Meaning construction by Argumentation in Language: semantic blocks in a debate on the Family Statute

Abstract

This article aims to discuss, through a linguistic analysis, the construction of meaning made possible by argumentative predicates evoked in the speeches of two congressmen, in a debate on the Statute of the Family which aims to restrict the concept of family to heterosexual couples and their children. We performed our analysis in the light of the Semantic Blocks Theory (SBT), created by Oswald Ducrot and Marion Carel (2005). SBT supports that argumentation is in language and that discourses are evoked by argumentative predicates – which are sets of fragments linked by either a DC (therefore) or a PT (however) connector that creates semantic interdependence between the fragments. In order to achieve our goal, we transcribed the debate, conducted a bibliographic study on the topic and proceeded with the analysis of our corpus. We selected two excerpts from the speeches of each debater that best illustrate the evocation of argumentative aspects. Our data shows that language has argumentative orientation, building meaning. Moreover, we confirmed that argumentation is materialized in the relationship between linguistic entities.