Posts

Difference Without Regress: Saussure Against Zeno’s Paradox

Image
The Allegation: Zeno in Geneva In Read My Desire , Joan Copjec, following Samuel Weber’s essay “Closure and Exclusion,” contends that Ferdinand de Saussure’s dictum — “in language there are no positive terms, only differences” — entangles Saussure’s linguistics in the trap of Zeno’s paradox. If each signifier derives its value only from another signifier, and that from another in turn, meaning appears suspended in indefinite referral. Confronted with this abyss, Saussure allegedly retreats. He abandons a radical conception of “pure difference” and replaces it with “determinate oppositions”, isolating a synchronic moment to arrest what would otherwise be an infinite regress ( see quote below ). The accusation is rhetorically powerful. Yet it rests on two decisive displacements: first, the translation of la langue as “language”; second, the assumption that Saussurean difference operates without structural limits. Once these two shifts are corrected, the specter of infinite regress e...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference and Opposition in Saussure: Understanding the Architecture of the Linguistic Sign

Image
Difference and Opposition in Context In §4 of the Course in General Linguistics , Ferdinand de Saussure famously declares that « Dans la langue, il n’y a que des differences » (“in language there are only differences”) only to add that when complete signs are compared one can no longer speak of “difference” but of “opposition.” This terminological shift, from “difference” to “opposition,” has troubled some scholars. For example, in Read My Desire , Joan Copjec , drawing on Samuel Weber ’s essay “Closure and Exclusion,” argues that Saussure’s dictum— « Dans la langue, il n’y a que des differences » —ensnares his linguistics in a version of Zeno’s paradox. If each signifier derives its value only from another signifier, and that from another in turn, meaning seems condemned to indefinite deferral. Confronted with this abyss, Saussure allegedly retreats. He abandons a radical conception of pure “difference” and replaces it with determinate “oppositions”, isolating a synchronic momen...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of “Pure Difference”: A Critical Examination of Weber’s Reading of Saussure

Image
Books. AI image Introduction In Closure and Exclusion , Samuel Weber proposes a reconstruction of Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory of language centered on the notion of “pure difference.” According to his account, Saussure defines linguistic value as differential and thereby risks unleashing an unbounded dissemination of distinctions. The stability of the system, Weber argues, can only be secured by bracketing diachrony and invoking the “institution of language.” The resulting structure is said to depend upon a suppression of history. This interpretation is problematic at its foundation. It rests on a decisive conceptual shift: the rendering of la langue as the generic term “language.” Once this shift occurs, difference can appear as a quasi-ontological principle prior to the system rather than as a structural feature internal to it. Weber’s question—“what limits difference?”—thus arises from a displacement already embedded in the terminology. A return to Saussure’s distinctions sug...
Post a Comment
Read more

Diachrony Misplaced: On Weber’s Assimilation of Saussure to Peirce

Image
le Jet d’Eau . AI image Introduction: A Conceptual Transplant Samuel Weber’s claim that Charles Sanders Peirce situates “diachrony” at the heart of semiosis performs a striking conceptual maneuver. By translating Peirce’s account of interpretive succession into Saussurean vocabulary, Weber appears to construct a philosophical progression from structural closure to temporal openness. Yet this move is not merely bold, it is structurally unstable. It imports a technical term from Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistics into a semiotic framework that neither requires nor sustains it. The result is less a productive synthesis than a distortion of two distinct theoretical architectures. The difficulty lies not in comparison as such, but in conceptual substitution. “Diachrony” in Saussure names a rigorously delimited analytical category. To redeploy it within Peirce’s system without preserving its methodological function is to evacuate its specificity. Diachrony in Saussure: Historical Subs...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference, Institution, and the Question of Closure: Reconsidering Weber’s Reading of Saussure

Image
“dans la langue il n’y a que des différences.” AI image Introduction Samuel Weber’s reading of Ferdinand de Saussure follows a clear and compelling line of reasoning. If language consists solely of differences, then those differences might appear capable of indefinite expansion. Determination would therefore require limits, and such limits, on this account, are secured by invoking linguistic institution, privileging synchrony, and bracketing diachrony. The resulting system seems closed only because historical movement has been set aside. This reconstruction raises serious philosophical questions. Yet it risks isolating one of Saussure’s most cited formulations ( “dans la langue il n’y a que des différences” ) from the broader conceptual structure of the Course in General Linguistics . A closer examination suggests that difference in Saussure never operates independently of an already instituted system. The problem, then, is not whether Weber’s questions are legitimate, but whet...
Post a Comment
Read more