full text
TRANSCRIPT
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis
Luisa Puig
Published online: 8 October 2011
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract This article takes a linguistic perspective of argumentation, as proposed
by Marion Carel and Oswald Ducrot with the ‘‘Theorie des blocs semantiques’’
(SBT: Semantic Block Theory). This theory argues that the meaning of a linguistic
entity is determined by a collection of discourses that this entity calls to mind.
Describing the meaning of a word, a syntagm or an utterance amounts to specifying
the argumentative linkages (‘‘enchaınements argumentatifs’’) allowed by these
entities. We propose a semantic and argumentative analysis of syntagms mujer facil,femme facile [easy woman] and hombre facil, homme facile [easy man] that, in
Romance languages in particular, hold different meanings: both hombre facil/homme facile describe a man’s character or nature, whereas mujer facil/femmefacile, in their most common usage, imply a certain sexual behavior. We will
compare the argumentative linkages that make up the meaning of mujer facil/femmefacile with those of other expressions that are part of the same semantic block. Also,
this analysis will connect the proposed description to certain proverbial discourse
about women, and it will call attention to the role that these expressions can play in
a persuasive strategy.
Keywords Argumentation � Linguistics � Semantic block � Stereotype � Persuasion
This work assumes a distinction between two senses of argumentation: one in a
traditional sense and one taken from a linguistic perspective. These senses
correspond to two approaches to argumentation that are rather different, but that can
Translated from French by Christopher Renna.
L. Puig (&)
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Argumentation (2012) 26:127–142
DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9239-2
nevertheless be interrelated when dealing with the persuasive strategy shown in
speech.
The framework for this analysis comes primarily from the ‘‘Theorie des blocs
semantiques’’ (SBT: Semantic Block Theory), which was created by Marion Carel
and developed by both this author and Oswald Ducrot. The goal of this paper is to
propose a semantic and argumentative description for the syntagms mujer facil/femmefacile [easy woman] and hombre facil/homme facile [easy man].1 These descriptions
must account for the different meanings of these expressions, particularly in Spanish
and French. This issue will be dealt with in accordance to the non-referentialist
postulates that stipulate: ‘‘the semantic and referential functions of words and
discourse are independent’’ (Anscombre and Kleiber 2001, p. 14).
1 Linguistic Argumentation
The SBT is built upon the notion of value, as developed by Saussure. A linguistic
entity’s meaning (be it a word, a syntagm, or an utterance) is determined by its
relationship with other words, the role it plays in a discourse, the effect that it
exercises upon the possible discursive continuations, the collection of discourses
that it evokes (Ducrot 2004, pp. 364–365).
From this linguistic perspective, the term ‘‘argumentation’’ concerns the linkage
between utterances. And, in order to determine which argumentative discourses are
evoked by given linguistic entities, it is necessary to target certain relationships
among the infinite variety of possible linkages between two utterances.
For the SBT, this decision stems from the postulate that the linguistic notion of
argumentation must be differentiated from the logical concept of inference. As
Ducrot writes, the discourse’s nature does not match the nature of the logical
thought (1999, pp. 118–119). In the case of an inference, the argument and the
conclusion are independent propositions that may be intrinsically true or false.
Inferences also lead to the admission—or at least the estimation of it as a
probable—of a conclusion because of the truth expressed by the argument.
The difference between the nature of the discourse and that of the logical thought
is evident with two types of argumentative linkages that are particularly favored by
the SBT: ‘‘normative’’ linkages that use connectors like por lo tanto (PLT), donc(DC) (therefore)2 and ‘‘transgressive’’ linkages that contain connectors like sinembargo (SE), pourtant (PT) (however).3
1 From now on I will only refer to these expressions in Spanish and French.2 Other equivalent connectors are: entonces, por esta razon, por ello, es por eso que, etc. (in Spanish);
alors, pour cette raison, de ce fait, c’est pourquoi, etc. (in French); (so, for this reason, thus, that’s why).
The same relationship of conclusion can be established between two segments without an explicit
connector. Conditional propositions (si… entonces), (si…alors), (if… then) are also part of the normative
group. It is also possible that the results precede the origin, in which case we can use connectors like:
dado que, porque, ya que, puesto que (in Spanish), vu que, parce que, etant donne que, puisque (in
French); (seeing that, because, given that, for as much as). Lastly, the same categories encompass both
relationships of conclusion and of consequence.3 Connectors that also mark concession such as no obstante (que), aun cuando, incluso si (in Spanish);
malgre (que), bien que, meme si (in French); (despite, though, even if) can also be used.
128 L. Puig
123
In these cases –and contrary to what happens with an inference– the linked
utterances do not possess, when taken alone, ‘‘independent’’ meaning that can be
understood outside the linkage in question. So they are purely discursive linkages,
incapable of being reduced to relationships between independent properties (Ducrot
2004, p. 370).
In discourse, then, the segments that form these argumentative linkages bear a
semantic interdependence: the meaning of the argument is understood and
completed thanks to the presence of the conclusion and vice versa. The meaning
of the words that make up the two segments will change as a function of the
linkages in which they appear.
The SBT bridges normative linkages to transgressive ones because they both
construct the same representation; they correspond to the two possible ways of
connecting a linkage.4
There are important theoretical implications to considering the meaning of an
utterance in this manner. In discourse, the stated arguments do not accomplish, as
they do with reasoning, the function of justifying the corresponding conclusions.
The argumentative linkages make up semantic blocks in which the function is to
represent situations, to construct a schematization, to propose a certain vision of
things.
