{"id":5283,"date":"2021-10-22T16:03:51","date_gmt":"2021-10-22T14:03:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5283"},"modified":"2025-05-31T19:25:44","modified_gmt":"2025-05-31T17:25:44","slug":"orienting-words-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/orienting-words-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Orienting Words"},"content":{"rendered":"

ORIENTING WORDS<\/span><\/h1>\n

A morpheme (a concept, an expression) is argumentative<\/em> if, when inserted into an utterance,
\n\u2013 It does not alter the factual referential value of the utterance<\/span> (it has no quantifying function).<\/span>
\n– It changes the argumentative orientation<\/a> of the utterance<\/span>, i.e. the set of conclusions compatible with the utterance, that is, the set of propositions that can follow it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Anscombre and Ducrot developed the semantic concept of an argumentative morpheme\u00a0 (orienting word) is as an essential part of the Awl theory, see orientation reversal.<\/a>
\nThis concept has been applied to the linguistic description of \u00ab\u00a0empty\u00a0\u00bb words or \u00ab\u00a0argumentative operators\u00a0\u00bb<\/span> such as the pair little \/ a little<\/em>, and to \u00ab\u00a0full\u00a0\u00bb words such as the pair helpful \/ servile<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. Anti-Oriented Words<\/span><\/h2>\n

The English pair helpful\/servile<\/em> and the French pair serviable\/servile<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Servile<\/em> <\/strong>(Fr.) and servile<\/em><\/strong> (Eng.) both derive from the word serf, <\/em>a type of slave in medieval times. Servile<\/em> (Fr.) can be translated as servile<\/em> (Eng.) and is a synonym for \u201csubmissive, obsequious, subservient.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Serviable<\/strong><\/em> (Fr.) comes from the root [serv-<\/em>], which is also found in the English word serviceable,<\/em><\/strong> plus the suffix -able<\/em> in both languages. Service<\/strong><\/em> comes from the same root.
\nServiable<\/em> and serviceable<\/em> are false friends.\u00a0<\/em>Their morphological similarity covers very different meanings:
\n– Serviceable <\/em>(Eng.) refers to objects, etc., and means \u00ab\u00a0suitable for use\u00a0\u00bb (CD).
\n– Serviable<\/em> (Fr.) refers exclusively to people and means a \u00ab\u00a0kind, helpful person.\u00a0\u00bb
\nIn English, servile<\/em> is the opposite of helpful.<\/em><\/p>\n

Contrast between helpful<\/em>\u00a0and servile \u2013 <\/em><\/strong>Consider the statements (1) \u201cPeter is helpful<\/em>\u201d and (2) \u201cPeter is servile [submissive].<\/em>\u201d Do these two statements describe two different types of character and behavior, or one and the same attitude?<\/em> <\/span>Either position can be argued.<\/p>\n

\u2666<\/span> 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\u00a0 context.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2666<\/span> 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, \u00ab\u00a0Peter is helpful.<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb I might judge the same behavior negatively, saying, \u00ab\u00a0Peter is servile<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0. Reality says nothing about helpfulness or servility. This distinction originates not in reality, but in the speaker’s subjectivity<\/a>, or the active structuring of perception, involving emotions and value judgments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Statements (1) and (2) create opposite discursive expectations in the listener. Helpful<\/em> is a recommendation, \u201cA nice guy!<\/em>\u201d, while servile <\/em>and submissive<\/em> are rejections, \u201cI can’t stand his ways<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

If the job involves interacting with someone specifically concerned with deferential behavior, then Peter is servile<\/em> might also serve as an ironic recommendation, implying disapproval of both people: \u201cthey will make a nice couple.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

These opposing orientations correspond to the rhetorical phenomenon known as paradiastole<\/em><\/strong>,<\/span> \u201cThe world is moving backwards; words have lost their meaning. The miser is <\/em>thrifty, the unconscious<\/em> is<\/em> brave.\u201d Normative theories of logical inspiration interpret this phenomenon as the expression of linguistic bias, see orientation reversal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Antithetical designations \u2014<\/strong> The opposition between discourse and counter-discourse is sometimes reflected in the word morphology, as in the previous case, see antithesis<\/a>; derived words<\/a>; ambiguity<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Disputation vs.<\/em> disputatiousness.<\/span>
\nPolitician vs.<\/em> politico.<\/span>
\nPhilosopher vs.<\/em> philosophizer.<\/span>
\nScientific vs.<\/em> scientistic.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

What criteria can I use to classify someone as a terrorist<\/em> or as a resistance<\/em> fighter? Is the resistance<\/em> fighter a successful terrorist, and the terrorist the resistance<\/em> 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\u2019s partisan preferences?
\nAccepted 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.<\/p>\n

2. Adverbial Orientation Operators<\/span><\/h2>\n

2.1 Even<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

The adverb even<\/em> is argumentative in the following statement:<\/p>\n

(1) Leo has a bachelor’s degree and even a master’s degree.<\/span><\/p>\n

This discourse \u201cp<\/strong>, and even p1 <\/strong>\u201d is characterized by the relative position of p<\/strong> and p1<\/strong> on an argument scale.<\/p>\n

