Page 80 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 80
Slovenian Lectures
ing represented as a property making a walk unpleasant. Finally, there is an
E4 enunciator who concludes from E3’s point of view to no walk. E4 is to
be identified (at least, if the utterance is not an ironical one) with the locu-
tor himself, which explains why the utterance, taken as a whole, serves as a
refusal to go for a walk. In saying “It’s warm, but I’m tired”, you put forward
four enunciators: the first characterizes the weather as making a walk pleas-
ant (E1); the second (E2) concludes for a walk; then, the physical state of
the locutor is characterized as making the walk unpleasant, following the
topical form The less the physical state is good, the less going for a walk is pleas-
ant (E3); and lastly, E4 (identifiable with the locutor) moves on to con-
clude to no walk.
Why have I distinguished those four enunciators? those four points of
view? I think I can justify this distinction in the following way. The locu-
tor who says “It’s warm but I’m tired” completely agrees that it is warm, and
even that it is warm in a way that makes a walk pleasant: that is what I mean
in saying that the locutor accepts E1’s point of view. What he does not ac-
cept is E2’s point of view: he refuses the conclusion that he should go for a
walk. To do so, he imposes E3’s point of view, and he also imposes E4’s con-
clusion. Thus, what justifies distinguishing E1 and E2 is that the locutor
does not have the same attitude towards the two: in one case, he agrees; in
the other, he disagrees. To see the difference between E1 and E2, you have
to accept (this is my main thesis) the idea that there is a difference between
summoning a certain topical form (which is what E1 does) and using that
topical form to draw the corresponding conclusion, say “So, we must go for
a walk”. The locutor recognises that the weather is favourable to going for a
walk but he absolutely refuses to draw the conclusion. So much for the dis-
tinction between E1 and E2.
Now that I have distinguished summoning a topos and using that to-
pos for a particular conclusion, I must also distinguish E3 and E4, who also
stand for the summoning of a topos and the using of a topos. Having dis-
tinguished E1 and E2 (and according to me you cannot but do so), you
must distinguish E3 and E4 merely for the sake of coherence. Moreover,
but there is no time to go into this, it so happens that in certain situations,
the locutor can have different attitudes regarding the two points of view
(he can simply accept E3 but identify himself with E4).
With that example, I hope to have shown that there are other cases of
polyphony than the negative utterances which I spoke of two lectures ago:
there are much more complicated ones. I hope that I have succeeded in also
suggesting that there is a relationship between the theory of polyphony and
ing represented as a property making a walk unpleasant. Finally, there is an
E4 enunciator who concludes from E3’s point of view to no walk. E4 is to
be identified (at least, if the utterance is not an ironical one) with the locu-
tor himself, which explains why the utterance, taken as a whole, serves as a
refusal to go for a walk. In saying “It’s warm, but I’m tired”, you put forward
four enunciators: the first characterizes the weather as making a walk pleas-
ant (E1); the second (E2) concludes for a walk; then, the physical state of
the locutor is characterized as making the walk unpleasant, following the
topical form The less the physical state is good, the less going for a walk is pleas-
ant (E3); and lastly, E4 (identifiable with the locutor) moves on to con-
clude to no walk.
Why have I distinguished those four enunciators? those four points of
view? I think I can justify this distinction in the following way. The locu-
tor who says “It’s warm but I’m tired” completely agrees that it is warm, and
even that it is warm in a way that makes a walk pleasant: that is what I mean
in saying that the locutor accepts E1’s point of view. What he does not ac-
cept is E2’s point of view: he refuses the conclusion that he should go for a
walk. To do so, he imposes E3’s point of view, and he also imposes E4’s con-
clusion. Thus, what justifies distinguishing E1 and E2 is that the locutor
does not have the same attitude towards the two: in one case, he agrees; in
the other, he disagrees. To see the difference between E1 and E2, you have
to accept (this is my main thesis) the idea that there is a difference between
summoning a certain topical form (which is what E1 does) and using that
topical form to draw the corresponding conclusion, say “So, we must go for
a walk”. The locutor recognises that the weather is favourable to going for a
walk but he absolutely refuses to draw the conclusion. So much for the dis-
tinction between E1 and E2.
Now that I have distinguished summoning a topos and using that to-
pos for a particular conclusion, I must also distinguish E3 and E4, who also
stand for the summoning of a topos and the using of a topos. Having dis-
tinguished E1 and E2 (and according to me you cannot but do so), you
must distinguish E3 and E4 merely for the sake of coherence. Moreover,
but there is no time to go into this, it so happens that in certain situations,
the locutor can have different attitudes regarding the two points of view
(he can simply accept E3 but identify himself with E4).
With that example, I hope to have shown that there are other cases of
polyphony than the negative utterances which I spoke of two lectures ago:
there are much more complicated ones. I hope that I have succeeded in also
suggesting that there is a relationship between the theory of polyphony and
