Derrida's Appropriation of Saussure's Terminology: A Philosophical Risk

     

 

Introduction:

Jacques Derrida's deconstructive approach to philosophy and language is often celebrated for its innovative and provocative style. However, one aspect of his work that has been a subject of scrutiny and debate is his appropriation of Ferdinand de Saussure's terminology without prior clarification and his use of these terms outside the system in which they were originally conceived. While Derrida's approach offers novel insights into language and meaning, it also raises questions about the potential dangers of divorcing terms from their context (Saussure 1916) (Derrida 1967).

The Importance of Context in Linguistics:

Ferdinand de Saussure emphasized the significance of context in understanding linguistic signs. According to Saussure, a unit's meaning and value is derived from its relationship within a system of signs, where the signifier and the signified are interdependent. It is imperative to bear in mind that the linguistic sign, much like the Roman deity Janus with two inseparable faces, consists of two integral relata, each contributing indispensably to its overall significance. Saussure’s linguistics is premised on the idea that meaning is system-dependent, and the sign gains its significance and value from its position within that particular system. (Saussure 1916)  

Derrida's Deconstruction:

In "Of Grammatology" and other works, Derrida appropriates Saussure's terminology, particularly the terms "signifier" and "signified," to launch his deconstructive project. However, Derrida's usage of these terms deviates dramatically from Saussure's framework and could potentially debase the value of language in general and of his own project in particular (Derrida 1967) (Daylight 2011).

The Risks of Decontextualization:

Derrida's deconstruction, while undoubtedly influential and thought-provoking, poses potential risks when it comes to the appropriation of Saussure's terminology without a clear explanation or adherence to its original context. One such example can be found in Derrida's work "Of Grammatology," particularly in the section titled "The Signifier and Truth" (only the Signifier? And the flower...? Here, we can illustrate the concerns raised about the potential dangers of Derrida using Saussurean terms out of their intended context:

1. Loss of Precision: In "The Signifier and Truth" by divorcing the Saussurean terms "signifier" and "signified" from each other and from their original context, Saussure's theory, Derrida's usage takes on a rather confusing character. In Saussure's linguistics, these terms were specifically defined within the structure of the sign, where the signifier and signified form a unity, a paired concept, a Janus-like entity. Derrida's departure from this context can lead to a loss of precision, making it challenging to pinpoint the exact significance of these terms in his discourse. Saussure's clarification in his lectures and writings that "signe" refers to the combination of "concept/signifié" and "image acoustique/signifiant" emphasizes the unity of these elements within a sign. Derrida's deviation from this unity may create ambiguity. For instance, Saussure notes that in common usage, the term 'signe' often exclusively denotes the 'image acoustique/signifiant.' This observation underscores the potential for misinterpretation when these terms are divorced from their intended context, a confusion he was determined to prevent at all costs:

[99 ] In our terminology a sign is the combination of a concept/signified and a sound pattern/signifier. But in current usage the term sign generally refers to the sound pattern/signifier alone

2. Misinterpretation: Derrida's decontextualized usage of Saussurean terminology can pose a risk of misinterpretation, particularly for readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of Saussure's linguistic framework. Saussure's definition of sign was rooted in the systemic character of language, where the relationship between signifier and signified was pivotal. Derrida's reinterpretation can lead to confusion and hinder a comprehensive understanding of both Saussure's and Derrida's ideas.

3. Inherent Ambiguity: Derrida's deconstruction, while shedding light on the inherent ambiguity of language, can paradoxically introduce its own ambiguity when Saussure's terminology is stretched beyond its original boundaries. This ambiguity may hinder clear communication within philosophical discourse, as readers may struggle to reconcile Derrida's expanded usage with the well-defined terminology established by Saussure, "le accent compte" 

Conclusion:

While Jacques Derrida's deconstructive approach to philosophy and language has undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of conventional thought, it is crucial to recognize the potential dangers of appropriating and using terminology out of its original context. The risk of misinterpretation, loss of precision, and the erosion of meaning are concerns that should not be taken lightly. Philosophers and scholars engaging with Derrida's work must remain vigilant about the context in which terminology is employed to ensure that the richness of philosophical discourse is not compromised by its own innovative strategies.

Related post from this blog:

The Phenomenon of Idiolects: Unveiling the Individual and Social Aspects of Language

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/08/Saussure and Poststructuralism.html

Read also:

Derrida's Impact on the Perception of Saussure in Contemporary Linguistics

Deconstruction and Linguistics: Revisiting Derrida's Reading of Saussure's Cours

 We're thrilled to have you reading our blogs! We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions, or any cool insights you might have about the fascinating world where linguistics and philosophy collide. Don't be shy – drop us a line and let's have a chat! Together, we'll dive into the exciting mysteries of linguistics and philosophy and build a friendly and engaging community of thinkers. 😊    Rodie

Riddle Me This

 How does Saussure's definition of a linguistic "sign" differ from Derrida's use of the term in his deconstructive project ?

A) Saussure's "sign" emphasizes the unity of signifier and signified within a system, while Derrida's usage detaches these elements, potentially introducing ambiguity and confusion in philosophical discourse.

B) Saussure's "sign" focuses on the individual elements of language, while Derrida's usage stresses their interconnectedness, leading to a more precise philosophical discourse.

C) Saussure's "sign" and Derrida's usage both underscore the importance of context in linguistic analysis, resulting in a clear and unambiguous philosophical discourse.

D) Saussure's "sign" and Derrida's usage both adhere closely to the original context, eliminating any potential challenges for philosophical discourse.

Bibliography

Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale [Course of General Linguistics]. Edited by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Payot. 

 Derrida, Jacques. 1967. De la Grammatologie. Collection Critique. Les Éditions de Minuit.

 Daylight, Russell. What if Derrida was wrong about Saussure? Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011.