Describing the meaning of a word, a syntagm or an utterance therefore consists of
determining the argumentative linkages that are allowed by these entities.
An argumentative aspect (be it a normative linkage with por lo tanto, donc,therefore, or a transgressive one with sin embargo, pourtant, however) can be
suggested by a linguistic entity in two different ways: it can originate from either the
internal argumentation (IA) or from the external argumentation (EA) of the
linguistic entity. On the one hand, IAs equate to a type of paraphrasing or
reformulating, which allows us to explain a given linguistic entity. On the other
hand, EAs are possible continuations—to the left or to the right—that one can
imagine extending from this entity.
These semantic conceptions have important repercussions for argumentation.
When one considers that argumentative discourses can be found in the meaning of
words, we assume that the argumentation is not added on top of the meaning, but
that it constitutes the meaning itself. Hence, we establish an indissoluble connection
between argumentation and language. Linguistics and argumentation are neither
two disparate realms of study nor two entirely different practices. Argumentation in
natural languages is not based upon inferences, but it is rooted in the lexicon itself.
2 Argumentative Analysis of Syntagms Mujer facil/Femme facile and Hombrefacil/Homme facile
I will apply this approach of argumentative analysis to the adjective facil/facile(easy) that, when associated with the noun hombre/homme (man) (also with person,child, baby, etc.) on the one hand, and to mujer/femme (woman), on the other, have
4 The SBT calls them ‘‘aspects’’; each aspect is defined as a group of linkages (Ducrot 2001, p. 23).
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 129
123
different meanings, particularly in Romance languages. Hombre facil/homme facile,describes a nature or a person’s character, whereas mujer facil/femme facile, in its
most common acceptation, generally suggests a certain sexual conduct or a charnel
business.5
The asymmetry we’re highlighting is also evident with other syntagms: mujerpublica, femme publique (public woman)/hombre publico, homme publique (publicman); for Spanish and French there is mujer ligera, femme legere (loose woman)/hombre ligero, homme leger; and for Spanish only there is also mujer mundana/hombre mundano (mundane).
Some authors, such as Fabienne Baider (2004) consider that this difference in
sense is due to a contamination originating in the noun femme or other nouns that
come from the same paradigm, such as jeune fille, fille (young girl, girl); with dame(lady), this is the case but with an ironical nuance.
In order to prove this idea, Baider traces the genealogy of this word all the way
back to the use of the Latin term femina. This word began to be specialized in the
sense of woman in Vulgate’s texts as a way of underlining the weakness inherent in
the female gender. A sexual sense—with an axiological negative charge—has been
progressively added to this original sense of inherent weakness that characterizes
the nouns mulier and femina in Vulgar Latin. The author traces these various senses
all the way up to the modern acceptation of the term (2004, p. 57). In fact,
throughout time, the word that appears the most frequently in conjunction with the
word sex is woman (2004, p. 57).
Dictionaries can serve as sources that allow us to study this evolutionary process.
The discourse in dictionaries aims, in principle, to be objective and neutral.
However, and even if this objective is currently valued, dictionaries nevertheless
transmit ideologies that are recorded through the choice of citations, the examples
illustrating the given usages, not to mention the definitions themselves. This fact
validates dictionaries not only as documents of a linguistic nature, but also as the
echo of a dominant discourse.
As a case in point, the entry for mujer (woman) in the Diccionario de la LenguaCastellana of the Real Academia Espanola published in 1899—at the threshold of
the twentieth century—gives the following definitions:
Persona del sexo femenino. // La que ha llegado a la edad de la pubertad. // La
casada, con relacion al marido. // de gobierno. Criada que tiene a su cargo el
gobierno economico de la casa. // del arte, de la vida airada, […], de mala
vida, […]. Ramera. // de su casa. La que tiene gobierno y disposicion para
mandar y ejecutar las cosas que le pertenecen, y cuida de su hacienda y familia
5 It is necessary to mention that, although mujer facil/femme facile are common expressions (in both
Spanish and in French), they don’t entirely correspond to idioms, according to the conditions analyzed by
Gross (1996). This author refers to semantic opacity (the meaning of a nominal group cannot be deduced
from the meaning of one of its elements: for example, an English key is a particular type of key, and
independent from the place where it is fabricated); the ‘‘freezing’’ (‘‘blocage’’) of transformational
properties (passivation, pronominalization, detachment, extraction, relativization); the freezing of
synonymical paradigms (a short circuit/*a brief-circuit); the non-insertion in a nominal group, of an
adjective, a relative, an interpolated clause or intensifying adverbs in front of adjectives. In a sequence,
there can be various degrees of ‘‘crystallization’’ (‘‘figement’’).
130 L. Puig
123
con mucha exactitud y diligencia. // facil. La que es conocidamente fragil. //
mundana, perdida, o publica. Ramera.6
To summarize, it’s a collection of characteristics: age, man’s companion,
domestic employee, governess of the house and family, and prostitute.
This is squarely opposed to the definition given for hombre (man):
Animal racional. Bajo esta acepcion se comprende todo el genero humano. //
Varon. // El que ha llegado a la edad viril o adulta. // Entre el vulgo, marido.
[…] Junto con algunos sustantivos por medio de la preposicion de, el que
posee las calidades o cosas significadas por los sustantivos.
