[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.They make it possible to describe:1.How the different grammatical analyses can be ordered and deployed; and what forms of succession are possiblebetween analyses of the noun, analyses of the verb, and analyses of the adjective, those that concern phonetics and thosethat concern syntax, those that concern the original language (longue), and those that project an artificial language(longue).These different orders are laid down by the relations of dependence that may be observed between the theoriesof attribution, articulation, designation, and derivation.((68))2.How General Grammar defines a domain of validity for itself (according to what criteria one may discuss thetruth or falsehood of a proposition); how it constitutes a domain of normativity for itself (according to what criteriaone may exclude certain statements as being irrelevant to the discourse, or as inessential and marginal, or as non-scientific); how it constitutes a domain of actuality for itself (comprising acquired solutions, defining presentproblems, situating concepts and affirmations that have fallen into disuse).3.What relations General Grammar has with Mathesis (with Cartesian and post-Cartesian algebra, with th.e projectof a general science of order), with the philosophical analysis of representation and the theory of signs, with NaturalHistory, the problems of characterization and taxonomy, with the Analysis of Wealth and the problems of thearbitrary signs of measurem.en.t and exchange: by marking out these relations one may determine the ways by whichthe circulation, the transfer and the modification of concepts, the alteration of their form or changes in their field ofapplication, are made possible between one domain and another.The network formed by the four theoreticalsegments does not define the logical architecture of all the concepts used by grammarians; it outlines the regularspace of their formation.4.How the various conceptions of the verb 'to be', of the copula, of the verbal radical and the flexional ending (fora theoretical schema of attribution) were simultaneously or successively possible (under the form of alternativechoice, modification, or substitution); the various conceptions of the phonetic elements, of the alphabet, of the name,of substantives and adjectives (for a theoretical schema of articulation); the various concepts of proper noun.andcommon noun, demonstrative, nominal root, syllable or expressive sonority (for the theoretical segment ofdesignation); the various concepts of original and derived language (langage), metaphor and figure, poetic language(langage) (for the theoretical segment of derivation).The 'preconceptual' level that we have uncovered refers neither to a horizon of ideality nor to an empirical genesis ofabstractions.On the one hand, it is not a horizon of ideality, placed, discovered, or((69))established by a founding gesture and one that is so original that it eludes all chronological insertion; it is not aninexhaustible a priori at the confines of history, set back both because it eludes all beginning, all genetic restitution, andbecause it could never he contemporary with itself in an explicit totality.In fact one does not pose the question at thelevel of discourse itself, which is not external translation, but the locus of emergence of concepts; one does not attach theconstants of discourse to the ideal structures of the concept, but one describes the conceptual network on the basis of theintrinsic regularities of discourse; one does not subject the multiplicity of statements to the coherence of concepts, andthis coherence to the silent recollection of a meta-historical ideality; one establishes the inverse series: one replaces thepure aims of non-contradiction in a complex network of conceptual compatibility and incompatibility; and one relates thiscomplexity to the rules that characterize a particular discursive practice [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.They make it possible to describe:1.How the different grammatical analyses can be ordered and deployed; and what forms of succession are possiblebetween analyses of the noun, analyses of the verb, and analyses of the adjective, those that concern phonetics and thosethat concern syntax, those that concern the original language (longue), and those that project an artificial language(longue).These different orders are laid down by the relations of dependence that may be observed between the theoriesof attribution, articulation, designation, and derivation.((68))2.How General Grammar defines a domain of validity for itself (according to what criteria one may discuss thetruth or falsehood of a proposition); how it constitutes a domain of normativity for itself (according to what criteriaone may exclude certain statements as being irrelevant to the discourse, or as inessential and marginal, or as non-scientific); how it constitutes a domain of actuality for itself (comprising acquired solutions, defining presentproblems, situating concepts and affirmations that have fallen into disuse).3.What relations General Grammar has with Mathesis (with Cartesian and post-Cartesian algebra, with th.e projectof a general science of order), with the philosophical analysis of representation and the theory of signs, with NaturalHistory, the problems of characterization and taxonomy, with the Analysis of Wealth and the problems of thearbitrary signs of measurem.en.t and exchange: by marking out these relations one may determine the ways by whichthe circulation, the transfer and the modification of concepts, the alteration of their form or changes in their field ofapplication, are made possible between one domain and another.The network formed by the four theoreticalsegments does not define the logical architecture of all the concepts used by grammarians; it outlines the regularspace of their formation.4.How the various conceptions of the verb 'to be', of the copula, of the verbal radical and the flexional ending (fora theoretical schema of attribution) were simultaneously or successively possible (under the form of alternativechoice, modification, or substitution); the various conceptions of the phonetic elements, of the alphabet, of the name,of substantives and adjectives (for a theoretical schema of articulation); the various concepts of proper noun.andcommon noun, demonstrative, nominal root, syllable or expressive sonority (for the theoretical segment ofdesignation); the various concepts of original and derived language (langage), metaphor and figure, poetic language(langage) (for the theoretical segment of derivation).The 'preconceptual' level that we have uncovered refers neither to a horizon of ideality nor to an empirical genesis ofabstractions.On the one hand, it is not a horizon of ideality, placed, discovered, or((69))established by a founding gesture and one that is so original that it eludes all chronological insertion; it is not aninexhaustible a priori at the confines of history, set back both because it eludes all beginning, all genetic restitution, andbecause it could never he contemporary with itself in an explicit totality.In fact one does not pose the question at thelevel of discourse itself, which is not external translation, but the locus of emergence of concepts; one does not attach theconstants of discourse to the ideal structures of the concept, but one describes the conceptual network on the basis of theintrinsic regularities of discourse; one does not subject the multiplicity of statements to the coherence of concepts, andthis coherence to the silent recollection of a meta-historical ideality; one establishes the inverse series: one replaces thepure aims of non-contradiction in a complex network of conceptual compatibility and incompatibility; and one relates thiscomplexity to the rules that characterize a particular discursive practice [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]