quickly produces fairly convincing, true-to-life images of things and events. These images are very difficult to refute, because they are merely expressions of shared preconstructed\u00a0 knowledge<\/span>. The vicious circle between persuader and persuadee is an example of such a situation, see persuasion<\/a>.
\nSuch compositions are the opposite of the in-depth characterizations of individuals, that can be developed in psychology or philosophy. They are a perfect stronghold for all positive or negative social prejudices.<\/p>\n

Port-Royal condemned this \u00ab\u00a0noxious fertility of the common thoughts\u00a0\u00bb in the strongest terms:<\/p>\n

Now, so far is it from being useful to obtain this sort of abundance, that there is nothing which more depraves the judgment, nothing which more chokes up good seed, than a crowd of noxious weeds ; nothing renders a mind more barren of just and weighty thoughts than this noxious fertility of common thoughts.<\/span><\/strong> The mind is accustomed to this facility, and no longer makes any effort to find appropriate, special, and natural reasons, which can only be discovered by an attentive consideration of the subject. (Arnauld, Nicole, [1662],<\/em> III, XVII; p. 235).<\/p>\n

\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INVENTION and COMMON PLACES The term commonplace corresponds to the Latin locus communis, which translates the Greek topos. \u2014 Often reduced to a place (locus, pl. loci), an inferential commonplace is an inferential topic, or argumentation scheme. \u2014 A substantive commonplace is an endoxon, that is, a formulaic expression of a common idea. Traditional rhetorical […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4783"}],"version-history":[{"count":24,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4783\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14383,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4783\/revisions\/14383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}