Hi,
I worked a little on the Archeology of knowledge, and the choise of
''énoncé'' by Foucault seems to answer the need of something like a ''past
tense substantive''. Thus ''un énoncé'' would be better translated as ''a
stated'', as it represent the time qualification of something that exist
only in a history of practices but is idependent of an anthropological
history (formulated in reference to a transcendental subject a la Hegel.)
Regards
Jean-François
2007/9/14, Gagnon François <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> In it's French linguistic acception, énoncé does not possess an active
> connotation. Foucault's acception does. The use of énoncé in linguistic, if
> I'm not mistaken, can be traced backed to de Saussure. On which Lacan drew,
> again if I'm not mistaken.
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Widder NE
> Date: ven. 2007-09-14 10:17
> À: Mailing-list; foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [Foucault-L]Translation of énoncé to English
>
>
>
> I agree that it's not a very helpful translation, largely because -- if I
> understand the French correctly -- enonce has a more 'active' character than
> statement. I'm not sure, however, that it's Foucault's invention. Lacan
> was using the same term at that time (see, for Example, The Four Fundamental
> Concepts of Psycho-Analysis) and it was similarly translated into English as
> 'statement'. I'm not sure which book was translated first, but whichever
> one it was could have set the precedent for the other.
>
> Nathan
>
> Dr. Nathan Widder
> Senior Lecturer in Political Theory
> Royal Holloway, University of London
> Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX
> http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Politics-and-IR/About-Us/Widder/Index.html
> http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s02/widder.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of lister@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri 14/09/2007 13:36
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] Translation of énoncé to English
>
>
>
> I have for a long time felt uneasy with the translation of French "énoncé"
> to English "statement" in the translation of for instance "The Archeology of
> Knowledge". It seems to me that "statement" is much closer the term like
> "frase" and "sentence" than "énoncé", which is definitely not what Foucault
> writes about in the archeology. Therefore, "statement" incites to
> misunderstandings of Foucault's concept.
>
> Would "enouncement" not be better? Though "enouncement" has a too formal
> and declaring sense, it emphasises that some meaning is expressed, and draws
> attention away for the linguistic aspects.
>
> (Off course, the basic problem is that Foucault coined a new concept.)
>
> Flemming
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
I worked a little on the Archeology of knowledge, and the choise of
''énoncé'' by Foucault seems to answer the need of something like a ''past
tense substantive''. Thus ''un énoncé'' would be better translated as ''a
stated'', as it represent the time qualification of something that exist
only in a history of practices but is idependent of an anthropological
history (formulated in reference to a transcendental subject a la Hegel.)
Regards
Jean-François
2007/9/14, Gagnon François <francois.gagnon.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> In it's French linguistic acception, énoncé does not possess an active
> connotation. Foucault's acception does. The use of énoncé in linguistic, if
> I'm not mistaken, can be traced backed to de Saussure. On which Lacan drew,
> again if I'm not mistaken.
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx de la part de Widder NE
> Date: ven. 2007-09-14 10:17
> À: Mailing-list; foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [Foucault-L]Translation of énoncé to English
>
>
>
> I agree that it's not a very helpful translation, largely because -- if I
> understand the French correctly -- enonce has a more 'active' character than
> statement. I'm not sure, however, that it's Foucault's invention. Lacan
> was using the same term at that time (see, for Example, The Four Fundamental
> Concepts of Psycho-Analysis) and it was similarly translated into English as
> 'statement'. I'm not sure which book was translated first, but whichever
> one it was could have set the precedent for the other.
>
> Nathan
>
> Dr. Nathan Widder
> Senior Lecturer in Political Theory
> Royal Holloway, University of London
> Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX
> http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Politics-and-IR/About-Us/Widder/Index.html
> http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s02/widder.html
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of lister@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri 14/09/2007 13:36
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] Translation of énoncé to English
>
>
>
> I have for a long time felt uneasy with the translation of French "énoncé"
> to English "statement" in the translation of for instance "The Archeology of
> Knowledge". It seems to me that "statement" is much closer the term like
> "frase" and "sentence" than "énoncé", which is definitely not what Foucault
> writes about in the archeology. Therefore, "statement" incites to
> misunderstandings of Foucault's concept.
>
> Would "enouncement" not be better? Though "enouncement" has a too formal
> and declaring sense, it emphasises that some meaning is expressed, and draws
> attention away for the linguistic aspects.
>
> (Off course, the basic problem is that Foucault coined a new concept.)
>
> Flemming
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>