HOMBRE de honor, de teson, de valor. […] // de ambas sillas. fig. El que es
sabio en varias artes o facultades. […] // de armas tomar. El que tiene aptitud,
resolucion o suficiencia para cualquier cosa. // de bien. El honrado que cumple
puntualmente sus obligaciones. […]7
Laudatory expressions related with hombre are abundant: de buenas letras (well-educated), de corazon (good hearted), de dinero (of money), de distincion (ofdistinction), de palabra (of his word), etc.
The preceding definitions resonate with Yaguello’s assertion (2006, p. 178) that,
in an absolute sense, the noun femme (woman) can be equivalent to femme demauvaise vie (wanton woman). The noun homme (man), to the contrary, is a term
commonly associated with praise.
As for the single and default meaning of all kinds of adjectives like facil, facile(easy), honesto(a), honnete (honest), ligero(a), leger, legere (loose), serio(a),serieux, serieuse (serious), ‘‘[it] describes the manner in which human beings
behave in society, and the relationship of otherness; it refers to what society expects
from he or she that is a part of a given community (rules or codes to follow,
prohibited behavior, what is acceptable, etc.)’’. These adjectives refer to social
values that fluctuate throughout time (Baider 2004, p. 48). So we can say that they
express- in their original and primary meaning—courtesy, politeness, and socia-
bility which we can ascertain in the syntagm hombre facil, homme facile. This
expression possesses—as an evaluative axiological adjective—8 a positive evalu-
ation, if but to a lesser extent than hombre serio, homme serieux (serious man).
6 Person of the female gender.//She who has reached the age of puberty.//The wife, with respect to a
husband.//Governess. Servant who has the task of administering a house.//of art, of unsettled life, […], of
a bad life, […]. Whore//of her house. She who has the authority and the faculty to order and to act about
things that are therein, and upholds with diligence and fairness her domain and her family.//easy. She who
is known for her fragility.//mundane, lost or public. Whore.7 Rational animal. This acceptation includes the whole human race.//Male.//He who has attained
adulthood or virility.//Familiar, husband […] With certain nouns accompanied by the preposition of, he
who possess the qualities or the objects signified by these nouns. MAN of honor, of tenacity, of value.
[…]//of two hats [de ambas sillas]. Fig. He who is knowledgeable in multiple arts or dispositions. […]//of
great authority [de armas tomar]. He who has the aptitude, the resolution or the capacity to do anything.//
good. He who is honest and who duly fulfills his obligations […].8 Kerbrat-Orecchioni proposes a classification of adjectives that account for the point of view of the
speaker. This analysis seeks to specify the nature of the evaluation that these adjectives express.
According to this classification, easy would be an evaluative axiological adjective. The use of this type of
adjective implies ‘‘a qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the object signified by the substantive that it
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 131
123
But, when these adjectives are attached to mujer, femme (woman), as we have
noted, they take an additional sense that is fundamental: mujer facil/femme facile(just as mujer ligera, femme legere (loose woman), mujer publica, femme publique(public woman)) are expressions that carry a negative evaluation. This is the case
because they refer to a sexual behavior beyond established social norms. Mujerfacil, femme facile then, is opposed to the positive sexual evaluation suggested by
mujer honesta, femme honnete (honest woman), mujer seria, femme serieuse(serious woman) and mujer casta, femme chaste (chaste woman).
Both the Corpus diacronico del espanol (Real Academia Espanola: Banco de
datos (CORDE) [on line]) and the Corpus de referencia del espanol actual (Real
Academia Espanola: Banco de datos (CREA) [on line]) record the use of mujer facilwith a sexual meaning from 1610 (in Luis de Gongora y Argote) up through the
present day (in the novel El eje del compas, 2002, by Gregorio Salvador Caja), even
though its use is increasingly uncommon and archaic.
Proposing an argumentative description of the expressions mujer facil/femmefacile, and hombre facil/homme facile, is a means to avoiding more traditional
approaches. These approaches might propose to interpret these syntagms—and, in
particular, the adjective complement that is absent: easy man can be interpreted as
easy to love, to convince, to relieve, etc.—as a type of ‘‘syncategorematicity’’.9 This
perspective identifies with the referentialist theses that suggest that the meaning of a
word is the donation of its referent (Anscombre and Kleiber 2001, p. 15).
From the non-referentialist perspective of the SBT, these ellipse phenomena can
be explained by the hypothesis arguing for the existence of internal argumentations
Footnote 8 continued
determines, and of which the use is thereby based on a double standard: (1) inherent in the object support
of the quality; (2) specific to each speaker –and it is in this way that they can be considered as ‘sub-
jective’.’’ The use of the adjective easy is thus relative to the object that it qualifies, and also relative to
the idea that the speaker has of the norm for evaluating the given category of objects. Due to the
significant imprecision of adjectives like easy, the designation of a quality by the use of this word implies
a certain stance that is largely subjective: it is not possible to establish a consensus about which objects
are allowed to be qualified as easy. Likewise, these terms—in as much as having an axiological attribute–
come with a value judgment of the object indicated by the noun. This allows them to be considered
doubly subjective: not only because their use will vary as a function of each speaking subject, for whom
the ideology will shine through; but also because they will show the speaker’s stance for or against the
indicated object, which is to say he or she will give or take value from the object in question (1980,
pp. 83–100).9 Syncategorematical words ‘‘denote properties that require that one mentions events or actions that are
not explicitly expressed in their own definitions, or that the lexical nature of such nouns—in principle—
does not provide’’. Bosque gives the example of the evaluative adjective excelente (excellent), which the
Diccionario de la Real Academia Espanola (DRAE) defines as ‘‘que sobresale en bondad, merito o
estimacion’’ (‘‘that which excels in goodness, merit or esteem’’). This definition does not account for
sentences like Este cuchillo es excelente (This knife is excellent) (2000, pp. 264–265). Pustejovsky (1995)
has developed an approach that accounts for this problem. This author finds that lexicon is generative. His
model for lexical analysis is made up of four levels of semantic representations in which the structure of
‘‘qualia’’ that accounts for different modes of possible predication of a lexical entity. The ‘‘qualia’’
correspond to four essential aspects of the meaning of words: the constitutive aspect, which has to do with
the relationship between an object and its proper parts; the formal aspect, which distinguishes the object
within a larger domain; the telic aspect, that indicates the purpose and the function of the object; the
agentive aspect that indicates factors involved in the origin of an object.
