Page 37 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 37
Lecture II
So, I think that one must distinguish those two functions: the function
of the one who is represented in a piece of discourse as being responsible for
it, the locutor; and the function of the producer, that is to say the one who
actually produces that piece of discourse.
I move on now to the third notion, which seems to me to be encapsu-
lated in the general idea of the speaker (it is the one I am going to speak
about most here): the notion of the enunciator. I would like to point out
that the term enunciator is a term that I have chosen in a wholly arbitrary
way: it must be understood here as having no other meaning than the one
I am about to define. I have perhaps chosen an inadequate, a misleading
term but the choice is behind me now and I cannot go back on it. What do
I mean by enunciator? For me, all utterances represent one or several points
of view: by enunciators, I mean the sources of those different points of view
which are represented within an utterance. In an utterance, one represents
the state of affairs one is speaking about as seen from the point of view of
one or several persons: the enunciators are those persons from whose point
of view the state of affairs is viewed. I am going to try to show that the enun-
ciator, as the source of a point of view, is wholly different from the locu-
tor. To do so, I am going to give you a certain number of examples in which
there is no coincidence between the locutor, designated by marks of the
first person and, on the other hand, the enunciator, the source of the dif-
ferent points of view represented in an utterance. First, I am going to take
a very simple and quite untechnical example and then, I shall take exam-
ples which will require getting into linguistic technique properly speaking.
My first example concerns what are called echoic utterances. Suppose
Mr A and Mr B are arguing. A says to B: “B, you’re a fool!” B answers using
the very words A has used: “So, I’m a fool, am I! Well, just you wait!” It is
not necessary for B to add anything after “just you wait!” but he can do so.
Who is the locutor of that utterance of B’s “I’m a fool”? In other words, who
is the person designated by the I pronoun? It is undeniably B. Indeed B is
merely taking up the idea, if that can be called an idea, which was put for-
ward by A and according to which B was a fool. So, the locutor, designated
by I is B. Now, whose point of view is represented here? Unless B is incredi-
bly lucid about himself, that point of view is not his: he does not at all claim
to be a fool. The point of view which is represented is A’s: B in his utterance
is expressing the point of view of a person different from himself, a point
of view of which he undoubtably does not approve at all and even, one can
suppose, which he vehemently rejects. So, what we have here is a dissocia-
So, I think that one must distinguish those two functions: the function
of the one who is represented in a piece of discourse as being responsible for
it, the locutor; and the function of the producer, that is to say the one who
actually produces that piece of discourse.
I move on now to the third notion, which seems to me to be encapsu-
lated in the general idea of the speaker (it is the one I am going to speak
about most here): the notion of the enunciator. I would like to point out
that the term enunciator is a term that I have chosen in a wholly arbitrary
way: it must be understood here as having no other meaning than the one
I am about to define. I have perhaps chosen an inadequate, a misleading
term but the choice is behind me now and I cannot go back on it. What do
I mean by enunciator? For me, all utterances represent one or several points
of view: by enunciators, I mean the sources of those different points of view
which are represented within an utterance. In an utterance, one represents
the state of affairs one is speaking about as seen from the point of view of
one or several persons: the enunciators are those persons from whose point
of view the state of affairs is viewed. I am going to try to show that the enun-
ciator, as the source of a point of view, is wholly different from the locu-
tor. To do so, I am going to give you a certain number of examples in which
there is no coincidence between the locutor, designated by marks of the
first person and, on the other hand, the enunciator, the source of the dif-
ferent points of view represented in an utterance. First, I am going to take
a very simple and quite untechnical example and then, I shall take exam-
ples which will require getting into linguistic technique properly speaking.
My first example concerns what are called echoic utterances. Suppose
Mr A and Mr B are arguing. A says to B: “B, you’re a fool!” B answers using
the very words A has used: “So, I’m a fool, am I! Well, just you wait!” It is
not necessary for B to add anything after “just you wait!” but he can do so.
Who is the locutor of that utterance of B’s “I’m a fool”? In other words, who
is the person designated by the I pronoun? It is undeniably B. Indeed B is
merely taking up the idea, if that can be called an idea, which was put for-
ward by A and according to which B was a fool. So, the locutor, designated
by I is B. Now, whose point of view is represented here? Unless B is incredi-
bly lucid about himself, that point of view is not his: he does not at all claim
to be a fool. The point of view which is represented is A’s: B in his utterance
is expressing the point of view of a person different from himself, a point
of view of which he undoubtably does not approve at all and even, one can
suppose, which he vehemently rejects. So, what we have here is a dissocia-
