Since I freely confess more ignorance than knowledge on the matter let me
cite Donald Kelley's (1990, pp. 328) comments and see what a linguist's
response would be (if any).
"For intellectual historians the aim is, by suppressing or bypassing the
(thinking, writing) subject, including the voice of authorial will, to gain
access to the metalinguistic and metahistorical patterns of social
intercourse and conflict--to find the critical Archimedean point which
philosophers have sought for centuries. What Foucault has called the 'will
to knowledge' (though ultimately this is not Nietzschean or even Baconian
but Aristotelian) has always hoped to 'demystify' the products of human
consciousness--to tear away the last mask with which culture, ideology, and
language cover the naked truth of nature, or of power.
This is more than a noble dream; it is an impossible dream. Gadamer
would perhaps reject the effort as another attempt to 'circumvent language,'
McLuhan regard it as a classic example (after Ramus) of the permeation of
print culture, Vico see it as another 'learned conceit,' Valla scorn it as
one more scholastic fiction, Fraunce deplore it as more vain prating of
method and rayling against the forefathers, and Lovejoy would no doubt
dismiss it as another attempt to suppress the dualist condition of human
knowledge. For there is no point 'beyond criticism.' Like consciousness
itself (the Geist an sich) the 'meaning' of a text beyond particular
constructions (or reconstructions or deconstructions) must remain
inaccessible, or at least unutterable."
regards, Rolfe
Kelley, D. R. (1990). Horizons of Intellectual History: Retrospect,
Circumspect, Prospect. In D. R. Kelley (Ed.), _The History of Ideas: Canon
and Variations_ (Vol. 1, pp. 312-338). New York: University of Rochester Press.
Rolfe Windward [UCLA GSE&IS: Curriculum & Teaching]
e-mail: rwindwar who-is-at ucla.edu (Text/BinHex/MIME/Uuencode)
70014.0646 who-is-at compuserve.com (text/binary/GIF/JPG)