Page 34 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 34
Slovenian Lectures
All that goes to show that the producer is not at all a clear notion. Now,
it so happens that, as a linguist, I am fortunate enough not to have to wor-
ry about the producer. Why? As a linguist, I am interested in what is within
utterances, in the meaning which utterances convey. I am not interested, as
a linguist, in the causes that utterances stem from. So, as a linguist, I do not
have to worry about the producer: as a linguist, I do not have to know if the
utterances of people on the underground come from Le Monde or Le Fi-
garo or some other newspaper. What I try to do is to describe what is with-
in utterances. So, the problem of the producer, which is a very real, a very
important one, is not my problem. It is a problem for psychologists, it is a
problem for sociologists but I do not think that the linguist must deal with
it. Unfortunately, the linguist must, on the other hand, deal with two other
notions, which are also very difficult ones.
Let me begin with the notion of the locutor. What do I mean by the loc-
utor? What I mean is the person who, according to the very meaning of an
utterance, is the person responsible for that utterance. I would like to stress
that point: he is the person who is designated, in the utterance itself, as be-
ing the person responsible for that utterance. That person, who is responsi-
ble for the utterance, it so happens, is in most languages, I think I can even
say in all languages, designated by a particular morpheme, the first person,
that is to say in English: I, and also, of course, all the other grammatical
forms that refer back to the first person, such as the possessive adjective:
my. The same reasons that justify my not dealing with the producer require
my dealing with the locutor. I must deal with that person, because he or she
is denounced, indicated in the very meaning of an utterance. I would like
to show that the producer and the locutor, as I have just defined them, are,
ultimately, two extremely different notions. I shall attempt to do so with a
number of examples.
First, I am going to take a rather colloquial French expression and
which, so I have been told, can be translated more or less exactly in Slove-
nian. Say we have two characters, Mr A and Mr B. Suppose that Mr A has
been seriously indiscrete towards B: Mr A has looked through Mr B’s pa-
pers without having the least right to do so. Mr B catches Mr A looking
through his papers and B, to reproach A for his indiscretion, says to him:
“De quoi je me mêle?” or “De quoi je m’occupe?”, which is a very current
French expression [more or less equivalent in meaning but not in structure
to “Mind your business!” or “What business is it of yours!”]. That clearly
means: “What are you, A, interfering with?”, and suggests: “You, A, are in-
terfering in things which do not concern you!” If one looks for the produc-
All that goes to show that the producer is not at all a clear notion. Now,
it so happens that, as a linguist, I am fortunate enough not to have to wor-
ry about the producer. Why? As a linguist, I am interested in what is within
utterances, in the meaning which utterances convey. I am not interested, as
a linguist, in the causes that utterances stem from. So, as a linguist, I do not
have to worry about the producer: as a linguist, I do not have to know if the
utterances of people on the underground come from Le Monde or Le Fi-
garo or some other newspaper. What I try to do is to describe what is with-
in utterances. So, the problem of the producer, which is a very real, a very
important one, is not my problem. It is a problem for psychologists, it is a
problem for sociologists but I do not think that the linguist must deal with
it. Unfortunately, the linguist must, on the other hand, deal with two other
notions, which are also very difficult ones.
Let me begin with the notion of the locutor. What do I mean by the loc-
utor? What I mean is the person who, according to the very meaning of an
utterance, is the person responsible for that utterance. I would like to stress
that point: he is the person who is designated, in the utterance itself, as be-
ing the person responsible for that utterance. That person, who is responsi-
ble for the utterance, it so happens, is in most languages, I think I can even
say in all languages, designated by a particular morpheme, the first person,
that is to say in English: I, and also, of course, all the other grammatical
forms that refer back to the first person, such as the possessive adjective:
my. The same reasons that justify my not dealing with the producer require
my dealing with the locutor. I must deal with that person, because he or she
is denounced, indicated in the very meaning of an utterance. I would like
to show that the producer and the locutor, as I have just defined them, are,
ultimately, two extremely different notions. I shall attempt to do so with a
number of examples.
First, I am going to take a rather colloquial French expression and
which, so I have been told, can be translated more or less exactly in Slove-
nian. Say we have two characters, Mr A and Mr B. Suppose that Mr A has
been seriously indiscrete towards B: Mr A has looked through Mr B’s pa-
pers without having the least right to do so. Mr B catches Mr A looking
through his papers and B, to reproach A for his indiscretion, says to him:
“De quoi je me mêle?” or “De quoi je m’occupe?”, which is a very current
French expression [more or less equivalent in meaning but not in structure
to “Mind your business!” or “What business is it of yours!”]. That clearly
means: “What are you, A, interfering with?”, and suggests: “You, A, are in-
terfering in things which do not concern you!” If one looks for the produc-
