Page 61 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 61
argumentation as poliphony: one speaker, several voices 61
Ducrot thinks that what traditional linguistics refers to as a speaker is
in fact a very complex (and confused) notion that covers a number of
wholly different ideas. So he proposes that we distinguish between a pro-
ducer, a speaker and an utterer of an utterance.
Who is the producer of an utterance? The producer of an utterance
is the one whose activity results in the production of an utterance, i.e.
the producer is the one who carries out (at least) the intellectual activity
necessary for the production of the utterance. That may seem very ob-
vious but there are cases where it becomes rather puzzling.
Think of yourself as a pupil, for example (once more, I borrowed this
example from Ducrot): the school organizes a walk in the countryside
and for you to be able to go on that trip you must have your parents’ per-
mission. Your teacher therefore gives you a form for your mother/father
to sign. So you bring to your mother/father a form that says something
like: “I allow my son/daughter to take part in the excursion”, and at the
bottom of the form there is a word “signature.” What your mother/fath-
er has to do is to put her/his signature under the word “signature.” Now,
who is the producer of that form saying “I allow my son/daughter …”?
The one who signed it? The teacher who gave it to you? The secretary
who typed it? The principal who dictated it to her? The Ministry of Edu-
cation that sent it to all the principals? It is hard to say (isn’t it?). It seems
that producer is a very unclear notion. That is why we need the speaker
and the utterer. The speaker would be the one who is responsible for the
utterance, the one who is held responsible for the utterance itself or, at
least, responsible for the act of uttering the utterance.
In the case of our pupil and his/her mother/father, there is no prob-
lem: the utterance contains a pronoun “I” that clearly points to the
speaker (regardless of who actually produced it). But, what happens if
the utterance contains no explicit devices such as pronouns? And even if
they do, do we really have to hold the speaker responsible for everything
that is said (and/or implied, conventionally or conversationally) in the
utterance? Must everything that is said and/or heard in the utterance be
taken as speaker’s own point(s) of view?
That is where and why the utterers7 come in. According to Ducrot,
there are several utterers or more correctly uttering positions within an
utterance, which is another way of saying that several different view-
7 The term Ducrot and his French folowers use is énonciateur(s). I think that utterer may be a better
translation than enunciator; we enunciate something on rather formal, solemn occasions, while we ut-
ter this and that all the time in everyday conversation. And that is exactly how the term énonciateur
is used in Ducrot‘s theory.
Ducrot thinks that what traditional linguistics refers to as a speaker is
in fact a very complex (and confused) notion that covers a number of
wholly different ideas. So he proposes that we distinguish between a pro-
ducer, a speaker and an utterer of an utterance.
Who is the producer of an utterance? The producer of an utterance
is the one whose activity results in the production of an utterance, i.e.
the producer is the one who carries out (at least) the intellectual activity
necessary for the production of the utterance. That may seem very ob-
vious but there are cases where it becomes rather puzzling.
Think of yourself as a pupil, for example (once more, I borrowed this
example from Ducrot): the school organizes a walk in the countryside
and for you to be able to go on that trip you must have your parents’ per-
mission. Your teacher therefore gives you a form for your mother/father
to sign. So you bring to your mother/father a form that says something
like: “I allow my son/daughter to take part in the excursion”, and at the
bottom of the form there is a word “signature.” What your mother/fath-
er has to do is to put her/his signature under the word “signature.” Now,
who is the producer of that form saying “I allow my son/daughter …”?
The one who signed it? The teacher who gave it to you? The secretary
who typed it? The principal who dictated it to her? The Ministry of Edu-
cation that sent it to all the principals? It is hard to say (isn’t it?). It seems
that producer is a very unclear notion. That is why we need the speaker
and the utterer. The speaker would be the one who is responsible for the
utterance, the one who is held responsible for the utterance itself or, at
least, responsible for the act of uttering the utterance.
In the case of our pupil and his/her mother/father, there is no prob-
lem: the utterance contains a pronoun “I” that clearly points to the
speaker (regardless of who actually produced it). But, what happens if
the utterance contains no explicit devices such as pronouns? And even if
they do, do we really have to hold the speaker responsible for everything
that is said (and/or implied, conventionally or conversationally) in the
utterance? Must everything that is said and/or heard in the utterance be
taken as speaker’s own point(s) of view?
That is where and why the utterers7 come in. According to Ducrot,
there are several utterers or more correctly uttering positions within an
utterance, which is another way of saying that several different view-
7 The term Ducrot and his French folowers use is énonciateur(s). I think that utterer may be a better
translation than enunciator; we enunciate something on rather formal, solemn occasions, while we ut-
ter this and that all the time in everyday conversation. And that is exactly how the term énonciateur
is used in Ducrot‘s theory.