There is a certain [conclusion] r<\/strong> which determines an argument scale where p1<\/strong>\u00a0is [a stronger argument] than p <\/strong>[for the conclusion c<\/strong>]. (Ducrot 1973, p. 229)<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Statement (1) is argumentative.
\n\u2013 It coordinates the arguments \u201cLeo has a bachelor’s degree<\/em>\u201d and \u201cLeo has a <\/em>Master’s <\/em>degree.<\/em>\u201d
\n\u2013 Both are directed toward the conclusion that \u201cLeo can teach some mathematics.<\/em>\u201d Statement (1) considers the latter argument, \u201cLeo has a <\/em>Master’s<\/em> degree,<\/em>\u201d to be a stronger argument than the former, \u00ab\u00a0Leo has a Bachelor’s degree,<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0 for this same conclusion. This gradation can be represented on an argument scale<\/a> as follows:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The relative positions of p<\/strong> and p’<\/strong> on this scale depend on the speaker.<\/p>\n

We had a great meal, we even had cheese pasta.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other gourmets may not consider macaroni and cheese to be an essential part of a great meal.<\/p>\n

2.2 Too<\/em><\/strong> <\/span><\/h2>\n

The theory of scales is governed by the \u201cplus … plus …<\/em>\u201d principle: the higher you are on the scale, the closer you are to the conclusion. However, this principle leads to an apparent paradox.
\nFor example, \u00ab\u00a0you 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.\u00a0\u00bb The progression is intended as a joke.<\/p>\n

Too<\/em><\/strong> inverts the argumentative orientation:<\/p>\n

S1 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 It\u2019s cheap, buy it.
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 It\u2019s too cheap.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

But sometimes it reinforces this orientation: S1 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 It\u2019s expensive, too expensive, don’t buy it<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

2.3 Almost<\/em><\/strong> \/ hardly<\/em><\/strong> <\/span><\/h2>\n

Almost<\/em> is a paradoxical word. \u201cAlmost<\/em> P<\/strong>\u201d presupposes not-P<\/strong> and argues as P<\/strong>.<\/span> If I say \u00ab\u00a0Today, Leo was <\/em>almost on time<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, then I acknowledge the fact that he was not<\/em> on time. Nevertheless, you could say:<\/p>\n

Excuse him, he was almost on time. He should not be punished.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, \u201calmost on time<\/em>\u201d is co-oriented with \u201con time<\/em>\u201d. The argumentative orientation of an almost<\/em> 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<\/a> of the law:<\/p>\n

Therefore, you confirm that he was not<\/em> on time. The sanction will be applied.<\/span><\/p>\n

This co-orientation of P<\/strong> and almost<\/em> P<\/strong> 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: \u201cHurry up, he is almost dead,<\/em>\u201d but the nurse would not say, \u201cHurry up, he is dead.<\/em>\u201d However, in an alternative scenario\u2013say a rather laborious assassination\u2013the killer might say to his accomplice, \u201cHurry up! He’s almost dead, and you still haven’t found anything to wrap his body in.<\/em>\u201d A fortiori, <\/em>he might say \u201cHurry up! He is dead<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Substituting \u00ab\u00a0hardly<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb for \u00ab\u00a0almost<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb reverses the argumentative orientation of the statements in which they appear.<\/p>\n

You’re almost<\/em> cured, you can join our party!<\/span>
\nI’m hardly<\/em> cured, I can’t join your party.<\/span><\/p>\n

The appeal to the strict meaning can be opposed to the thresholds raised by almost<\/em> and hardly.<\/em><\/p>\n

2.4 Little<\/em><\/strong> \/ A Little<\/em><\/strong> <\/span><\/h3>\n

These two adverbs give opposite argumentative orientations to the predicates that they modify.<\/p>\n

(1) There is now little faith in market mechanisms.<\/span>
\n(1′) There is now a little faith in market mechanisms.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) He has eaten a little, he feels well.
\n(2′) He feels unwell, he has eaten little.<\/p>\n

(1) is oriented towards \u201cthere is no confidence at all<\/em>\u201d, while (1′) is oriented towards \u201cconfidence.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0In (2) little<\/em> and a little<\/em> are not quantifiers that refer to different amounts of faith or food (a little<\/em> trust<\/em> being more than little trust<\/em>). They give opposite orientations to what is essentially the same quantity.<\/p>\n

3. Adjectives as Orientation Operators<\/span><\/h2>\n

Adjectives can alter the argumentative strength or the orientation of a sentence.<\/p>\n

De-realizing<\/em> operators are defined as follows:<\/p>\n

A lexical word Y<\/strong> is de-realizing<\/em> with respect to a predicate X<\/strong> if and only if the combination XY<\/strong> is on the one hand is not perceived as contradictory, and, on the other hand, reverses or reduces X’s <\/strong>argumentative strength. (Ducrot 1995, pp.\u2009147)<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the following statements (Ducrot 1995, pp. 148\u2013150)<\/p>\n

He is a relative, and even a close one.<\/span>
\nHe\u2019s a relative, but a distant one.<\/span><\/p>\n

Close<\/em> is a realizing <\/em>operator (id<\/em>., p. 147). \u201cThey are close relatives<\/em>\u201d is co-oriented with \u201cThey are relatives,<\/em>\u201d towards conclusions such as \u201cT<\/em>hey know each other well.<\/em>\u201d
\nThey are located on the corresponding argument scale as follows:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Distant<\/em> is a de-realizing<\/em> operator. The sentence \u201cHe is a distant relative of mine<\/em>\u201d can be oriented toward \u201cWe don’t know each other well<\/em>\u201d, i.e., it has an opposite orientation to \u201cHe is a relative of mine.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

It can also be oriented toward \u201cWe know each other well<\/em>\u201d, similar to \u201cHe is a relative of mine<\/em>\u201d, but with less force:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ORIENTING WORDS A morpheme (a concept, an expression) is argumentative if, when inserted into an utterance, \u2013 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5283","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=5283"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14319,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5283\/revisions\/14319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}