|Statement: once a statement is made the utterer is committed to it. In contrast to this, a sentence can be thought of as a string of symbols that is no statement.|
Books on Amazon
Statement/Foucault: at first sight the statement appears as the last, indissociable element, which can be isolated and can enter into a play with other elements. A point without surface. Problem: if the statement is the elementary unit of the discourse, what is it then? What are their distinguishing traits? What limits do you have to recognize?
For example, the question of whether the logic "A" and "it is true that A" are interchangeable. Foucault: as statements they are not equivalent and not interchangeable. (FoucaultVsRedundancy Theory). They cannot be in the same place in the discourse.
For example, the bald king can only be analyzed by recognizing in the form of a single statement two different propositions, each of which can be true or false. (Strawson: utterance, point of time).
E.g. "I am lying": can only be true in a relation to a claim at a lower level.
The criteria for the identity of a proposition do not apply to the description of the particular unit of a statement.
Statement/Foucault: As an example, which is not a statement, could I doodle a few letters? For example, would the letters in a case-room be reasonably regarded as statements? The two examples are not on the same level.
The series of letters Q W E R T Z on a typewriter is not a statement. But the same in a textbook for machine-writing is a statement.
It will not require a regular linguistic constellation for a statement. On the other hand, there is not enough material accumulation.
Statement: is thus an existence function, which is a characteristic of the signs. There are no structural unitary criteria, but one function. This function is not a unit.
Statement: cannot have its own character, is inappropriate for an adequate definition.
The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences 1994
Archäologie des Wissens Frankfurt/M. 1981