Page 68 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 68
Slovenian Lectures
perhaps I have no right to use the rule for the particular case which occa-
sioned my discourse. In pointing out that there are exceptions, you recog-
nize that the rule which I have used is a general rule but at the same time,
you are telling me that I do not have the right to use that rule in my partic-
ular situation. You do not deny the generality of the rule at all, you are sim-
ply showing that there are exceptions to it and you are suggesting that we
may be in one of those exceptional cases (which are foreseen by the rule it-
self, since the rule foresees the possibility of exceptions). Or again, I say “Pe-
ter is wealthy, he must be happy” on the grounds of a very commonplace to-
pos according to which wealth is a factor of happiness. You will answer “But
I know a certain number of people who are both rich and very unhappy”. In
saying that, you are pointing out that there are exceptions to my rule, you
are insisting upon those exceptions: it is therefore not certain, according to
you, that I have the right to apply it in the particular situation which we are
speaking about.
Concerning that point, it is interesting to note that the purpose of a
great number of proverbs in many of our societies is to point out that there
are exceptions to rules. That does not amount to denying those rules. All
it means is that they must be used with caution, because there are cases in
which they do not apply. That is what a lot of English proverbs do. They
have the same form in general. Here are a few examples. I took the follow-
ing example of argumentation just now: “Peter is wealthy, he must be hap-
py”. To refute it you can use a proverb, which works as an anti-topos, and it
is this: Money can’t buy happiness. That means that there are exceptions to
the rule according to which when you are rich, you are happy. That does
not prevent your admitting that in wealth, there is an intimation of happi-
ness; but that intimation can sometimes be deceptive. Or again, you have
this proverb which, I think, is just about a universal one, at least in West-
ern society: All that glitters is not gold. That does not mean that everything
that glitters is valueless. It means that the rule we normally use, and which
from a glittering appearance concludes to real quality, has a certain number
of exceptions, and that care must be taken in our use of it. Take yet another
proverb like His bark is worse than his bite. That does not mean that when a
dog barks, you need not worry and can be sure it will not bite you, – which
would be contrary to experience – and proverbs do not run against expe-
rience. All that means is that there are exceptions to the rule according to
which a dog that barks is about to bite, so that you need not worry too
much if you do see a dog barking, because the situation is perhaps one in
which the dog barks but does not have the intention of biting.
perhaps I have no right to use the rule for the particular case which occa-
sioned my discourse. In pointing out that there are exceptions, you recog-
nize that the rule which I have used is a general rule but at the same time,
you are telling me that I do not have the right to use that rule in my partic-
ular situation. You do not deny the generality of the rule at all, you are sim-
ply showing that there are exceptions to it and you are suggesting that we
may be in one of those exceptional cases (which are foreseen by the rule it-
self, since the rule foresees the possibility of exceptions). Or again, I say “Pe-
ter is wealthy, he must be happy” on the grounds of a very commonplace to-
pos according to which wealth is a factor of happiness. You will answer “But
I know a certain number of people who are both rich and very unhappy”. In
saying that, you are pointing out that there are exceptions to my rule, you
are insisting upon those exceptions: it is therefore not certain, according to
you, that I have the right to apply it in the particular situation which we are
speaking about.
Concerning that point, it is interesting to note that the purpose of a
great number of proverbs in many of our societies is to point out that there
are exceptions to rules. That does not amount to denying those rules. All
it means is that they must be used with caution, because there are cases in
which they do not apply. That is what a lot of English proverbs do. They
have the same form in general. Here are a few examples. I took the follow-
ing example of argumentation just now: “Peter is wealthy, he must be hap-
py”. To refute it you can use a proverb, which works as an anti-topos, and it
is this: Money can’t buy happiness. That means that there are exceptions to
the rule according to which when you are rich, you are happy. That does
not prevent your admitting that in wealth, there is an intimation of happi-
ness; but that intimation can sometimes be deceptive. Or again, you have
this proverb which, I think, is just about a universal one, at least in West-
ern society: All that glitters is not gold. That does not mean that everything
that glitters is valueless. It means that the rule we normally use, and which
from a glittering appearance concludes to real quality, has a certain number
of exceptions, and that care must be taken in our use of it. Take yet another
proverb like His bark is worse than his bite. That does not mean that when a
dog barks, you need not worry and can be sure it will not bite you, – which
would be contrary to experience – and proverbs do not run against expe-
rience. All that means is that there are exceptions to the rule according to
which a dog that barks is about to bite, so that you need not worry too
much if you do see a dog barking, because the situation is perhaps one in
which the dog barks but does not have the intention of biting.
