Abstract:
Résumé— Le présent article vise à examiner le pouvoir inhérent à l’écriture chez Aimé Césaire et Francis Ponge dans l’imbrication des discours poétique et rhétorique articulés autour de l’efficace de la parole, c’est-à-dire le fonctionnement du langage verbal appréhendé comme action. Celle-ci s’adosse à la dimension pragmatique de la parole en tant qu’elle porte à agir sur l’auditeur et le lecteur. En effet, à l’oral comme à l’écrit, estime Ponge, la parole procure à ceux qui l’utilisent, « le pouvoir temporel et intemporel » capable de modifier l’état d’esprit de ceux qui s’exposent à sa profération. Césaire, lui, a élaboré sa poétique dans l’optique d’une « écriture belle de rage », dont l’efficace émane du tracé des caractères sur un support. Les deux auteurs conçoivent donc le discours poétique comme une parole investie des pouvoirs rhétoriques du langage, capables d’agir sur le monde en modifiant les consciences et le réel.
هدف این مقاله بررسی قدرت ذاتی نوشتار در ایمه سزر و فرانسیس پونگ در درهم امیختگی گفتمان شاعرانه و بلاغی است که حول اثربخشی گفتار بیان شده است، یعنی عملکرد زبان کلامی که به عنوان کنش درک می شود. این امر بر اساس بعد عملگرایانه گفتار است تا انجا که منجر به عمل در شنونده/خواننده می شود. در واقع، هم به صورت شفاهی و هم به صورت نوشتاری، به عقیده پونگ، گفتار به کسانی که از ان استفاده میکنند «قدرت زمانی و بیزمان» میدهد (پونگ، هزار و نهصد ونود و نه ، صد و هفتاد و شش ) که میتواند حالت ذهنی کسانی را که خود را در معرض بیان ان قرار میدهند، اصلاح کند. سزر، به نوبه خود، شعر خود را از منظر «نوشته ای زیبا از خشم» توسعه داد (سزر، دو هزار وشش، چهارصد و چهل و هفت)، که تاثیرگذاری ان از چیدمان شخصیت ها بر روی یک تکیه نشات می گیرد. بنابراین، این دو نویسنده، گفتمان شاعرانه را گفتاری میدانند که با قدرتهای بلاغی زبان سرمایهگذاری شده است و قادر است با تغییر واقعیت بر جهان عمل کند.
Article aims to examine the inherent power of writing in Aime Cesaire and
Francis Ponge in the interweaving of poetic and rhetorical discourses articulated around the effectiveness
of speech, that is to say the functioning of verbal language apprehended as action. This is based on the
pragmatic dimension of speech as it leads to act on the listener/reader. Indeed, both orally and in writing,
Ponge believes, speech provides those who use it with "the temporal and timeless power" capable of
modifying the state of mind of those who expose themselves to its utterance. Cesaire, for his part,
developed his poetics in the perspective of a "beautiful writing of rage", who’s effectiveness emanates
from the drawing of characters on a support. The two authors therefore conceive poetic discourse as a
word invested with the rhetorical powers of language capable of acting on the world by modifying
reality.
But there is a theoretical question when considering a pragmatic approach to the poem: the question
of the uncertain value that can be assumed by a fictitious statement. For in his analysis of acts of
language, John L. Austin disqualifies the literary text in the field from pragmatism, because, he asserts,
literary fiction consists of an enunciation characterized by the deficit of the “usual reference to the
reference” specific to ordinary language. Thus, the author of When to say is doing is unequivocal when
he denies the literary text any notion of performativity: “A performative enunciation will be hollow or
empty in a particular way if, for example, it is formulated by an actor on the stage, or introduced into a
poem, or emitted into a soliloquy.” For him, when performative expression takes place in the context of
a game, a joke or a poem, it is a speech that parasitizes language by its lack of “seriousness.”
This exclusion of the literary text from the field of illocutory rhetoric is shared by John R. Searle, for
whom any study of language acts based on a literary text is irrelevant. The reason for this is that literary
discourse seems to consist only of "assertions that the author pretends to enunciate". This difficulty is
far from the only one to overcome in this article. The fact is that the pragmatic analysis of Cesaire's and
Ponge's texts raises another problem: the paradoxical status Austin accords to written acts in his analysis
of language acts. Thus, although it considers them to be model acts, it nevertheless assimilates them to
oral acts. In addition, the written acts it takes into account are always legal or regulatory acts: "official and legal documents", will, decree, contract, etc. How then to overcome these difficulties?
In our opinion, Maingueneau's postulate that "every statement has an illocutory dimension" is important for a pragmatic approach to poetry. Therefore, from Steven Winspur's perspective, we believe that in literary fiction, the text creates within its own space the contextual enunciative conditions allowing the transposition of the performative value. We therefore propose to analyze the performativity of the act of writing (and writing) in Cesaire and Ponge in order to show their relevance as acts of language insofar as they are illocutory acts in the same way as those of ordinary conversation.
Our pragmatic approach will remain restricted to locutory acts (the act of writing something), illocutory acts (which refer to the transformative power of the written word), and perlocutory acts (relating to their consequent effects on the interlocutors).