Page 94 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 94
Slovenian Lectures
eight o’clock or less than eight is to look at a watch or to reason as from ob-
jective signs (for example, you have not heard eight o’clock strike yet). But
when I say that it is “almost eight o’clock”, you always know whether it is
more or less than eight, or rather you know if you know the argumentative
orientation of what I am saying, that is to say if you know that the conclu-
sion is based on lateness or earliness. That is the kind of fact, the kind of
data which an argumentative description of almost can account for. I would
even say that only an argumentative description can account for such a fact,
fabricated as it is with the concept of argumentative orientation.
A second advantage of my description of almost, and a far more gener-
al one. You remember that in the description of meaning, my purpose was
to do away with the informational component. Having said that, there is no
doubt that the informational component does obtain. When I use an utter-
ance, I am giving you a certain amount of information in a certain way. If I
say “It’s eight o’clock”, I am giving quite a precise piece of information, and
if I say “It’s almost eight o’clock”, the piece of information I am giving you
is undoubtedly vaguer but is still a piece of information. So, the informa-
tional component unquestionably does have a certain reality, which I can-
not deny. What I have just done, in the analysis I have suggested for almost,
amounts to deriving the informational value from the argumentative value.
From the point of general linguistics, that is something which seems impor-
tant to me. At least in the particular case of almost, one can derive the in-
formational value from the argumentative value: that is to say, from the fact
that the utterance is directed towards lateness or towards earliness. Exam-
ples of that kind mitigate the paradoxical or even scandalous quality which
my desire to constitute non-descriptive semantics may have. What I would
like to succeed in showing is that in a certain way, information can derive
from argumentation. For almost, I really think I have achieved that result.
There are many cases for which I have not managed to do so but it is in that
direction that I am working.
You may remember that in a preceding lecture, without over-insist-
ing on that point, I already showed you a case in which information was
derived from argumentation. I had to admit that “Peter has worked lit-
tle” usually indicated a quantity of work inferior to the quantity indicat-
ed when saying, in the same situation, “Peter has worked a little”. “Peter
has worked little” suggests, for example, that he has worked for one hour
whereas in the same situation, “Peter has worked a little” suggests that Peter
has worked for two hours. So, in a certain number of cases, the use of those
expressions, a little and little, can convey relatively precise information. You
eight o’clock or less than eight is to look at a watch or to reason as from ob-
jective signs (for example, you have not heard eight o’clock strike yet). But
when I say that it is “almost eight o’clock”, you always know whether it is
more or less than eight, or rather you know if you know the argumentative
orientation of what I am saying, that is to say if you know that the conclu-
sion is based on lateness or earliness. That is the kind of fact, the kind of
data which an argumentative description of almost can account for. I would
even say that only an argumentative description can account for such a fact,
fabricated as it is with the concept of argumentative orientation.
A second advantage of my description of almost, and a far more gener-
al one. You remember that in the description of meaning, my purpose was
to do away with the informational component. Having said that, there is no
doubt that the informational component does obtain. When I use an utter-
ance, I am giving you a certain amount of information in a certain way. If I
say “It’s eight o’clock”, I am giving quite a precise piece of information, and
if I say “It’s almost eight o’clock”, the piece of information I am giving you
is undoubtedly vaguer but is still a piece of information. So, the informa-
tional component unquestionably does have a certain reality, which I can-
not deny. What I have just done, in the analysis I have suggested for almost,
amounts to deriving the informational value from the argumentative value.
From the point of general linguistics, that is something which seems impor-
tant to me. At least in the particular case of almost, one can derive the in-
formational value from the argumentative value: that is to say, from the fact
that the utterance is directed towards lateness or towards earliness. Exam-
ples of that kind mitigate the paradoxical or even scandalous quality which
my desire to constitute non-descriptive semantics may have. What I would
like to succeed in showing is that in a certain way, information can derive
from argumentation. For almost, I really think I have achieved that result.
There are many cases for which I have not managed to do so but it is in that
direction that I am working.
You may remember that in a preceding lecture, without over-insist-
ing on that point, I already showed you a case in which information was
derived from argumentation. I had to admit that “Peter has worked lit-
tle” usually indicated a quantity of work inferior to the quantity indicat-
ed when saying, in the same situation, “Peter has worked a little”. “Peter
has worked little” suggests, for example, that he has worked for one hour
whereas in the same situation, “Peter has worked a little” suggests that Peter
has worked for two hours. So, in a certain number of cases, the use of those
expressions, a little and little, can convey relatively precise information. You
