Page 97 - Oswald Ducrot, Slovenian Lectures, Digitalna knjižnica/Digital Library, Dissertationes 6
P. 97
Lecture V
or again “more work, more production”. I shall say that E1’s point of view con-
sists in characterizing Peter’s activity as a tiring or a productive one. In that
way, the informational component vanishes from E1’s positive point of view.
Now, I shall also be able to describe E2’s point of view, which conflicts
with E1’s, in a more precise way. I had simply said that E2 disagreed with E1.
What does “E2 disagrees with E1” mean? I can answer, I hope, using my theo-
ry of topical forms. I would say that, for the same question as E1, E2 summons
a certain topical form: the converse topical form of the same topos. In my
example, discussing Peter’s activity, E2 summons the following topical form:
“less work, less tiredness”. More generally, I will say that semantically, a neg-
ative utterance must be understood as representing [here as previously, the
word must be taken in the theatrical sense of the word] two enunciators: E1
and E2. About a given situation, E1 summons a topical form associated with
the predicate which occurs in the utterance (in the example, I took “more
work, more tiredness”) and E2 brings in the converse topical form, about the
same situation or the same object. So, I can now describe the relationship be-
tween E1 and E2 more precisely: the relationship is that which obtains be-
tween the topical form of a topos and its converse. I would add that the locu-
tor rejects E1’s point of view: that is, he refuses to apply the topical form sum-
moned by E1 to the object being discussed, here the topical form “more work,
more tiredness” to Peter, and he identifies with E2’s point of view, which
amounts to saying that he applies the topical form “less work, less tiredness”.
There is no time for me to bring out all the advantages such a solution may
have but I will point out one, without being able to really develop it. “Intui-
tively”, one does feel that negation is not the only morpheme to have a neg-
ative value: there are many others, for instance the morpheme little, which I
have repeatedly spoken to you about. Instead of saying “Peter has not worked”,
I could say “Peter has worked little”, and, between you and me, that would not
make an enormous difference. What is the difference however? When you say
“Peter has worked little”, in a certain way, you accept that “Peter has worked”
but you declare that the work is insufficient, or does not really deserve to be
called work. Nevertheless, even syntactically speaking, there is much in com-
mon between full negation with not and weaker negative forms such as the
morpheme little. An advantage of the solution I have suggested for not is that
I could give little a very similar description: thereby, I would account for the
similarity which we feel obtains between the two utterances “Peter has not
worked” and “Peter has worked little”.
To analyse “Peter has worked little”, I will postulate the same two enunci-
ators E1 and E2 as for the analysis of “Peter has not worked”. If one considers
or again “more work, more production”. I shall say that E1’s point of view con-
sists in characterizing Peter’s activity as a tiring or a productive one. In that
way, the informational component vanishes from E1’s positive point of view.
Now, I shall also be able to describe E2’s point of view, which conflicts
with E1’s, in a more precise way. I had simply said that E2 disagreed with E1.
What does “E2 disagrees with E1” mean? I can answer, I hope, using my theo-
ry of topical forms. I would say that, for the same question as E1, E2 summons
a certain topical form: the converse topical form of the same topos. In my
example, discussing Peter’s activity, E2 summons the following topical form:
“less work, less tiredness”. More generally, I will say that semantically, a neg-
ative utterance must be understood as representing [here as previously, the
word must be taken in the theatrical sense of the word] two enunciators: E1
and E2. About a given situation, E1 summons a topical form associated with
the predicate which occurs in the utterance (in the example, I took “more
work, more tiredness”) and E2 brings in the converse topical form, about the
same situation or the same object. So, I can now describe the relationship be-
tween E1 and E2 more precisely: the relationship is that which obtains be-
tween the topical form of a topos and its converse. I would add that the locu-
tor rejects E1’s point of view: that is, he refuses to apply the topical form sum-
moned by E1 to the object being discussed, here the topical form “more work,
more tiredness” to Peter, and he identifies with E2’s point of view, which
amounts to saying that he applies the topical form “less work, less tiredness”.
There is no time for me to bring out all the advantages such a solution may
have but I will point out one, without being able to really develop it. “Intui-
tively”, one does feel that negation is not the only morpheme to have a neg-
ative value: there are many others, for instance the morpheme little, which I
have repeatedly spoken to you about. Instead of saying “Peter has not worked”,
I could say “Peter has worked little”, and, between you and me, that would not
make an enormous difference. What is the difference however? When you say
“Peter has worked little”, in a certain way, you accept that “Peter has worked”
but you declare that the work is insufficient, or does not really deserve to be
called work. Nevertheless, even syntactically speaking, there is much in com-
mon between full negation with not and weaker negative forms such as the
morpheme little. An advantage of the solution I have suggested for not is that
I could give little a very similar description: thereby, I would account for the
similarity which we feel obtains between the two utterances “Peter has not
worked” and “Peter has worked little”.
To analyse “Peter has worked little”, I will postulate the same two enunci-
ators E1 and E2 as for the analysis of “Peter has not worked”. If one considers
