Page 14 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 14
Slovenian Lectures
tures, I will speak about the notion of argument, around which all my work
is now centered.
To give you a general idea of my work, I will begin with a common-
place hypothesis which sociologists very often make and I believe justifi-
ably so. Especially in recent years, sociologists have been saying constant-
ly that all social activity produces a representation or an image of itself in
and through its very exercise. That is to say, once people get together to do
something, they also produce a representation of that group and of what
that group does. That is true of the different professions, which all con-
struct images of themselves. It is true also of every social class. There are so-
ciologists who insist upon the fact that one of the characteristics of the low-
er classes is that they reproduce the image which in fact the ruling class has
constructed of them. For example, French peasants develop an image of
peasantry; but that image of peasantry developed by peasants is the image
the ruling classes of the nation, for example the town-milieux, have con-
structed. One of the principal functions and one of the principal uses of the
social sciences, in my mind, is to try to make that image which social groups
construct of themselves explicit, and, when necessary, to criticize that im-
age. This work which is carried out in the social sciences is absolutely nec-
essary, it seems to me, because the representation which social groups give
of themselves seems so obvious to them that, in general, they do not feel the
need to make it explicit, to think about it. What is true for social activity
in general is also true, I think, for linguistic activity, which is simply one so-
cial activity among others. When you use a language, you develop a certain
image of language in general. Where is that image of language, which a lan-
guage itself imposes upon us, to be found? Well, I think, in the lexicon of
a language, in its vocabulary, which has a certain number of terms to speak
about linguistic activity. For example, almost all languages have words like
mean, express, say, promise, allow, etc. All these words, taken together, con-
stitute a sort of description of what linguistic activity is about. I think that
the linguist as a researcher who is concerned with that social phenomenon
which language is, must manage to make that – so to speak – spontaneous
representation a language gives of itself explicit, clear, reflective. Moreover,
we linguists, if possible, must question that self-representation which lan-
guage constructs about itself and which is, so to speak, crystallized in the
lexicon of a language.
Now, you realise immediately that this work of the linguist’s is particu-
larly difficult. It is particularly difficult, because the linguist’s situation is an
extremely peculiar one. Indeed, to speak about language, the linguist can-
tures, I will speak about the notion of argument, around which all my work
is now centered.
To give you a general idea of my work, I will begin with a common-
place hypothesis which sociologists very often make and I believe justifi-
ably so. Especially in recent years, sociologists have been saying constant-
ly that all social activity produces a representation or an image of itself in
and through its very exercise. That is to say, once people get together to do
something, they also produce a representation of that group and of what
that group does. That is true of the different professions, which all con-
struct images of themselves. It is true also of every social class. There are so-
ciologists who insist upon the fact that one of the characteristics of the low-
er classes is that they reproduce the image which in fact the ruling class has
constructed of them. For example, French peasants develop an image of
peasantry; but that image of peasantry developed by peasants is the image
the ruling classes of the nation, for example the town-milieux, have con-
structed. One of the principal functions and one of the principal uses of the
social sciences, in my mind, is to try to make that image which social groups
construct of themselves explicit, and, when necessary, to criticize that im-
age. This work which is carried out in the social sciences is absolutely nec-
essary, it seems to me, because the representation which social groups give
of themselves seems so obvious to them that, in general, they do not feel the
need to make it explicit, to think about it. What is true for social activity
in general is also true, I think, for linguistic activity, which is simply one so-
cial activity among others. When you use a language, you develop a certain
image of language in general. Where is that image of language, which a lan-
guage itself imposes upon us, to be found? Well, I think, in the lexicon of
a language, in its vocabulary, which has a certain number of terms to speak
about linguistic activity. For example, almost all languages have words like
mean, express, say, promise, allow, etc. All these words, taken together, con-
stitute a sort of description of what linguistic activity is about. I think that
the linguist as a researcher who is concerned with that social phenomenon
which language is, must manage to make that – so to speak – spontaneous
representation a language gives of itself explicit, clear, reflective. Moreover,
we linguists, if possible, must question that self-representation which lan-
guage constructs about itself and which is, so to speak, crystallized in the
lexicon of a language.
Now, you realise immediately that this work of the linguist’s is particu-
larly difficult. It is particularly difficult, because the linguist’s situation is an
extremely peculiar one. Indeed, to speak about language, the linguist can-
