tir, 18 09 2007 kl. 16:07 -0400, skrev Jean-François Mongrain:
> Hi,
>
> I think you misinterpret this passage. Foucault is not saying the
> archeologist is using intuition or analysis, but that the énoncé is the
> ontological prerequisite to any analysis or intuition. He is refering the
> works of grammar, logic, and speech-act theory which he criticized some
> pages before the text you quote. The distinction here is to differentiate
> énoncé from grammatical sentences (faire sens - Saussure, Bénéviste) logical
> propositions (règles de sucessions et être signe de - Frege, Russell, etc.)
> and speech-act (acte effectué par la prononciation - Austin, Searle)... he
> is stating what archeology is not !
>
Yes, if you read the quotation carefully, you will see it:
une fonction d'existence ... à partir de laquelle on peut décider,
ensuite, par l'analyse ou l'intuition, s'ils « font sens » ou non, ..
an existence function ... FROM WHICH you can THEN decide, by analysis or
intuition, if the "make sense" or not, ...
Whether you intuitively know that a phrase has meaning (e.g. the native
speaker of English) or find out by analysis (e.g. an archeologist), what
already makes the phrase meaningfull, is the enouce. Your acquaintance
with the enonce is the ultimate reference for meaningfullness.
Therefore, the archeological analysis is a way to come closer to the
meaning to historical texts by unravelling the enoncial premises of that
time, avoiding present enoncial premises, e.g. backward interpretation
of scientific progress.
Flemming
> Hi,
>
> I think you misinterpret this passage. Foucault is not saying the
> archeologist is using intuition or analysis, but that the énoncé is the
> ontological prerequisite to any analysis or intuition. He is refering the
> works of grammar, logic, and speech-act theory which he criticized some
> pages before the text you quote. The distinction here is to differentiate
> énoncé from grammatical sentences (faire sens - Saussure, Bénéviste) logical
> propositions (règles de sucessions et être signe de - Frege, Russell, etc.)
> and speech-act (acte effectué par la prononciation - Austin, Searle)... he
> is stating what archeology is not !
>
Yes, if you read the quotation carefully, you will see it:
une fonction d'existence ... à partir de laquelle on peut décider,
ensuite, par l'analyse ou l'intuition, s'ils « font sens » ou non, ..
an existence function ... FROM WHICH you can THEN decide, by analysis or
intuition, if the "make sense" or not, ...
Whether you intuitively know that a phrase has meaning (e.g. the native
speaker of English) or find out by analysis (e.g. an archeologist), what
already makes the phrase meaningfull, is the enouce. Your acquaintance
with the enonce is the ultimate reference for meaningfullness.
Therefore, the archeological analysis is a way to come closer to the
meaning to historical texts by unravelling the enoncial premises of that
time, avoiding present enoncial premises, e.g. backward interpretation
of scientific progress.
Flemming