Page 55 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 55
Lecture III
case, would speak of a conventional implicature). But that implicature is not
all defeated by what follows but, that is “He was not able to”. On the con-
trary, the implicature “Peter did not come” is confirmed, or at least is ex-
plained by what follows but. So, here again, one cannot say that but func-
tions as an implicature-defeater: once again, the notion of implicature does
not seem relevant to describe the function of but. For my part, I would de-
scribe the function of but in that stretch of discourse by saying that “Peter
would have liked to come” represents an enunciator indicating the desire
Peter had of coming, an enunciator who gives an argument for Peter’s com-
ing. Of course, in saying “Peter would have liked to come”, in a sense, I am
saying that Peter did not come but at the same time, I am indicating the de-
sire Peter had of coming and that desire, like any desire, is an argument for
its own fulfilment. So, I will say that the segment “Peter would have liked
to come” is argumentative: it has an argumentative function, in the sense
that it represents an enunciator whose point of view justifies the idea that
Peter was to come; after that, but introduces a segment that is oriented to-
wards the opposite conclusion, Peter’s not coming. It seems to me therefore
that but for the same reason as so can bring out the argumentative function
of discourse segments, that is to say the argumentative orientation of the
points of view which a stretch of discourse represents. I do not think it can
be described otherwise.
Now, let me give you the example of another word, about which we will
have a lot to say later: the word even. Let us suppose that I am telling you
about a meeting I was at, and that I say to you “There was Peter, and even
John”. What does even do, which links the idea that there was Peter and the
idea that there was John? For my part, I describe the function of even with
the help of the notion of argumentation and I cannot describe it otherwise.
I say that when one links, when one connects two discourse segments with
even, one represents the two segments as being oriented towards a same
conclusion, that I arbitrarily call R, the second segment being a more force-
ful argument than the first relatively to that conclusion. If you want to un-
derstand my stretch of discourse “There was Peter and even John”, you must
ask yourself “Why did he say even?” To answer that question, the only solu-
tion (at least, I cannot see any other) seems to be to ask yourself what I have
tried to show, that is to say, what the conclusion that I have tried to justify
is. To understand my even, you must find a conclusion which is justified by
“There was Peter” and which is also justified and, if I may say so, even more
justified by “There was John”. That conclusion is not specified in the dis-
course. It could be “We had fun: there was Peter, who is very amusing and
case, would speak of a conventional implicature). But that implicature is not
all defeated by what follows but, that is “He was not able to”. On the con-
trary, the implicature “Peter did not come” is confirmed, or at least is ex-
plained by what follows but. So, here again, one cannot say that but func-
tions as an implicature-defeater: once again, the notion of implicature does
not seem relevant to describe the function of but. For my part, I would de-
scribe the function of but in that stretch of discourse by saying that “Peter
would have liked to come” represents an enunciator indicating the desire
Peter had of coming, an enunciator who gives an argument for Peter’s com-
ing. Of course, in saying “Peter would have liked to come”, in a sense, I am
saying that Peter did not come but at the same time, I am indicating the de-
sire Peter had of coming and that desire, like any desire, is an argument for
its own fulfilment. So, I will say that the segment “Peter would have liked
to come” is argumentative: it has an argumentative function, in the sense
that it represents an enunciator whose point of view justifies the idea that
Peter was to come; after that, but introduces a segment that is oriented to-
wards the opposite conclusion, Peter’s not coming. It seems to me therefore
that but for the same reason as so can bring out the argumentative function
of discourse segments, that is to say the argumentative orientation of the
points of view which a stretch of discourse represents. I do not think it can
be described otherwise.
Now, let me give you the example of another word, about which we will
have a lot to say later: the word even. Let us suppose that I am telling you
about a meeting I was at, and that I say to you “There was Peter, and even
John”. What does even do, which links the idea that there was Peter and the
idea that there was John? For my part, I describe the function of even with
the help of the notion of argumentation and I cannot describe it otherwise.
I say that when one links, when one connects two discourse segments with
even, one represents the two segments as being oriented towards a same
conclusion, that I arbitrarily call R, the second segment being a more force-
ful argument than the first relatively to that conclusion. If you want to un-
derstand my stretch of discourse “There was Peter and even John”, you must
ask yourself “Why did he say even?” To answer that question, the only solu-
tion (at least, I cannot see any other) seems to be to ask yourself what I have
tried to show, that is to say, what the conclusion that I have tried to justify
is. To understand my even, you must find a conclusion which is justified by
“There was Peter” and which is also justified and, if I may say so, even more
justified by “There was John”. That conclusion is not specified in the dis-
course. It could be “We had fun: there was Peter, who is very amusing and