132 L. Puig
123
that are connected to words. The interpretive mechanism therefore consists of
accessing their argumentative potential.
As we have written, with the SBT, the meaning of a linguistic entity is made up
of the discourses that this entity evokes. Arguing is essentially summoning whole
groups of linkages that can be characterized by a semantic interdependence between
the segments that are bound by a connector.10 The function of these argumentative
linkages is to qualify the situations, to show a schematization, a certain vision of
things.
Now we will attempt to determine the discourses suggested by the syntagms
mujer facil, femme facile, and hombre facil, homme facile, from their internal and
external argumentations.
The IAs equate, as previously mentioned, to a type of paraphrasing or
reformulating that allows us to explain a given linguistic entity.
To qualify a person as mujer facil, femme facile, allows one to advance
discourses such as:
Es una mujer muy accesible/abierta, por lo tanto se dejara seducir a las primerasde cambio.Elle est une femme tres accessible/ouverte, donc elle se laissera seduire des qu’onl’approche.(She’s a very open woman, therefore she’ll let herself be seduced on first meet.)
Using the SBT terminology, these linkages belong to the aspect: ser accesible
PLT dejarse seducir, etre accessible DC se laisser seduire11 (open-therefore-lets-
herself-be-seduced). They are internal to the syntagms mujer facil/femme facile,which means they are ‘‘structurally attached’’ to these expressions, i.e., they appear
‘‘in the foreground or the background’’ in all the uses that we make of them (Ducrot
2001, p. 23). As Carel emphasizes on the subject of her analysis (in the same issue),
the presence of the normative predicate ser-accesible-por-lo-tanto-dejarse-seducir,
etre-accessible-donc-se-laisser-seduire, in the meaning of mujer facil/femme facile,is the reason for which we sense a kinship between the judgments about Chloe in
both of the following utterances:
Cloe es accesible, por lo tanto se deja seducir.Chloe est accessible, donc elle se laisse seduire.
and
Cloe es una mujer facil.Chloe est une femme facile.
How can we justify this description? To begin with, the constituent parts in the IA
of mujer facil, femme facile: ser accesible, etre accessible and dejarse seducir, se
10 ‘‘Interdependence based on the very fact of the argumentation: the intrinsic meaning of each element
contains the indication that it is an argument for the other or conclusion of the other.’’ (Ducrot 2002,
p. 127).11 As we will see later, in the extract taken from the love poem Marie-Madeleine ou le Salut, the
adjective accessible of this linkage is also a part of the context in which Marguerite Yourcenar uses the
syntagm femme facile.
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 133
123
laisser seduire can be described, in turn, by their IAs. From a structural perspective,
though, this cannot be the goal of the SBT that seeks only to make mention of the
discourses suggested by a word, a syntagm or an utterance (without intending that one
recognizes the objects that could be attributed to these entities) (Ducrot 2004, p. 368).
We must also consider that describing the meaning of an expression is the same
as indicating, from the outset, ‘‘the argumentative functions that this expression
possesses, the type of justification that it allows’’ (Ducrot 2004, p. 363). For
instance, in a scene from the film Chicas y maletas,12 one of the characters, Chon,
tells Pina about a romantic affair she had: ‘‘…despues de follar me dijo que si podıa
quedarse unos dıas en mi casa … yo le dije que bueno pero que no le prometıa nada,
no querıa que pensara que soy une mujer facil.’’13 With this remark, the speaker
aims to justify her refusal to compromise herself with the man in question, and the
very meaning of mujer facil provides this justification: indeed, it is made explicit by
the argumentative predicate ser-accesible-por-lo-tanto-dejarse-seducir (open-there-
fore-lets-herself-be-seduced) that language attaches to this expression.
Of course, the syntagm mujer facil, femme facile can be associated with other
aspects which would reconstruct the entire argumentative capacity (or the
argumentative potential) of this expression. In lexicology, moreover, any given
theory can propose different descriptions for a single expression (Ducrot 2001,
p. 22). For the SBT, the criteria for choosing the aspects that make up the internal
and external argumentations (IA and EA) of an entity depend upon both empirical
observations and the general hypotheses that found the theory.
We will thus justify the proposed description of mujer facil, femme facile by
applying a few SBT hypotheses to our empirical data. Namely, we will look at the
relationships that the IA of these syntagms can establish with the IA of other
expressions that seem to share the same semantic block in both Spanish and French.
As previously noted, the SBT supposes that the semantic description of linguistic
entities brings into play not only the IA, but also the EA. Our present interest is the
latter—where the entity figures inasmuch as the antecedent or the consequent of the
aspect that it evokes. So, mujer facil, femme facile can be—strictly from a lexical
perspective—pitted against the idea of reprehensible behavior or a bad reputation.
