Page 15 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 15
Lecture I
not but use language itself. When, as a linguist, I speak about a language, I
use that vocabulary, words like mean, express, say, which language has built
up to represent itself. So that the linguist introduces the image that lan-
guage has built up of itself into his discourse on language, an image that the
linguist would like to describe and make explicit. The result is that the lin-
guist is constantly running the risk of falling into the snares of language. He
is constantly running the risk of taking the very thing he would like to crit-
icize, or at least discuss, for granted. In as much as I deal essentially with se-
mantics, from the outset of my research, I have had to use the vocabulary
which concerns that aspect of language. In particular, to speak about lan-
guage, I have had to use words like mean or meaning, – and all linguists have
to use those words or their equivalents to speak about language. Now, I
think that what I want to say, what I have always wanted to say, and hope to
make you want to say by the end of these lectures, is that, ultimately, words
do not mean anything, that discourse never means anything.
That slogan is a slightly paradoxical and dangerous one. A few words
of explanation may make it more acceptable. At first, for a semantician to
say “words do not mean anything” seems self-destructive. What am I doing
here if indeed words do not mean anything? Why have I come to speak to
you about semantics? That is just about what the Russo-American linguist
Roman Jakobson would say laughingly to those who, as I have just done,
claimed that words did not mean anything. Jakobson adopted the same line
of argument as is often used against the sceptics. The sceptics, as you know,
say “nothing is true”. The usual objection is: “Well, if nothing is true, then
the statement ‘nothing is true’ is not true either”. Jakobson had the same
type of argument about meaning: “When you say that words mean noth-
ing, well, you make a sentence which cannot mean anything either, so that
logically, the statement that language does not mean anything is one which
has absolutely no meaning itself ”. Therefore, the formula words do not mean
anything, Jakobson went on saying, is self-destructive.
As I have absolutely no intention of committing suicide, I must uphold
my slogan words do not mean anything without being exposed to the fire of
Jakobson’s objection. I will go about doing that in the following way: I will
say that in the formula words do not mean anything, the word mean must
be taken as having its meaning in ordinary language. If by mean you under-
stand what is usually understood in ordinary language, then language in-
deed does not mean anything. But there might be a conception of meaning
which differs from the conception recorded in the vocabulary and which
does not force one to say that words do not mean anything.
not but use language itself. When, as a linguist, I speak about a language, I
use that vocabulary, words like mean, express, say, which language has built
up to represent itself. So that the linguist introduces the image that lan-
guage has built up of itself into his discourse on language, an image that the
linguist would like to describe and make explicit. The result is that the lin-
guist is constantly running the risk of falling into the snares of language. He
is constantly running the risk of taking the very thing he would like to crit-
icize, or at least discuss, for granted. In as much as I deal essentially with se-
mantics, from the outset of my research, I have had to use the vocabulary
which concerns that aspect of language. In particular, to speak about lan-
guage, I have had to use words like mean or meaning, – and all linguists have
to use those words or their equivalents to speak about language. Now, I
think that what I want to say, what I have always wanted to say, and hope to
make you want to say by the end of these lectures, is that, ultimately, words
do not mean anything, that discourse never means anything.
That slogan is a slightly paradoxical and dangerous one. A few words
of explanation may make it more acceptable. At first, for a semantician to
say “words do not mean anything” seems self-destructive. What am I doing
here if indeed words do not mean anything? Why have I come to speak to
you about semantics? That is just about what the Russo-American linguist
Roman Jakobson would say laughingly to those who, as I have just done,
claimed that words did not mean anything. Jakobson adopted the same line
of argument as is often used against the sceptics. The sceptics, as you know,
say “nothing is true”. The usual objection is: “Well, if nothing is true, then
the statement ‘nothing is true’ is not true either”. Jakobson had the same
type of argument about meaning: “When you say that words mean noth-
ing, well, you make a sentence which cannot mean anything either, so that
logically, the statement that language does not mean anything is one which
has absolutely no meaning itself ”. Therefore, the formula words do not mean
anything, Jakobson went on saying, is self-destructive.
As I have absolutely no intention of committing suicide, I must uphold
my slogan words do not mean anything without being exposed to the fire of
Jakobson’s objection. I will go about doing that in the following way: I will
say that in the formula words do not mean anything, the word mean must
be taken as having its meaning in ordinary language. If by mean you under-
stand what is usually understood in ordinary language, then language in-
deed does not mean anything. But there might be a conception of meaning
which differs from the conception recorded in the vocabulary and which
does not force one to say that words do not mean anything.
