Page 74 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 74
Slovenian Lectures
between reasoning and argumentation, and as a linguist, what I am inter-
ested in is what goes on in speech, not what goes on in people’s heads, not
reasoning. From the logical point of view, the policeman does not need to
rely on a scalar principle but once he opens his mouth, he injects scalarity
into things, which in themselves have none. Scalarity is a constraint which
speech imposes upon us.
Let me take a last example, which can be classified as a more linguis-
tic one, and which is going to involve the connective even again. You can
very well imagine the following two pieces of discourse: (1) “It’s twelve,
or even thirteen degrees, let’s go for a walk”; (2) “It’s twelve, or even elev-
en degrees, let’s go for a walk”. We know besides that in our community,
we have two different topoi, which I call T1 and T2: one, T1, according to
which warmth makes a walk pleasant; the other, T2, according to which, it
is cold which makes a walk pleasant. At different times of our lives, we use
now one, now the other. Now, I ask you: which is the topos used in (1) and
which in (2)? I have the impression (I hope you have the same) that in (1),
it is T1, the one which views warmth as a cause of pleasant-ness, and in (2),
it is T2, the one which on the contrary views cold, or simply coolness, as a
cause of pleasant-ness. I therefore hold it as a fact that string (1) uses T1 and
string (2), T2. Now, as a linguist, I have the following question to ask my-
self: Why do we feel that (1) uses T1 and (2), T2? To answer, the scalarity
of a topos seems very useful to me. Perhaps there are other ways of explain-
ing the fact that I have posited, a fact which seems undeniable to me, but in
any case, that fact can be explained in a satisfactory way if you have recourse
to the scalarity of a topos.
I remind you that according to me two arguments joined by even move
towards a same conclusion and that the second is more forceful than the
first. In string (1), “thirteen degrees” is therefore a more forceful argument
than “twelve degrees” for the common conclusion “Let’s go for a walk”. On
the contrary, in string (2), “twelve degrees” must be weaker than “eleven de-
grees” for the same conclusion. All that stems from the description of even
which I have put forward. Obviously, if you do not accept that description,
the whole of my demonstration fails. Linguistic demonstrations are always
indirect: a thesis can be demonstrated only through a number of hypoth-
eses which are taken for granted. The hypothesis I ask you to grant me for
the rest of my demonstration is my argumentative description of even, ac-
cording to which the second segment is a more forceful argument than the
first for the same conclusion. I ask you to grant something else, which I
could try to justify but it would take up too much time. I ask you to grant
between reasoning and argumentation, and as a linguist, what I am inter-
ested in is what goes on in speech, not what goes on in people’s heads, not
reasoning. From the logical point of view, the policeman does not need to
rely on a scalar principle but once he opens his mouth, he injects scalarity
into things, which in themselves have none. Scalarity is a constraint which
speech imposes upon us.
Let me take a last example, which can be classified as a more linguis-
tic one, and which is going to involve the connective even again. You can
very well imagine the following two pieces of discourse: (1) “It’s twelve,
or even thirteen degrees, let’s go for a walk”; (2) “It’s twelve, or even elev-
en degrees, let’s go for a walk”. We know besides that in our community,
we have two different topoi, which I call T1 and T2: one, T1, according to
which warmth makes a walk pleasant; the other, T2, according to which, it
is cold which makes a walk pleasant. At different times of our lives, we use
now one, now the other. Now, I ask you: which is the topos used in (1) and
which in (2)? I have the impression (I hope you have the same) that in (1),
it is T1, the one which views warmth as a cause of pleasant-ness, and in (2),
it is T2, the one which on the contrary views cold, or simply coolness, as a
cause of pleasant-ness. I therefore hold it as a fact that string (1) uses T1 and
string (2), T2. Now, as a linguist, I have the following question to ask my-
self: Why do we feel that (1) uses T1 and (2), T2? To answer, the scalarity
of a topos seems very useful to me. Perhaps there are other ways of explain-
ing the fact that I have posited, a fact which seems undeniable to me, but in
any case, that fact can be explained in a satisfactory way if you have recourse
to the scalarity of a topos.
I remind you that according to me two arguments joined by even move
towards a same conclusion and that the second is more forceful than the
first. In string (1), “thirteen degrees” is therefore a more forceful argument
than “twelve degrees” for the common conclusion “Let’s go for a walk”. On
the contrary, in string (2), “twelve degrees” must be weaker than “eleven de-
grees” for the same conclusion. All that stems from the description of even
which I have put forward. Obviously, if you do not accept that description,
the whole of my demonstration fails. Linguistic demonstrations are always
indirect: a thesis can be demonstrated only through a number of hypoth-
eses which are taken for granted. The hypothesis I ask you to grant me for
the rest of my demonstration is my argumentative description of even, ac-
cording to which the second segment is a more forceful argument than the
first for the same conclusion. I ask you to grant something else, which I
could try to justify but it would take up too much time. I ask you to grant