Consequently, linkages such as:
Es una mujer facil, su conducta es reprochable.Elle est une femme facile sa conduite est reprehensible.(She is easy, her behavior is reprehensible.)
Es una mujer facil, debe tener una mala reputacion.Elle est une femme facile, elle doit avoir une mauvaise reputation.(She is easy, she must have a bad reputation.)
correspond with the aspects: mujer facil PLT conducta reprochable, femme facile
DC conduite reprehensible (easy-therefore-reprehensible-behavior); mujer facil
12 A humorous comedy that’s part of the plot of Pedro Almodovar’s film Los abrazos rotos (BrokenEmbraces).13 ‘‘After having screwed, he asked me if he could stay at my place for a few days… I told him that he
could, but that I wouldn’t promise anything, I didn’t want him to think that I’m an easy woman’’.
134 L. Puig
123
PLT mala reputacion, femme facile DC mauvaise reputation (easy-therefore-bad-
reputation) of the EA associated with this expression.
One feature of an entity’s EA is that it contains an aspect and also the converse of
this aspect14: mujer facil SE Neg-conducta reprochable, femme facile PT Neg-
conduite reprehensible (easy-however-not-reprehensible-behavior); mujer facil SE
Neg-mala reputacion, femme facile PT Neg-mauvaise reputation (easy-however-
not-bad-reputation), which accounts for the same representation yet with a
transgressive value:
Es una mujer facil, sin embargo su conducta no es reprochable.Elle est une femme facile, pourtant sa conduite n’est pas reprehensible.(She is easy, however her behavior isn’t reprehensible.)
Es una mujer facil sin embargo no debe tener una mal reputacion.Elle est une femme facile, pourtant elle ne doit pas avoir une mauvaise reputation.(She is easy, however she must not have a bad reputation.)
The following extract from Marguerite Yourcenar’s love poem entitled Marie-
Madeleine ou le Salut corroborates the proposed descriptions:
J’ai compris plus tard que je representais pour lui la pire faute charnelle, le
peche legitime, approuve par l’usage, d’autant plus vil qu’il est permis d’y
rouler sans honte, d’autant plus redoutable qu’il n’encourt pas de condamna-
tion. Il avait choisi en moi la mieux voilee des filles qu’il put courtiser avec
l’espoir secret de ne jamais l’obtenir; j’expliquais son degout des proies plus
accessibles; assise sur ce lit, je n’etais plus qu’une femme facile. L’impos-
sibilite ou il etait de m’aimer creait entre nous une similitude plus forte que ces
contrastes du sexe qui servent entre deux etres humains a detruire la confiance,
a justifier l’amour: tous deux, nous desirions ceder a une volonte plus forte que
la notre, nous donner, etre pris: nous allions au-devant de toutes les douleurs
pour l’enfantement d’une nouvelle vie. (1982[1936], pp. 1092–1093)15
On her wedding night, Marie believed that her fiance had jilted her because, as
soon as she sat on the bed, her virtue had given way to the indecent attitude of a
woman who was ready to be seduced. This made her irreparably condemnable to his
eyes. She understood only later that it was impossible for Jean to love her.
It must be noted that, in the IA suggested by mujer facil, femme facile (namely:
ser accesible PLT dejarse seducir, etre accessible DC se laisser seduire (open-
therefore-let’s-herself-be-seduced), the second segment determines the attitude
14 This is not the case for the IA, as we will see further down: each of the four aspects that make up a
semantic block corresponds to a different expression’s IA (Ducrot 2001, p. 23).15 ‘‘It’s only later that I understood that for him I represented the worst corporal offense, the legitimate
sin, approved by custom, so much more dangerous since it incurs no condemnation. He had chosen me,
the most veiled of maidens, to court while secretly hoping not to succeed; I accounted for his distaste of
readily available prey; sitting on the bed, I was nothing more now than an easy woman. His impotency
gave us a stronger bond than sexual hunger, which is so often used to justify love: both of us wanted to
yield to a will more forceful than ours, to give ourselves, to be taken: we would bear every conceivable
pain to beget a new life.’’ (1994, Translated in collaboration with the author by Dori Kats, p. 66).
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 135
123
indicated in the first segment: it is a kind of attitude that facilitates sexual intimacy
(and not another type of contact, be it friendly, intellectual, etc.). Similarly, yielding
to seductive overtures, as is the issue in the second segment, goes hand in hand with
an open behavior that oversteps social conventions (this type of seduction is not, for
example, the same as one that can come from a work of art). Such is the semantic
interdependence of the two segments joined by the connector.
Let’s now look at the discursive and argumentative relationships that we can
establish between the IA of these expressions and those of others that are related to
them. According to the ‘‘Theorie du carre argumentatif’’ (‘‘Argumentative Square
Theory’’) proposed by Carel and Ducrot (2005, pp. 27–62), it is possible to elaborate
four aspects (with two normative and two transgressive linkages) that belong to the
same semantic block (using segments A: ser accesible/etre accessible and B: dejarse
seducir/se laisser seduire).
