Page 93 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 93
Lecture V
envisaged, where the quantities of time are indicated by moments of time.
The only thing that matters for my argument is that, in the scale, earlier mo-
ments, like five to eight, should be above the later moments, like a quarter
past eight, because they imply a lesser quantity of time gone by.)
All I have to do now is to apply the general rule which I have suggest-
ed for almost to that topical form, and one immediately foresees the tempo-
ral value of “almost eight o’clock” in the example I am analysing. Being ar-
gumentatively less forceful than “eight o’clock”, and seeing the topical form
used, that expression must indicate a quantity of time gone by situated be-
low the quantity indicated by “eight” in the argument scale (i.e. a superi-
or quantity of time gone by, since the left-hand scale goes from the greater
to the lesser). That quantity which “almost eight” indicates is therefore the
quantity implied by a moment after eight o’clock, which could be five past
eight, ten past eight, or half past eight, depending on the conception the
locutor has of precision. But, in any case, given the argumentative orienta-
tion envisaged and the topical form which that orientation imposes, it must
be a moment of time “superior” to eight o’clock, justifying one’s saying “It’s
more than eight o’clock”.
To conclude, an argumentative description, it seems to me, enables one
to understand the opposite effects which almost X can have: sometimes, it is
“more than X”, sometimes “less than X”. It is the argumentative orientation
of what one says which determines whether “almost X” is “more than X” or
“less than X”. The only unchanging thing is that “almost X” is a less forceful
argument than “X”. But to be a less forceful argument than “X”, “almost X”
indicates a quantity now superior, now inferior to “X”.
From the theoretical point of view, that explanation seems to have two
advantages. First advantage: it is better than the description saying that “al-
most X” is “about X”. It is better because the description with the notion
“about” does not account for the relationship between the argumentative
orientation and the moment of time designated by X. “About X” designates
a moment of time close to X, and that, whatever the argumentative inten-
tions may be (again, I should not be saying “intentions” but “orientation”).
Now, it is remarkable that “almost eight”, in a given case, should never indi-
cate the global environment of “X” but, in some very precise cases, a supe-
rior quantity and in other, also very precise, cases, an inferior quantity. That
is the reason why the argumentative description I have suggested seems to
me to account for more facts that the one identifying “almost X” and “near
to X” or “about X”. I will put the same point in a different way. When I say
“It’s around eight o’clock”, the only way for you to know if it is more than
envisaged, where the quantities of time are indicated by moments of time.
The only thing that matters for my argument is that, in the scale, earlier mo-
ments, like five to eight, should be above the later moments, like a quarter
past eight, because they imply a lesser quantity of time gone by.)
All I have to do now is to apply the general rule which I have suggest-
ed for almost to that topical form, and one immediately foresees the tempo-
ral value of “almost eight o’clock” in the example I am analysing. Being ar-
gumentatively less forceful than “eight o’clock”, and seeing the topical form
used, that expression must indicate a quantity of time gone by situated be-
low the quantity indicated by “eight” in the argument scale (i.e. a superi-
or quantity of time gone by, since the left-hand scale goes from the greater
to the lesser). That quantity which “almost eight” indicates is therefore the
quantity implied by a moment after eight o’clock, which could be five past
eight, ten past eight, or half past eight, depending on the conception the
locutor has of precision. But, in any case, given the argumentative orienta-
tion envisaged and the topical form which that orientation imposes, it must
be a moment of time “superior” to eight o’clock, justifying one’s saying “It’s
more than eight o’clock”.
To conclude, an argumentative description, it seems to me, enables one
to understand the opposite effects which almost X can have: sometimes, it is
“more than X”, sometimes “less than X”. It is the argumentative orientation
of what one says which determines whether “almost X” is “more than X” or
“less than X”. The only unchanging thing is that “almost X” is a less forceful
argument than “X”. But to be a less forceful argument than “X”, “almost X”
indicates a quantity now superior, now inferior to “X”.
From the theoretical point of view, that explanation seems to have two
advantages. First advantage: it is better than the description saying that “al-
most X” is “about X”. It is better because the description with the notion
“about” does not account for the relationship between the argumentative
orientation and the moment of time designated by X. “About X” designates
a moment of time close to X, and that, whatever the argumentative inten-
tions may be (again, I should not be saying “intentions” but “orientation”).
Now, it is remarkable that “almost eight”, in a given case, should never indi-
cate the global environment of “X” but, in some very precise cases, a supe-
rior quantity and in other, also very precise, cases, an inferior quantity. That
is the reason why the argumentative description I have suggested seems to
me to account for more facts that the one identifying “almost X” and “near
to X” or “about X”. I will put the same point in a different way. When I say
“It’s around eight o’clock”, the only way for you to know if it is more than
