Page 87 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 87
Lecture V
sonable solution which is often given but which, for my part, I find unsat-
isfactory, and I will say why. One could think of describing those adjec-
tives using the notion of connotation, a notion which is often used in con-
temporary linguistics. For my part, I do not use the notions of denotation
and connotation: they do not come into my theoretical framework at all.
When one uses those notions, one defines denotation as the representa-
tion of a fact (denotation is therefore factual in nature) and connotation
as the representation of a psychological attitude regarding that fact. So, the
denotational aspect of an utterance or of a word is the objective informa-
tion it provides about reality and its connotational aspect is the informa-
tion it gives on the speaker. To apply those notions to the description of ad-
jectives I have studied is tempting. Let us see, for example, how one could
describe the difference between prudent and timorous. One would say that
prudent and timorous are adjectives that have the same denotation, that is
to say designate the same facts, but which have different connotations. So,
to describe “Peter is prudent”, one would say that there is a denoted com-
ponent, that I symbolise as “a” and which one could paraphrase as “Peter
avoids risks” – that would be what the word denotes; and then a connot-
ed component, that I label “b” which one could paraphrase as “I approve”
– and implicitly – “Peter’s avoiding risks”. So, on the one hand, the locutor
describes what is in effect the case – “Peter avoids risks” – and on the oth-
er, he indicates his attitude towards what is denoted. The denoted compo-
nent would be exactly the same for “Peter is timorous”: it would still be “Pe-
ter avoids risks”. The two words would differ only through their connoted
component, that is “b”. For “Peter is timorous”, the connoted component
would be something like “I disapprove of Peter avoiding risks”. The same
thing could be done for courageous and rash.
I shall say why such a solution is contrary to the very spirit of the the-
ory which I have been introducing for now four lectures and then, why it
seems to me that the solution does not really pull through. First, why do I
not like that solution? I think you can guess why. Scientifically, it may not
be very relevant to say what my likes and dislikes are but, even so, I would
like to show you the reactions that I can have towards that theory, given all
that I have said up to now. That theory which opposes denotation and con-
notation is based it seems to me on a decision which governs a whole part
of Western philosophy and linguistics, at least since the seventeenth centu-
ry: the decision to oppose the objective and the subjective. Of course, de-
notation is on the side of the objective and connotation, on the side of the
subjective. You remember that the opposition of the objective and the sub-
sonable solution which is often given but which, for my part, I find unsat-
isfactory, and I will say why. One could think of describing those adjec-
tives using the notion of connotation, a notion which is often used in con-
temporary linguistics. For my part, I do not use the notions of denotation
and connotation: they do not come into my theoretical framework at all.
When one uses those notions, one defines denotation as the representa-
tion of a fact (denotation is therefore factual in nature) and connotation
as the representation of a psychological attitude regarding that fact. So, the
denotational aspect of an utterance or of a word is the objective informa-
tion it provides about reality and its connotational aspect is the informa-
tion it gives on the speaker. To apply those notions to the description of ad-
jectives I have studied is tempting. Let us see, for example, how one could
describe the difference between prudent and timorous. One would say that
prudent and timorous are adjectives that have the same denotation, that is
to say designate the same facts, but which have different connotations. So,
to describe “Peter is prudent”, one would say that there is a denoted com-
ponent, that I symbolise as “a” and which one could paraphrase as “Peter
avoids risks” – that would be what the word denotes; and then a connot-
ed component, that I label “b” which one could paraphrase as “I approve”
– and implicitly – “Peter’s avoiding risks”. So, on the one hand, the locutor
describes what is in effect the case – “Peter avoids risks” – and on the oth-
er, he indicates his attitude towards what is denoted. The denoted compo-
nent would be exactly the same for “Peter is timorous”: it would still be “Pe-
ter avoids risks”. The two words would differ only through their connoted
component, that is “b”. For “Peter is timorous”, the connoted component
would be something like “I disapprove of Peter avoiding risks”. The same
thing could be done for courageous and rash.
I shall say why such a solution is contrary to the very spirit of the the-
ory which I have been introducing for now four lectures and then, why it
seems to me that the solution does not really pull through. First, why do I
not like that solution? I think you can guess why. Scientifically, it may not
be very relevant to say what my likes and dislikes are but, even so, I would
like to show you the reactions that I can have towards that theory, given all
that I have said up to now. That theory which opposes denotation and con-
notation is based it seems to me on a decision which governs a whole part
of Western philosophy and linguistics, at least since the seventeenth centu-
ry: the decision to oppose the objective and the subjective. Of course, de-
notation is on the side of the objective and connotation, on the side of the
subjective. You remember that the opposition of the objective and the sub-