Aspects (1), (2), (3), (4) show possible descriptions of the corresponding
expressions.16
16 The use of these expressions in Spanish is corroborated by both the CORDE and the CREA:
136 L. Puig
123
In corner number one of the square, we put the expressions mujer libre, femmelibre (liberated woman). Its IA bears the aspect: ser accesible SE Neg-dejarse seducir,
etre accessible PT Neg-se laisser seduire (open-however-doesn’t-let-herself-be-
seduced). A so-called mujer libre, femme libre is a woman who is against the
stereotyped vision of the mujer facil, femme facile. This vision suggests: if the woman
is open, then the man has a great chance of succeeding in his efforts. Hence the use of
a transgressive linkage17: an open attitude does not prevent a refusal to be seduced.
As for mujer sumisa, femme soumise (submissive woman), in corner number two,
its IA is Neg-ser accesible SE dejarse seducir, Neg-etre accessible PT se laisser
seduire (not-open-however-lets-herself-be-seduced). This description can be
explained by saying that a mujer sumisa, femme soumise is a person who, given
her predisposition for submission, expresses no efforts to resist—even against an act
that would be contrary to her own will, true desires or wishes. Hence the use of a
transgressive aspect: her refusal is not an obstacle to her seduction.
On the other side, the expression mujer seria, femme serieuse (serious woman),figuring in corner number three, can be paraphrased by the IA: Neg-ser accesible PT
Neg-dejarse seducir, Neg-etre accessible DC Neg-se laisser seduire (not-open-
therefore-doesn’t-let-herself-be-seduced). The so-called mujer seria, femme serieuseis unapproachable and can therefore not be seduced.
We will illustrate these argumentative relationships with the following dialogues.
Between (1) and (2) as well as (3) and (4) (just as between (2) and (1) and also (4)
and (3)), there is a reciprocal relationship (the negative term of one side is changed
to a positive on the other side, while the connector is maintained). This relationship
can be discursively paraphrased by todo lo contrario, c’est tout le contraire (it’s thedirect opposite)18:
X: -Cloe es una mujer libre.Y: -No, todo lo contrario, es una mujer sumisa.
X: -Chloe est une femme libre.Y: -Non, c’est tout le contraire, elle est une femme soumise.
Footnote 16 continued
‘‘’Fue una mujer excepcional’, explico el primer secretario del Partido Socialista, Lionel Jospin, ’una
mujer libre, apasionada, fuerte, exigente con la verdad y la autenticidad’.’’(Diario El Paıs, 01/10/1985:
‘‘Fallece la actriz francesa Simone Signoret, un mito del cine europeo’’). (‘‘’She was an exceptional
woman’, explained the First Secretary of the Socialist Party, Lionel Jospin, ’a woman who was liberated,
passionate, strong and demanding of truth and authenticity’.).
‘‘¡La mala conducta de los hijos es la pena que nos persigue hasta la tumba! ¡La alegrıa del corazon es
la mujer sumisa para con el esposo!’’(Traduccion de las mil y una noches, Vicente Blasco Ibanez, 1916).
(’’The bad behavior of the children is sorrow that follows us to the grave! The submissive woman is the
heart’s rejoice for a husband!’’).
‘‘De mi madre joven, solo sabrıa decir que era una mujer seria, tan comedida… tan contenida…, que
parecıa amargada.’’ (Pago de traicion, Marta Portal, 1983). (‘‘About my young mother, standing alone, I
can only say that she was a serious woman, so moderate… with so much self-restraint…, that she seemed
full of bitterness’’).17 ‘‘[…] the transgression indicated by this however that means this doesn’t prevent that’’ (Ducrot 2001,
p. 26).18 In other words, ‘‘not only is it false, but it’s the direct opposite’’ (Carel and Ducrot 2005, p. 48).
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 137
123
(X: -Chloe is a liberated woman.)(Y: -No, it’s the direct opposite; she is a submissive woman.)
Along the diagonals, there is a converse relationship that allows movement from
(1) to (4) and from (2) to (3) (or in the other direction) (the first term is maintained
in both corners, the connector is changed and the second term is changed to its
opposite, be it from Neg-B to B or from B to Neg-B). This relationship is closely
related to negation; consequently, it can be paraphrased by means of an expression
like no, eso es falso, non c’est faux (no, that’s false):
X: -Cloe es una mujer libre.Y: -No, eso es falso, es una mujer facil.
X: -Chloe est une femme libre.Y: -Non, c’est faux, elle est une femme facile.
(X:- Chloe is a liberated woman.)(Y:- No, that’s false; she is an [easy woman].)
It seems that the reciprocal relationship in this semantic block pertains to the
interaction between the two discourses in which the disagreement hinges upon
the qualifier that would best describe Chloe’s sexual behavior. Y’s retort tries to
point out an incompatibility between Chloe and the qualifier that X attributes to
her:
X: -Cloe es una mujer facil.Y: -No, todo lo contrario, es una mujer seria.
X: -Chloe est une femme facile.Y: -Non, c’est tout le contraire elle est une femme serieuse.
(X: -Chloe is an [easy woman].)(Y: -No, it’s the direct opposite, she is a serious woman.)
In the case of the converse relationship, on the other hand, the exchange aims to
either condemn or approve of Chloe’s conduct (the discussion pertains to the choice
of terms used as axiological evaluative adjectives). If X asserts (3) (seria, serieuse)
and Y (2) (sumisa, soumise), then Y is making a negative evaluation of Chloe. If X
asserts (4) (facil, facile) and Y (1) (libre), Y’s evaluation is positive. As is the case
with both responses, though, Y runs counter to prejudices against women and
thereby refutes the terms used by X (the opinions of X and Y are necessarily
inversed if we switch the adjectives).
X: -Cloe es una mujer seria.Y: -No, eso es falso, es una mujer sumisa.
