Page 52 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 52
Slovenian Lectures
explicit. Let us suppose that someone proposes to go and see a film, and that
you answer: “I’ve already seen that film”. Or again, someone suggests seeing
some monument, and you say: “Oh, I’ve already visited that monument”. Or
again, someone suggests going for a walk, and you answer: “I’ve already gone
on that walk”. I think that in those three cases, everyone will understand the
answer as being oriented towards a refusal of the suggestion made to you.
“I’ve already seen that film” means “No, it’s not worth our seeing it together”,
“I’ve already gone on that walk”, “so I don’t want to go again”. Notice, by the
way, how strange that is: it is rather strange, because the fact that one has al-
ready gone on a particular walk does not prevent one from going again. Per-
sonally, I take enormous pleasure in walking around Paris and all the walks I
go for are walks I have gone on a hundred times. However, it so happens that
the expression “I’ve already been on that walk” is immediately understood as
a reason for not going on that walk again. I would rather like to know why. I
hope I can give you an idea of why that is so by the end of the last lecture but
I wanted to make you feel that there is a problem here.
So, sometimes, we have A segments, which are argumentatively orient-
ed, even if they are not connected to a conclusion. I now take another ex-
ample of a segment which, though the conclusion is not apparent, is never-
theless argumentatively oriented. Let us suppose that you have string of the
following type: A but B. Someone suggests going for a walk (I am taking
the same example), and you answer: “The weather’s beautiful but I’m tired”.
Everyone, I think, will understand that your answer “The weather’s beau-
tiful but I’m tired” is a way of refusing the suggestion of going for a walk.
You cannot say: “All right, let’s go for that walk, the weather’s beautiful but
I’m tired”. You will have to say: “No, let’s not go for that walk, it’s true the
weather’s beautiful but I’m tired”. To describe that situation, I say that when
the two segments, A and B, are connected by but, they are each oriented to-
wards opposite conclusions. In my example, A is oriented towards the con-
clusion Let’s (“The weather’s beautiful” is viewed as a reason for going for
a walk) and segment B (“I’m tired”) is viewed as a reason for not going for
a walk, that is to say it leads towards the opposite conclusion Let’s not. It
seems to me that if one wants to give a general description of a conjunction
like but, one must say (personally, I can see no other solution) that the func-
tion of this conjunction is to represent the two segments it connects as be-
ing oriented towards opposite conclusions. The very fact that you put a but
between “The weather’s beautiful” and “I’m tired” leads you to read into the
“The weather’s beautiful” segment a point of view favorable to the walk and
into “I’m tired” another point of view, oriented against the walk.
explicit. Let us suppose that someone proposes to go and see a film, and that
you answer: “I’ve already seen that film”. Or again, someone suggests seeing
some monument, and you say: “Oh, I’ve already visited that monument”. Or
again, someone suggests going for a walk, and you answer: “I’ve already gone
on that walk”. I think that in those three cases, everyone will understand the
answer as being oriented towards a refusal of the suggestion made to you.
“I’ve already seen that film” means “No, it’s not worth our seeing it together”,
“I’ve already gone on that walk”, “so I don’t want to go again”. Notice, by the
way, how strange that is: it is rather strange, because the fact that one has al-
ready gone on a particular walk does not prevent one from going again. Per-
sonally, I take enormous pleasure in walking around Paris and all the walks I
go for are walks I have gone on a hundred times. However, it so happens that
the expression “I’ve already been on that walk” is immediately understood as
a reason for not going on that walk again. I would rather like to know why. I
hope I can give you an idea of why that is so by the end of the last lecture but
I wanted to make you feel that there is a problem here.
So, sometimes, we have A segments, which are argumentatively orient-
ed, even if they are not connected to a conclusion. I now take another ex-
ample of a segment which, though the conclusion is not apparent, is never-
theless argumentatively oriented. Let us suppose that you have string of the
following type: A but B. Someone suggests going for a walk (I am taking
the same example), and you answer: “The weather’s beautiful but I’m tired”.
Everyone, I think, will understand that your answer “The weather’s beau-
tiful but I’m tired” is a way of refusing the suggestion of going for a walk.
You cannot say: “All right, let’s go for that walk, the weather’s beautiful but
I’m tired”. You will have to say: “No, let’s not go for that walk, it’s true the
weather’s beautiful but I’m tired”. To describe that situation, I say that when
the two segments, A and B, are connected by but, they are each oriented to-
wards opposite conclusions. In my example, A is oriented towards the con-
clusion Let’s (“The weather’s beautiful” is viewed as a reason for going for
a walk) and segment B (“I’m tired”) is viewed as a reason for not going for
a walk, that is to say it leads towards the opposite conclusion Let’s not. It
seems to me that if one wants to give a general description of a conjunction
like but, one must say (personally, I can see no other solution) that the func-
tion of this conjunction is to represent the two segments it connects as be-
ing oriented towards opposite conclusions. The very fact that you put a but
between “The weather’s beautiful” and “I’m tired” leads you to read into the
“The weather’s beautiful” segment a point of view favorable to the walk and
into “I’m tired” another point of view, oriented against the walk.
