Derrida's Impact on the Perception of Saussure in Contemporary Linguistics: A Critical Examination

 

Introduction

Jacques Derrida's engagement with Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theories has significantly impacted how Saussure is viewed and interpreted in modern academic discourse. This blog post critically examines the extent to which Derrida's reading has shaped the current image of Saussure. While Derrida's work has undeniably contributed to our understanding of language and semiotics, it is essential to assess whether his interpretations accurately represent Saussure's multifaceted linguistic theory.

Derrida's Focus on Saussurean Originality

Derrida's primary focus in his engagement with Saussure lies in delineating Saussure's originality within the broader context of the concept of the sign. His goal is to investigate the "tradition of the concept of the sign" and discern "the originality of Saussure's contribution within this continuity". Essentially, he seeks to understand what unique contributions Saussure made to linguistics.

Saussure's Emphasis on Dematerialization and Formality: Derrida's Perspective

Derrida credits Saussure with emphasizing the dematerialized, differential, and formal characteristics of the sign. Saussure's departure from traditional notions of language as a reflection of external reality in favor of a more abstract and formal understanding of signs is commended by Derrida.

Critique of Saussure's "Psychologism"

In the context of linguistics, psychologism suggests that the meaning of words or signs is rooted in individual psychological experiences. Saussure's theory of language is explicitly anti-psychologistic, it rejects the idea that the meaning of signs is grounded in individual psychology and instead emphasizes the social and conventional nature of linguistic signs. Therefore, characterizing Saussure's theory as psychologism would be a misrepresentation of his foundational ideas in linguistics.

However, Derrida criticizes Saussure for the possibility of allowing the existence of a signified independent of signifiers, even though Saussure insisted on the impossibility of such a scenario. This, according to Derrida, amounts to "psychologism" and merely shifts the problem rather than resolving it and maintains that Saussure's theory should avoid any notion of a signified existing separately from signifiers.

Saussurean Contribution to linguistics: The Overlooked Theory of Value

An alternative perspective on Saussure's originality pivots around his theory of value. In Saussurean linguistics, value refers to the relationship between linguistic signs within a language system. Some scholars, including Jakobson, argue that Saussure's true contribution lies in his theory of value. This viewpoint suggests that Saussure's insights extend beyond Derrida's interpretation, a perspective Derrida does not address.

Derrida's omission of Saussure's theory of value is a substantial point of critique. Despite its prominence in Saussurean scholarship, Derrida largely overlooks this aspect of Saussure's work. By not engaging with Saussure's theory of value, he might miss crucial dimensions of Saussure's original contributions to linguistics. This oversight in Derrida's analysis of Saussurean linguistics raises questions about whether his interpretation captures the full scope of Saussure's groundbreaking ideas in the field of semiotics and linguistics.

Absence of Saussure's Name in Derrida's Discourses on Saussurean Theory

An intriguing observation is the infrequent mention of Saussure's name in Derrida's discussions of Saussurean theory. In Of Grammatology, for example, despite using Saussure´s terminology since the beginning of the book, his name is only mentioned for the first time in the section The Signifier and Truth, which is well into the book. This raises questions about whether Derrida intentionally or unintentionally downplays Saussure's contributions and emphasizes his own interpretations instead.

Misinterpretation of Saussure's Paper Analogy

Derrida's interpretation of Saussure's paper analogy has been subject to critique. While Saussure intended the analogy to represent the relationship between signs in the language system (la langue), Derrida interprets it as a simple binary exchange between a signifier and a signified. This interpretation overlooks the broader context of the analogy, since Saussure had already began to move away from the study of individual signs in favor of a more systematic approach since the beginning of his second course at the university of Geneva.

[157] « La langue est encore comparable à une feuille de papier »

Conflation of Phonocentrism and Logocentrism

Derrida has faced criticism for conflating phonocentrism (prioritizing spoken language) and logocentrism (prioritizing a pre-linguistic relationship with truth). Saussure's emphasis on spoken language does not necessarily imply a belief in pure mental essences independent of language. Derrida's conflation oversimplifies Saussure's ideas and may lead to misunderstandings of his work. Read [99] below.