X: -Chloe est une femme serieuse.Y: -Non, c’est faux, elle est une femme soumise.
(X: -Chloe is a serious woman.)(Y: -No, this is false; she is a submissive woman.)
138 L. Puig
123
X: -Cloe es una mujer facil.Y: -No, eso es falso, es una mujer libre.
X: -Chloe est une femme facile.Y: -Non, c’est faux, elle est une femme libre.
(X: -Chloe is an [easy woman]).(Y: -No, this is false; she is a liberated woman.)
The transpositional relationship allows the movement from (1) to (3) and from
(2) to (4), or visa versa (going up or down, the first term is denied or asserted, the
connector is changed and the second term is maintained).
This relationship pertains to a graduality between the aspects that can be
discursively paraphrased by means of connectors like en todo caso, en tout cas (inany case), or por lo menos, au moins (at least), in a downward direction; and by
incluso, meme (even) in an upward direction. However, the syntagms mujer libre,femme libre and mujer seria, femme serieuse, on the one hand, and mujer sumisa,femme soumise and mujer facil, femme facile, on the other, are incompatible within
a single discourse: mujer libre, femme libre and mujer sumisa, femme soumise are
expressions belonging to a discourse that goes contrary to prejudices against
women, unlike mujer facil, femme facile and mujer seria, femme serieuse.Consequently, the transpositional relationship is impossible in the case of the
semantic block that we constructed with these four expressions.
Let’s now look at the other acceptation of mujer facil, femme facile that matches
up with the meaning for hombre facil, homme facile. It seems to us that hombrefacil, homme facile suggests discourses such as:
Un hombre facil es alguien que tiene la disposicion de acomodarse a los deseosde los otros, por consiguiente es una persona sociable.Un homme facile est quelqu’un ayant la disposition de s’accomoder aux desirsd’autrui, donc il est une personne sociable.(An easy man is someone having a tendency to adapt to the desires of the Other;therefore, he is a sociable person.)
Its IA is: ser adaptable PLT ser sociable, etre adaptable DC etre sociable
(adaptable-therefore- sociable).As for its external argumentation, it is possible to establish a parallel with the EA
of mujer facil, femme facile, in its basic sense: mujer facil PLT conducta
reprochable, femme facile DC conduite reprehensible. Discourses like:
Pedro es un hombre facil, su conducta es digna de elogio.Pierre est un homme facile, sa conduite est digne d’eloge.(Peter is an easy man, his behavior is praise worthy.)
can be summarized as an aspect giving: hombre facil PLT conducta loable, homme
facile DC conduite louable ([easy man]-therefore-laudable-behavior) of this
expression’s EA, which brings along with it a transgressive aspect: hombre facil
SE Neg-conducta loable, homme facile PT Neg-conduite louable ([easy man]-
however-not-laudable-behavior).
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 139
123
3 A Way to Conclude: Semantic Blocks and Their Persuasive Effects
It is clear that the aspects suggested by mujer facil, femme facile express stereotypes
like those that we can find, for example, in proverbs. Indeed, the linkages: ser
accesible PLT dejarse seducir, etre accessible DC se laisser seduire (open-therefore-
lets-herself-be-seduced), express only conventional, redundant and banal ideas, just
like its proverbial counterparts. But it’s actually in this very quality that lays its
persuasive force.
By analyzing proverbial discourse, Maingueneau finds that the asymmetry
between the proliferation of doxical utterances about women compared to those that
refer to men is not incidental: ‘‘it’s the masculine as such that feeds a constitutive
relationship with the stereotyping of women’’; ‘‘man circumscribes the femininity
that he needs to assure an imaginary identity’’ (2004, pp. b2–b3).
Without going into a detailed description of this discursive genre, we will point
out a few characteristics of the proverbial stereotyping of women.
Maingueneau shows that proverbial discourse about women takes place in a
patriarchal sphere governed by an order that assign women their place. This order
supposes a system in which men and women have different functions, a system
based upon a basic opposition: inside/outside the home. The reference to a
threatened norm is a rather common characteristic in sententious utterances of
female stereotypes.
La mujer y el vidrio siempre estan en peligro.(Women and glass are always in danger.)
Women constantly threaten to cross the home’s limits, in terms of functions, by
adopting those of men; or in terms of territory, by going to the town square, or to the
female neighbor’s house:
Mujer que habla latın, rara vez tiene buen fin.(A woman who speaks Latin rarely has a good end.)
La mujer en casa y el hombre en la plaza.(The woman in the house, the man in the town square.)
According to Maingueneau, by its very enunciation, the proverb reestablishes the
disorder that it suggests. Doxical utterances about women oppose law to nature. By
nature, women are (in men’s view) spendthrift, unfaithful, garrulous, coquette; but
the proverbial expression reestablishes the order where men’s law rules. Indeed, by
its fixed structure on a prosodic, syntaxic and semantic level, by its sententious
ethos, the proverb expresses and incarnates this world order in which it is meant to
participate (2004, p. b6).
La mujer compuesta quita al marido de otra puerta.(The well-adorned woman takes the husband from another door.)
The stereotypes that the internal and external argumentations of mujer facil,femme facile and hombre facil, homme facile, express correspond with this
140 L. Puig
123
description.19 The socially acceptable availability of men is opposed to the socially
inacceptable availability of women. What’s interpreted as the crossing of
boundaries and a threat to established order when done by women is—when
perpetrated by men—nothing more than a natural role, the maintenance of a
respectable law.
