Page 91 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 91
Lecture V
theatre is almost five minutes away from here”. Upon my questioning him
on his “almost five”, he confirmed having meant “between five and ten”...
Before the pause, I was questioning the usual description of almost ac-
cording to which almost X is less than X and to do so, I gave you a cer-
tain number of examples in which almost X meant on the contrary “more
than X”. With facts of that kind, the linguist is faced with an alternative. A
first solution consists in saying that there are two words behind almost, one
meaning “less than” and the other, “more than”. So, one could claim that
there was a phenomenon of ambiguity here, or, in a more moderate ver-
sion of that solution, of polysemy resulting from a double usage of a same
word. One could also say, second solution, that the word almost, properly
speaking, means neither “less than” nor “more than” but something more
general, that is “about”: saying “almost eight o’clock” would amount to say-
ing “about eight o’clock”. That solution is a possible one but I think it is not
really an accurate one, because we feel a marked difference between say-
ing “I’ll be there at almost eight o’clock” and “I’ll be there at about eight
o’clock”. The use of “almost” implies a certain intention which is foreign
to “about”. Besides, if one is to interpret almost in a given context, one al-
ways knows if it is to be understood as “more” or “less”, which is not the
case for “about”. Now, I am going to try to introduce an argumentative solu-
tion which gives almost a single description, and which nevertheless avoids
confusing almost with about. I will posit that to understand almost X, one
must know the argumentative orientation of the segment in which almost
X is to be found: that is, one must know the conclusion (let us call it “R”)
for which “almost X” is said, and if one does not know conclusion “R” for
which one says “almost X”, then one cannot understand “almost X”. More
precisely, I will posit the following rule: “almost X” is oriented towards the
same conclusion as “X” but is argumentatively less forceful than “X”: it
moves less forcefully towards that conclusion than “X” does. What there is
left for me to do now is to show that the description I have just given allows
one to predict in which cases “almost X” means “less than X” and in which
cases, “more than X”.
Let us suppose that I say “It’s almost eight o’clock” with the argumen-
tative intention of getting you to notice that it is late (strictly speaking, I
should not say “argumentative intention”, since I am not concerned with
the locutor’s intentions: I should simply say “orienting what I say towards
a conclusion like ‘It’s late’”). In that case, we shall say that a topos or one of
its topical forms like “The more time goes by, the more one is late” is be-
ing implemented. For example, the point is to blame you for arriving late:
theatre is almost five minutes away from here”. Upon my questioning him
on his “almost five”, he confirmed having meant “between five and ten”...
Before the pause, I was questioning the usual description of almost ac-
cording to which almost X is less than X and to do so, I gave you a cer-
tain number of examples in which almost X meant on the contrary “more
than X”. With facts of that kind, the linguist is faced with an alternative. A
first solution consists in saying that there are two words behind almost, one
meaning “less than” and the other, “more than”. So, one could claim that
there was a phenomenon of ambiguity here, or, in a more moderate ver-
sion of that solution, of polysemy resulting from a double usage of a same
word. One could also say, second solution, that the word almost, properly
speaking, means neither “less than” nor “more than” but something more
general, that is “about”: saying “almost eight o’clock” would amount to say-
ing “about eight o’clock”. That solution is a possible one but I think it is not
really an accurate one, because we feel a marked difference between say-
ing “I’ll be there at almost eight o’clock” and “I’ll be there at about eight
o’clock”. The use of “almost” implies a certain intention which is foreign
to “about”. Besides, if one is to interpret almost in a given context, one al-
ways knows if it is to be understood as “more” or “less”, which is not the
case for “about”. Now, I am going to try to introduce an argumentative solu-
tion which gives almost a single description, and which nevertheless avoids
confusing almost with about. I will posit that to understand almost X, one
must know the argumentative orientation of the segment in which almost
X is to be found: that is, one must know the conclusion (let us call it “R”)
for which “almost X” is said, and if one does not know conclusion “R” for
which one says “almost X”, then one cannot understand “almost X”. More
precisely, I will posit the following rule: “almost X” is oriented towards the
same conclusion as “X” but is argumentatively less forceful than “X”: it
moves less forcefully towards that conclusion than “X” does. What there is
left for me to do now is to show that the description I have just given allows
one to predict in which cases “almost X” means “less than X” and in which
cases, “more than X”.
Let us suppose that I say “It’s almost eight o’clock” with the argumen-
tative intention of getting you to notice that it is late (strictly speaking, I
should not say “argumentative intention”, since I am not concerned with
the locutor’s intentions: I should simply say “orienting what I say towards
a conclusion like ‘It’s late’”). In that case, we shall say that a topos or one of
its topical forms like “The more time goes by, the more one is late” is be-
ing implemented. For example, the point is to blame you for arriving late:
