Derrida and Saussure's Unpublished Papers: Reflections on Course in General Linguistics

 Introduction

Throughout Derrida’s analysis or "deconstruction" in Of Grammatology of Course in General Linguistics, he presents Saussure as a somewhat comically inadequate thinker (Gaston and Maclachlan 2011). Derrida refers to “the unwiseness of the Saussurean limitation” (OG 43) when he observes that Saussure limited his discussion exclusively to the phonetic system of writing. He also considers that Plato was more subtle, more critical and less complacent than Saussure (OG 33), Saussure was the one who “saw without seeing, knew without being able to take into account” (OG 43). This implies that Derrida saw and knew.

When considering Saussure’s take on constructed languages like Esperanto, Derrida points out Saussure’s "irritation," which drives him to “pedestrian comparisons” (OG 38). He also accuses Saussure of wanting to set up a “sort of intralinguistic leper colony” (OG 42). He says that Saussure's statements are “curious,” he makes an “apparently innocent and didactic analogy,” and we “have to oppose Saussure to himself” (OG 52), (Gaston and Maclachlan 2011).

Up to this point, Derrida engages with “Saussure” as if he had written the Course himself. One might think that he was not aware of the unpublished papers known as the Nachlass, but in a footnote at the end of his discussion, we encounter a remark that sheds light on a different Saussure and reveals a Derrida that shares similar “scruples” (OG 326) and “interminable hesitations” as Saussure (OG 329). Let's take a closer look at note 38 from Of Grammatology, Part I: Chapter 2.

Note 38: A Deconstructive Twist in Derrida’s Analysis of Saussure

In Of Grammatology, Part I: Chapter 2, Derrida explains why he focuses on Saussure for his deconstructionist analysis. Saussure's work is central to modern linguistics and semiotics, making it a significant point of reference. Additionally, Saussure operates within the traditional metaphysical framework that Derrida seeks to deconstruct, positioning him uniquely for this analysis.

However, note 38 introduces an intriguing twist to the discussion. Derrida acknowledges that "it is not impossible that the literality of the Course, to which we have indeed had to refer, should one day appear very suspect in the light of unpublished material now being prepared for publication" (OG 52). He refers to the "Anagrams" and Robert Godel's work. Godel's manuscript sources provide deeper insight into the "real" Saussure, suggesting that the literal interpretation of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics might be questionable in light of these new, unpublished materials. This leads Derrida to wonder: "Up to what point is Saussure responsible for the Course as it was edited and published after his death?" (OG 52). Derrida appears to now see without seeing, know without being able to take into account.

By raising the question of Saussure's responsibility for the content of the Course, edited and published posthumously, Derrida seems to exonerate the "Saussure" discussed in Of Grammatology from the charges listed in the introduction. He points here to “the text,” not to him. With the appearance of new evidence, Saussure might not be as “unwise and naïve” as previously thought.

Interestingly, he maintains that the publication of newly discovered material written by Saussure himself would not alter his analysis in any way. He argues that even if the "Course" concealed another underlying text, this would not invalidate his deconstructive reading; on the contrary, it would reinforce his point, as his analysis is based on the premise that texts inherently conceal and reveal multiple layers of meaning. Notice that here he doesn’t single out Saussure by name or refer specifically to the Course; instead, he uses the more neutral term “text:”

“If one were to discover that this text hid another text-and there will never be anything but texts-and hid it in a determined sense, the reading that I have just proposed would not be invalidated, at least for that particular reason. Quite the contrary”.

Although I agree with some aspects of Derrida's claim, there are reservations regarding the absolute validity of his premise that should be noted, as it raises the question of whether his analysis fully accounts for all aspects of the issue. Let's elaborate on this idea further.

In Glas, Derrida quotes the following excerpt from Saussure's Course:

One wonders why Saussure chose these “words” as examples of presumed onomatopoeias…In other words, the examples are chosen too poorly or too well: no one can consider fouet and glas as authentic onomatopoeias…and besides, there is no authentic onomatopoeia.

In Course in General Linguistics, the editors, not Saussure, inserted the French words fouet and glas as examples of onomatopoeia. However, in his lectures, as recorded in the Notebooks of Emile Constantin, Saussure actually used the Latin word pluit, explaining that it is often thought to represent the sound of rain. Examination of its development over time reveals that, contrary to public opinion, pluit traces back to forms like plovit, rather than being derived from nature. Saussure concluded that the connection of the signifier to the sound of rain is not as direct as popular belief suggests. This casts doubt on Derrida's belief that, be it as it may, his reading of Saussure's Course 'would not be invalidated. Quite the contrary.' The premise that texts inherently conceal and reveal multiple layers of meaning might be correct; what we should question is whether they can reveal what was never there in the first place. Maybe he should have qualified distinguishing between the edited text and Le Maitre.

In their preface to Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, editors Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye seem to have anticipated the debates that would follow. They take full responsibility for their editorial choices and acknowledge the potential criticisms and limitations. Additionally, they express hope that critics will distinguish between their interpretations and Saussure's original ideas:

"We are fully aware of the responsibility we owe not only to our readers but also to Saussure himself, who perhaps might not have authorized the publication of this text. We accept this responsibility, and it is ours alone. Will critics be able to distinguish between Saussure and our interpretation of Saussure? We hope that any blame may be laid at our door, rather than reflect upon the reputation of someone whose memory we cherish."
Geneva, July 1915. Charles BALLY, Albert SECHEHAYE.

This acknowledgment anticipates the critical scrutiny and interpretative challenges that Derrida later addresses in his deconstructive analysis.

Conclusion

In his critical reading, Derrida frequently utilized marginal notes to uncover hidden meanings and nuances within the text under scrutiny. This meticulous approach proves equally effective when applied to Derrida's own work. A close examination of the notes in Part I, Chapter 2 of Of Grammatology, particularly note 38, reveals intriguing details. Derrida demonstrates a deep familiarity with Saussure, acknowledging the existence of unpublished materials. It raises the question of why Derrida did not qualify or moderate his critique when referring to Saussure by name, often leaving the reader with the impression of an unwise, naïve, logocentric, and ethnocentric Saussure.

This invites readers to critically engage with both Derrida's and Saussure’s texts, considering the broader context and the potential influence of the original manuscripts. It underscores the importance of a careful and nuanced reading, recognizing that the Saussure of the Nachlass operates within intricate frameworks of thought that resist simplistic categorizations.

Cite this page: "Return to Saussure." http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related Posts:

The making of the Course in General Linguistics: Behind the scenes

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_423.html

Shadows of Authenticity: A Misguided Arrow

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/12/blog-post_24.html

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Saussure, F. (1910-1911). Troisième cours de linguistique générale: d'après les cahiers d'Emile Constantin [Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics: From the Notebooks of Emile Constantin]. (R. Harris, Trans.) University of Oxford.1993

Bouquet, Simon, Rudolf Engler, and Antoinette Weil, eds. ESCRITOS SOBRE LINGÜÍSTICA GENERAL. Translated by Clara Ubaldina Lorda Mur. Original title: Écrits de linguistique générale, de Ferdinand de Saussure. © Éditions Gallimard, 2002.

Gaston, Sean, and Ian Maclachlan, eds. Reading Derrida's "Of Grammatology". London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Corrected Edition. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Copyright © 1974, 1976, 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. Glas. Translated by John P. Leavey, Jr., and Richard Rand. University of Nebraska Press, 1986.