Page 51 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 51
Lecture III
fine the notion of argumentative function. The argumentative function of
discourse segments consists in their representing enunciators whose points
of view have an argumentative orientation. What I mean by argumentative
orientation must now be defined. The point of view of an enunciator E’s
having argumentative orientation means that it is represented as being able
to justify a certain conclusion, or to make that conclusion acceptable. The
argumentative function of a segment consists in representing enunciators
whose points of view are argumentatively oriented. My general thesis then
is that the representation of argumentatively oriented points of view is de-
termined by the linguistic structure of discourse segments, – irrespective of
the information which those segments provide. I will now explain my defi-
nitions: to do that, I am going to take a certain number of examples.
I think the clearest case, the most obvious discourse segment having an
argumentative function is a segment which is given as an argument for a
certain conclusion. It is the case where in a piece of discourse, one finds
a string of the following type: A, so C. A could be “The weather’s beauti-
ful”, for example, and C, “Let’s go for a walk!” One could also have said: C,
since or because A: “Let’s go for a walk” (C), since “The weather’s beauti-
ful” (A). When in discourse, you have a string of that kind, it is clear that A,
given as an argument aimed at getting C accepted, does have an argumen-
tative function, that is to say that A represents an enunciator whose point
of view is represented as leading on to the conclusion. In my examples, A
represents an enunciator, who ascribes the quality beautiful to the weather
and who considers that quality the weather has as a good reason to go for
a walk. I have deliberately taken a very simple example, in which it is diffi-
cult to see any other enunciators than the one ascribing the quality beauti-
ful to the weather and representing that satisfactory quality of the weather
as a good reason for going for a walk.
Now, an argumentative function can be attributed to discourse seg-
ments which do not state the targeted conclusion, that is, in which the con-
clusion is completely implicit. I go back to a previous example. Someone
proposes to walk somewhere with me, for example to walk back to my ho-
tel, and I simply answer: “It’s far away”. Even if I have not made the conclu-
sion explicit, the only possible way to understand my answer “It’s far away”
is to understand it as being oriented towards the conclusion: “I don’t want
to walk there, the distance is too great for the means of going there which
you propose to be an acceptable one”. So, even if it is not followed by a So
something, my “It’s far away” is intrinsically oriented towards the conclusion
“Let’s not walk there”. Take another example in which the conclusion is not
fine the notion of argumentative function. The argumentative function of
discourse segments consists in their representing enunciators whose points
of view have an argumentative orientation. What I mean by argumentative
orientation must now be defined. The point of view of an enunciator E’s
having argumentative orientation means that it is represented as being able
to justify a certain conclusion, or to make that conclusion acceptable. The
argumentative function of a segment consists in representing enunciators
whose points of view are argumentatively oriented. My general thesis then
is that the representation of argumentatively oriented points of view is de-
termined by the linguistic structure of discourse segments, – irrespective of
the information which those segments provide. I will now explain my defi-
nitions: to do that, I am going to take a certain number of examples.
I think the clearest case, the most obvious discourse segment having an
argumentative function is a segment which is given as an argument for a
certain conclusion. It is the case where in a piece of discourse, one finds
a string of the following type: A, so C. A could be “The weather’s beauti-
ful”, for example, and C, “Let’s go for a walk!” One could also have said: C,
since or because A: “Let’s go for a walk” (C), since “The weather’s beauti-
ful” (A). When in discourse, you have a string of that kind, it is clear that A,
given as an argument aimed at getting C accepted, does have an argumen-
tative function, that is to say that A represents an enunciator whose point
of view is represented as leading on to the conclusion. In my examples, A
represents an enunciator, who ascribes the quality beautiful to the weather
and who considers that quality the weather has as a good reason to go for
a walk. I have deliberately taken a very simple example, in which it is diffi-
cult to see any other enunciators than the one ascribing the quality beauti-
ful to the weather and representing that satisfactory quality of the weather
as a good reason for going for a walk.
Now, an argumentative function can be attributed to discourse seg-
ments which do not state the targeted conclusion, that is, in which the con-
clusion is completely implicit. I go back to a previous example. Someone
proposes to walk somewhere with me, for example to walk back to my ho-
tel, and I simply answer: “It’s far away”. Even if I have not made the conclu-
sion explicit, the only possible way to understand my answer “It’s far away”
is to understand it as being oriented towards the conclusion: “I don’t want
to walk there, the distance is too great for the means of going there which
you propose to be an acceptable one”. So, even if it is not followed by a So
something, my “It’s far away” is intrinsically oriented towards the conclusion
“Let’s not walk there”. Take another example in which the conclusion is not
