Page 54 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 54
Slovenian Lectures
but there are a good many cases where it is not at all operative and where the
but absolutely does not behave as an implicature-defeater. On that point, I
will simply take two examples. First example: “Peter doesn’t know all wines
but he does know some”, which is a wholly natural use of but. Let us try to
analyse that stretch of discourse with the notion of implicature. The classi-
cal view is that “He doesn’t know all wines” implies “He knows some”. In-
deed, it would be absurd and contrary to the rules of conversation to say
that someone does not know all wines if thereby one did not imply that he
does not know some. When I say “I don’t know all French wines”, you im-
mediately conclude that I know some. If I did not know any, I would be
misleading you in saying that I did not know all of them. But then you do
see that in my example but absolutely does not defeat the implicature: quite
the contrary, it confirms it. The implicature was “Peter knows some wines”,
then one has a but and one adds “He knows some”. So the description of
but as an implicature-defeater is visibly inadequate, at least in that partic-
ular case, even it is just about operative in other cases, like the first I envis-
aged. Personally, I will not use the notion of implicature to describe but
(which does not mean that I believe the notion of implicature is useless: I
simply think that it does not help to describe but). I think that the function
of but is to bring out the argumentative potential of discourse segments. In
my personal description, I will say therefore that the utterance “Peter does
not know all wines” is oriented towards a certain conclusion, like Peter’s ig-
norance as to wines (if you like, in saying “Peter does not know all wines”, I
am criticizing, or at least devaluating whatever knowledge Peter may have
of wines). By contrast, “He knows some” is oriented towards the opposite
conclusion: it is a way of bringing out the knowledge of the person I am
speaking about. So, for me, in putting in but between “Peter doesn’t know
all wines” and “He knows some”, one is making the argumentative function
of “Peter doesn’t know all wines” clear or, in other words, one is making it
clear that this discourse segment represents an enunciator who justifies an
unfavourable appreciation of Peter’s knowledge as to wines.
I take a second and last example. Perhaps I am overstressing this but for
me, it is extremely important to bring out what is original about argumen-
tation. Take sentences like “Peter would have liked to come but he didn’t”
or “Peter would have liked to come but he wasn’t able to”. I have used the
conditional mood deliberately. The use of that mood clearly implies that
Peter did not come. If I thought that Peter had come, I would have said
“Peter had a great desire to come” but I would not have used the condition-
al. So, I have an implicature “Peter did not come” (the Americans, in that
but there are a good many cases where it is not at all operative and where the
but absolutely does not behave as an implicature-defeater. On that point, I
will simply take two examples. First example: “Peter doesn’t know all wines
but he does know some”, which is a wholly natural use of but. Let us try to
analyse that stretch of discourse with the notion of implicature. The classi-
cal view is that “He doesn’t know all wines” implies “He knows some”. In-
deed, it would be absurd and contrary to the rules of conversation to say
that someone does not know all wines if thereby one did not imply that he
does not know some. When I say “I don’t know all French wines”, you im-
mediately conclude that I know some. If I did not know any, I would be
misleading you in saying that I did not know all of them. But then you do
see that in my example but absolutely does not defeat the implicature: quite
the contrary, it confirms it. The implicature was “Peter knows some wines”,
then one has a but and one adds “He knows some”. So the description of
but as an implicature-defeater is visibly inadequate, at least in that partic-
ular case, even it is just about operative in other cases, like the first I envis-
aged. Personally, I will not use the notion of implicature to describe but
(which does not mean that I believe the notion of implicature is useless: I
simply think that it does not help to describe but). I think that the function
of but is to bring out the argumentative potential of discourse segments. In
my personal description, I will say therefore that the utterance “Peter does
not know all wines” is oriented towards a certain conclusion, like Peter’s ig-
norance as to wines (if you like, in saying “Peter does not know all wines”, I
am criticizing, or at least devaluating whatever knowledge Peter may have
of wines). By contrast, “He knows some” is oriented towards the opposite
conclusion: it is a way of bringing out the knowledge of the person I am
speaking about. So, for me, in putting in but between “Peter doesn’t know
all wines” and “He knows some”, one is making the argumentative function
of “Peter doesn’t know all wines” clear or, in other words, one is making it
clear that this discourse segment represents an enunciator who justifies an
unfavourable appreciation of Peter’s knowledge as to wines.
I take a second and last example. Perhaps I am overstressing this but for
me, it is extremely important to bring out what is original about argumen-
tation. Take sentences like “Peter would have liked to come but he didn’t”
or “Peter would have liked to come but he wasn’t able to”. I have used the
conditional mood deliberately. The use of that mood clearly implies that
Peter did not come. If I thought that Peter had come, I would have said
“Peter had a great desire to come” but I would not have used the condition-
al. So, I have an implicature “Peter did not come” (the Americans, in that
