Page 61 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 61
Lecture III
going to say. Who will? Most probably his wife, annoyed at the idea that
her husband still has half a bottle of wine to drink. In any case, the filled-
up state of the bottle will be what the argumentative follow-up after “The
bottle is half-full” will be relevant to and after “The bottle is half-empty”,
it will be relevant to its empty state. That is so, although the information is
exactly the same. So, facts, information, in such cases, do not determine ar-
gumentative value at all (even if the existence of such facts is brought into
linguistics – which, as I told you at the beginning, is not something I do –
they are irrelevant in the examples I have just been taking for argumenta-
tive analysis).
Now, I am going to take examples exclusively related to the lexicon it-
self. I remind you of an example that I took, I think, during the first lec-
ture. We had compared far and nearby: “It’s far”, “It’s nearby”. At first, you
have the impression that the information given is not the same. But that is
an impression which disappears if you look at these words more carefully.
You can say either “It’s far” or “It’s nearby”, without a change in the situa-
tion and about the same distance which you have no uncertainty about. I
am going to take the example I gave a couple of days ago. Someone suggests
I walk with him to a certain place. I know what the distance in question is
exactly. Let us even suppose that I can say how much it measures: I know it
measures, say, a mile. Whatever the situation, I can very well say: “It’s far”.
But I can also very well say: “It’s near”. The information has therefore no rel-
evance to our choice of the words. What then, is the difference between the
two answers: “It’s far” and “It’s nearby”? The difference is that the answer
“It’s far” will be understood as a refusal of the suggestion which has been
made to me whereas the other answer “It’s nearby” will, on the contrary, be
understood as an approval, an acceptance. If someone suggests “Let’s walk
to your hotel!”, I can answer either “Oh, no. It’s far” or “All right, it’s near-
by” but the distance remains the same: simply, in one case, I refuse to walk
there and in the other, I accept. The difference then is not informational: it
is purely argumentative.
Yet another example. Take these two words: thrifty, avaricious. Is there
any informational difference between my describing someone as thrifty and
my describing him as avaricious? I defy you to say: “It’s true he’s thrifty
if such and such conditions obtain”; “It’s true he’s avaricious if such and
such other conditions obtain”. It is not at all on the grounds of the infor-
mation provided that you can distinguish the thrifty from the avaricious, it
seems to me. The difference is in the attitude you adopt towards the person
you are speaking about. You can say to someone “He’ll be a good husband,
going to say. Who will? Most probably his wife, annoyed at the idea that
her husband still has half a bottle of wine to drink. In any case, the filled-
up state of the bottle will be what the argumentative follow-up after “The
bottle is half-full” will be relevant to and after “The bottle is half-empty”,
it will be relevant to its empty state. That is so, although the information is
exactly the same. So, facts, information, in such cases, do not determine ar-
gumentative value at all (even if the existence of such facts is brought into
linguistics – which, as I told you at the beginning, is not something I do –
they are irrelevant in the examples I have just been taking for argumenta-
tive analysis).
Now, I am going to take examples exclusively related to the lexicon it-
self. I remind you of an example that I took, I think, during the first lec-
ture. We had compared far and nearby: “It’s far”, “It’s nearby”. At first, you
have the impression that the information given is not the same. But that is
an impression which disappears if you look at these words more carefully.
You can say either “It’s far” or “It’s nearby”, without a change in the situa-
tion and about the same distance which you have no uncertainty about. I
am going to take the example I gave a couple of days ago. Someone suggests
I walk with him to a certain place. I know what the distance in question is
exactly. Let us even suppose that I can say how much it measures: I know it
measures, say, a mile. Whatever the situation, I can very well say: “It’s far”.
But I can also very well say: “It’s near”. The information has therefore no rel-
evance to our choice of the words. What then, is the difference between the
two answers: “It’s far” and “It’s nearby”? The difference is that the answer
“It’s far” will be understood as a refusal of the suggestion which has been
made to me whereas the other answer “It’s nearby” will, on the contrary, be
understood as an approval, an acceptance. If someone suggests “Let’s walk
to your hotel!”, I can answer either “Oh, no. It’s far” or “All right, it’s near-
by” but the distance remains the same: simply, in one case, I refuse to walk
there and in the other, I accept. The difference then is not informational: it
is purely argumentative.
Yet another example. Take these two words: thrifty, avaricious. Is there
any informational difference between my describing someone as thrifty and
my describing him as avaricious? I defy you to say: “It’s true he’s thrifty
if such and such conditions obtain”; “It’s true he’s avaricious if such and
such other conditions obtain”. It is not at all on the grounds of the infor-
mation provided that you can distinguish the thrifty from the avaricious, it
seems to me. The difference is in the attitude you adopt towards the person
you are speaking about. You can say to someone “He’ll be a good husband,