 [155] « Prise en elle-même, la pensée est comme une nébuleuse où rien n’est nécessairement délimité. Il n’y a pas d’idées préétablies, et rien n’est distinct avant l’apparition de la langue »

“In itself, thought is like a swirling cloud, where no shape is intrinsically determinate. No ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of linguistic structure”.

Derrida's Use of Peirce's Semiotics

Derrida's utilization of Charles Peirce's semiotics has also come under scrutiny. His assertion that Peirce's interpretative function eliminates the radical difference between signifier and signified disregards Saussure's emphasis on the mutual articulation of signifiers and signifieds. This selective use of sources can shape interpretations in a particular direction.

[99] “The linguistic sign is a two-sided psychological entity... These two elements are intimately linked and each triggers the other”.

Failure to Engage with Saussure's Concept of Identities and Structure

Another criticism pertains to Derrida's limited engagement with Saussure's ideas about linguistic identity. Derrida's view of semiological structure appears to be influenced by his perspective on semiological communication. He may not fully consider Saussure's nuanced arguments regarding the nature of linguistic identity and structure.

(Read CGL, Part Two, Chapter 3: IDENTITIES; REALITIES; VALUES)

Derrida's Selective Citations of Saussure

For the above mentioned, Derrida has been criticed for, apparently, selectively citing Saussure, focusing primarily on points that align with his interests while potentially overlooking other crucial aspects of Saussurean theory. This selective approach to sources can lead to a skewed interpretation of Saussure's work.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Derrida's engagement with Saussure's theories has undeniably left a lasting impact on how Saussure is perceived and interpreted today. While Derrida's contributions to the fields of linguistics and semiotics are noteworthy, it is essential to critically assess whether his interpretations of Saussure accurately represent the breadth and depth of Saussurean scholarship. Derrida's focus on specific aspects of Saussure's work, such as the rejection of psychologism and the emphasis on dematerialization, may have overshadowed other valuable dimensions, like Saussure's theory of value and his complex discussions of linguistic system. Therefore, a comprehensive reading of Saussure's work is necessary to fully appreciate his originality and significance in the field of semiotics and linguistics, beyond the lens of Derrida's interpretations.

 Related posts:

A Conversation with Saussure

Return to Saussure: The Nature or Nurture Dilemma in Linguistics

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

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

Kant, Saussure, and Derrida: Exploring the Interplay of Language

Two Aspects of "The Object of Study": Internal and External 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:

a) Derrida devised a strategy that poses a significant challenge to anyone attempting to counter his arguments, as doing so risks the accusation of entirely misunderstanding his intentions. He employed puns, lexical connections, and wordplay with names in a distinctive manner, making it exceptionally hard to disentangle his intricate web of ideas. Nonetheless, it remains crucial to engage with his interpretation of Saussure's work, given its profound implications for the future of linguistics.

b) Derrida, the arcane alchemist, a sorcerer of syntax and a maestro of linguistic legerdemain, masterfully orchestrated a stratagem so beguiling that it ensnares any intrepid interlocutor within the treacherous labyrinth of his discourse. With an unabashed infatuation for the alchemy of puns, an insatiable craving for the intoxicating brew of lexical liaisons, and an unquenchable thirst for crafting rebus-like riddles from the very names themselves, he wove a spellbinding mixture of words that mesmerizes, leaving those who dare to refute it teetering precariously on the precipice of absurdity. Yet, amid this labyrinthine complexity of his musings, it remains an intellectual imperative, a daring odyssey, to engage with the audacious interpretation he casts upon Saussure's oeuvre. In this sacred juncture, we confront the elusive mirage of the future anterior, a mirage that tantalizingly beckons within the realm of linguistics, existing as both a condition of possibility and a specter of impossibility, casting a shadow over the foundations of all sciences, in a perpetual yes and no. At this juncture, Derrida writes under erasure, boldly crossing out his own assertions while allowing their spectral traces to linger, an act of intellectual defiance that resists the perennial philosophy privileging the phône, embodying the very essence of his enigmatic strategy.

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale (1916). Paris: Payot, 1971.

Tallis, Raymond. Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory. Macmillan Press, 1988.

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

Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences."  (1970).

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