The different analyses of the syntagms we looked at are therefore a way of
describing the words by associating them with discourses and to show that the
words suggest argumentations in their very meaning. This implies that there is no
discourse without argumentation.
But if we consider that argumentation has a linguistic nature and that the
argumentative linkages do not express reasoning, how do discourses that have
persuasive ambitions achieve their objectives?
According to Ducrot, when observing linguistic facts, it’s necessary to
distinguish between what results from argumentivity and what manifests the
persuasive effort (1992, p. 147). Only after that can you determine how the
linguistic argumentation contributes to the persuasion.
The argumentative discourses contained in mujer facil, femme facile and hombrefacil, homme facile have a particular persuasive efficiency: given that the semantic
blocks are schematizations, stereotyped representations of reality, we bring, when
speaking, these representations that are recognized as reasonable into our discourse.
Thus, we are bound to the modes of representation shared throughout society; and
we show, at the same time, the ethos of a reliable, trustworthy person (Ducrot 2002,
p. 135).
Here is a part of the response to the previous question: if, from this theoretical
perspective, the logos is a pure illusion, then the constant use of argumentative
linkages in discourse should satisfy another role in the persuasive strategy, namely
to produce effects upon the ethos and the pathos. Even by saying simply therefore,the speaker first and foremost justifies herself for the simple reason that she appears
as someone capable of expressing ideas in a just way. Thereafter, this positive image
of the speaker indirectly influences the acceptability of her conclusions (Ducrot
2002, p. 135).
To get back to the expression mujer facil, femme facile and going beyond the
discursive limits outlined by the SBT, the underlying stereotyped representation
provides an argument that justifies the injurious effect attached to this expression.
The violence provoked by this speech act ‘‘is one of it-goes-without-saying: that
which is evident is violent’’, said Barthes, ‘‘even if this evidence is represented
softly, liberally, democratically; […] the ‘natural’ is in sum the ultimate ofoutrages’’ (1995, p. 159). This ‘‘natural’’ is justified by the argumentative linkages
that are already present in the meaning of the words.
19 From other perspectives, authors like Putnam, Fradin and Anscombre distinguish between the meaning
that governs the semantic function of terms in discourse and the referential function. For these authors,
the notion of the stereotype also has to do with meaning and it is related to the common usage of
language. ‘‘The stereotypical level appears as governing the function of language in as much as how
individual speakers use it.’’ (Anscombre 2001, p. 58).
Doxa and Persuasion in Lexis 141
123
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 2001. Le role du lexique dans la theorie des stereotypes. Langages 142: 57–76.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Georges Kleiber. 2001. Semantique et reference: quelques reflexions. In
Problemes de semantique et reference, ed. Marıa Luisa Donaire, 11–31. Oviedo: Universidad de
Oviedo.
Barthes, Roland. 1995. Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes. In Œuvres completes, t. III, 79–250. Paris:
Editions du Seuil.
Baider, Fabienne. 2004. Hommes galants, femmes faciles. Etude socio-semantique et diachronique. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Bosque, Ignacio. 2000. El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adetivo. Adjetivo y
participio. In Gramatica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espanola, t. 1, ed. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta
Demonte, 217–310. Madrid: Espasa.
Carel, Marion, and Oswald Ducrot. 2005. La semantica argumentativa. Una introduccion a la teorıa delos bloques semanticos. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1992. Argumentation et persuasion. In Enonciation et parti-pris: Actes du Colloqued’Anvers, fevrier 1990, ed. Walter De Mulder, Franc Schuerewegen, and Liliane Tasmowski,
143–158. Amsterdan, Atlanta: Rodopi Bv Editions.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1999. Argumentation et inference. In Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers of the 6thinternational pragmatics conference, vol. 2, ed. J. Verschueren, 172–180. Antwerp: International
Pragmatics Association.
Ducrot, Oswald. 2001. Criteres argumentatifs et analyse lexicale. Langages 142: 22–40.
Ducrot, Oswald. 2002. La argumentacion como medio de persuasion. In El abismo del lenguaje, ed.
Helena Beristain, 121–136. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
Ducrot, Oswald. 2004. Sentido y argumentacion. In Homenaje a Oswald Ducrot, ed. Elvira N. de Arnoux
and Marıa Marta Garcıa Negroni, 359–370. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Gross, Gaston. 1996. Les expressions figees en francais. Noms composes et autres locutions. Paris:
Ophrys.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1980. L0enonciation. De la subjectivite dans le langage. Paris: Armand
Colin.
Maingueneau, Dominique. 2004. Stereotyper le feminin: entre le doxique et l’esthetique. Degres 117:
b1–b25.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.
Real Academia Espanola: Banco de datos (CORDE) [on line]. Corpus diacronico del espanol.http://www.rae.es [consulted on 11/03/10].
Real Academia Espanola: Banco de datos (CREA) [on line]. Corpus de referencia del espanol actual.http://www.rae.es [consulted on 11/03/10].
Real Academia Espanola. 1899. Diccionario de la Lengua Castellana. Madrid: Imprenta de los Sres.
Hernando y Companıa.
Yaguello, Marina. 2006 [1978]. Les mots et les femmes. Paris: Payot.
Yourcenar, Marguerite. 1982. Feux. In Œuvres romanesques, 1041–1133. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Bibliotheque de La Pleiade.
Yourcenar, Marguerite. 1994. Fires, Translated in collaboration with the author by Dori Kats, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
142 L. Puig
123