Page 25 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 25
Lecture I
to represent the distance as an obstacle. Let us consider now the suggestion
I go by plane, and my answering “It’s far away”: well, in that situation, that
answer is rather difficult to understand. You would have to imagine a socie-
ty where you could move about by satellite, or something: under those cir-
cumstances, the answer might have some meaning.
What I want to say is that, in the very meaning of far, there is the indi-
cation of conclusions which that word suggests about the distance. By de-
scribing a place as far, I am saying “that distance is an argument for not go-
ing to the place in question or at least, for not going there by the means
of transport suggested”. It is certainly not the only interpretation of far: I
mean, the word far can work for other conclusions. What I have said is that
there is one line of argument in which far represents the distance as an ob-
stacle. But especially in our modern world, the purpose of describing a dis-
tance as great by means of an adjective like far can also be to indicate that
it would be interesting to overcome it. Let us imagine your suggesting two
places where to spend our holidays: you propose a choice between spending
the holidays in Egypt or spending them in India, and I answer “India’s far-
ther”. Perhaps I am using the second argumentative principle: given that it
is farther, it seems more interesting to me (in the modern world, it is one of
the ideas attached to the idea behind the word far). In that case, the purpose
of my answering “India’s far” can be to accept your project; but it is still, by
means of a certain argumentative principle associated with the very mean-
ing of the word far. In other words, the purpose of describing a place as far
can be to describe a distance as an obstacle but it can also be to describe
the distance as a reason to be interested in a place; and there are a certain
number of other possibilities too. But, in any case, those different argumen-
tative possibilities should be introduced in the very description of the word.
***
Such are the kind of difficulties that I find in speech-act theory and
which have led me to suppress the idea of a propositional content and of
truth-conditions as far as possible. I will not quite manage that, because the
theory is not complete yet (however, I have a few years ahead of me hope-
fully), but I am going to try to go as far as possible in that direction. To
show you how I work a little, I am going to point out an objection that was
made to me a few months ago.
I was giving a lecture in which I was developing this type of idea and
someone made the following objection to me: you say that the meaning of
words is essentially argumentative, well, prove there is argumentativeness
to represent the distance as an obstacle. Let us consider now the suggestion
I go by plane, and my answering “It’s far away”: well, in that situation, that
answer is rather difficult to understand. You would have to imagine a socie-
ty where you could move about by satellite, or something: under those cir-
cumstances, the answer might have some meaning.
What I want to say is that, in the very meaning of far, there is the indi-
cation of conclusions which that word suggests about the distance. By de-
scribing a place as far, I am saying “that distance is an argument for not go-
ing to the place in question or at least, for not going there by the means
of transport suggested”. It is certainly not the only interpretation of far: I
mean, the word far can work for other conclusions. What I have said is that
there is one line of argument in which far represents the distance as an ob-
stacle. But especially in our modern world, the purpose of describing a dis-
tance as great by means of an adjective like far can also be to indicate that
it would be interesting to overcome it. Let us imagine your suggesting two
places where to spend our holidays: you propose a choice between spending
the holidays in Egypt or spending them in India, and I answer “India’s far-
ther”. Perhaps I am using the second argumentative principle: given that it
is farther, it seems more interesting to me (in the modern world, it is one of
the ideas attached to the idea behind the word far). In that case, the purpose
of my answering “India’s far” can be to accept your project; but it is still, by
means of a certain argumentative principle associated with the very mean-
ing of the word far. In other words, the purpose of describing a place as far
can be to describe a distance as an obstacle but it can also be to describe
the distance as a reason to be interested in a place; and there are a certain
number of other possibilities too. But, in any case, those different argumen-
tative possibilities should be introduced in the very description of the word.
***
Such are the kind of difficulties that I find in speech-act theory and
which have led me to suppress the idea of a propositional content and of
truth-conditions as far as possible. I will not quite manage that, because the
theory is not complete yet (however, I have a few years ahead of me hope-
fully), but I am going to try to go as far as possible in that direction. To
show you how I work a little, I am going to point out an objection that was
made to me a few months ago.
I was giving a lecture in which I was developing this type of idea and
someone made the following objection to me: you say that the meaning of
words is essentially argumentative, well, prove there is argumentativeness
