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: puig@unam.mx

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