Clarity and Ambiguity in Language : Saussure and Derrida on the Meaning of Meaning

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida represent two influential yet contrasting approaches to understanding language. Saussure's General Linguistics lays the groundwork for modern linguistics by emphasizing the systematic nature of language and the importance of distinguishing between its concrete units, i.e., the linguistic signs. Derrida's deconstruction, on the other hand, challenges and extends these ideas, pushing the boundaries of how we perceive meaning and interpretation. This article explores the intricate relationship between their theories, highlighting Saussure’s focus on the internal workings of the language mechanism and Derrida’s embrace of ambiguity and fluidity.

Beyond “The Signifier:” Saussure’s General Linguistics

Concepts like sign, signifier, and signified, alongside others like term, value, word, and meaning, are intricately linked in Saussurean linguistics, often blurring the lines between them. Ferdinand de Saussure stressed that despite their close interrelation, maintaining distinctions among these elements is crucial for understanding the workings of language, which relies on both similarity and difference.

The task of disambiguating these concepts while admitting their interrelation accompanied Saussure throughout his career. One example is found in his Course in General Linguistics where he addresses the confusion surrounding the term "sign" (signe).

In his lectures, Saussure defines a sign (signe) as a two-sided psychological entity, consisting of a concept and a sound pattern, two components that are intrinsically connected, with each invoking the other. However, confusion arises because, as he notes, the term "sign" (signe) is commonly misunderstood or misused, often referring only to the sound pattern. This misuse creates ambiguity, making it difficult to discuss linguistic concepts clearly.

To resolve this ambiguity, Saussure suggests a more precise terminology. First, the term "sign" (signe) is reserved for the entire combination of concept and sound pattern. Second, “concept” and “sound pattern” are substituted by signifié and signifiant respectively, terms coined or rebranded for the purpose of clarification.

“The linguistic sign is, then, a two-sided psychological entity. These two elements are intimately linked and each triggers the other. This definition raises an important question of terminology. In our terminology, a sign is the combination of a concept and a sound pattern. But in current usage, the term sign generally refers to the sound pattern alone. The ambiguity would be removed if the three notions in question were designated by terms which are related but contrast. We propose to keep the term sign to designate the whole, but to replace concept and sound pattern respectively by signification and signal” [CGL 99-100].

By distinguishing these three related but contrasting terms, Saussure aims to eliminate confusion and ensure clarity in linguistic discussions. This terminological precision helps highlight the dual nature of linguistic signs and facilitates a better understanding of how language operates through the interplay of similarities and differences.

Derrida’s Deconstruction: A Web of Interconnected Concepts

We find a similar web of interconnected concepts in the deconstructive philosophy of Jacques Derrida. Concepts like "writing," "arche-writing," "trace," "différance," and "supplementarity" are almost indistinguishable from one another. This is complicated by the fact that, although not exactly the same, Derrida seems to use them synonymously. Two articles in the book Reading Derrida's Of Grammatology (Gaston and Maclachlan 2011) illustrate this point.

In the article "Trace," J. Hillis Miller writes: "...the trace is more or less the equivalent of 'arche-writing', as it is of 'différance'. I say 'more or less' because the valences of 'arche-trace' are not quite the same as those of 'arche-writing', nor are those of either quite the same as 'différance'" (OG 47, 65, 66–7, 70–1).

Similarly, Derek Attridge, in the article "The Arbitrary," notes: "Here Derrida calls it writing; he will give it other names in the pages that follow, including trace, différance, and supplementarity" (OG 44–7).

Intentionality: Derrida's Strategic Use of Related Terms

By employing terms like "writing," "arche-writing," "trace," "différance," "supplementarity," etc. interchangeably yet distinctly, Derrida achieves several objectives. The first is to undermine logocentrism. Logocentrism, the prioritization of the spoken word as the primary and most authentic form of language, is destabilized. The multiplicity of terms used interchangeably reinforces the idea that meaning is not fixed in speech but is continually deferred and constructed through "writing" (or "arche-writing," "trace," "différance," "supplementarity," etc.)

This strategy also encourages interpretive fluidity. The use of varied terminology prevents the reader from settling into a fixed interpretation, promoting an ongoing process of reinterpretation and questioning. This fluidity is crucial for deconstruction, which seeks to keep meaning open-ended and dynamic.

Finally, his approach highlights the relational nature of meaning. By showing how different terms interrelate and overlap, Derrida demonstrates that meaning is relational, contingent upon the infinite play of differences within a network of signs. No term, as in Saussure’s theory, can be fully understood in isolation from others, reflecting the interconnectedness and interdependence of linguistic elements.

Nevertheless, one feels that Derrida’s views on language lack the linguistic rigor present in Saussure, who illustrates his points by drawing from a large number of practical examples. This prompts the question of whether Derrida’s strategy, doubtless a potent political tool, should be considered a valid linguistic method as well.

Conclusion

In examining the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida, we encounter two distinct yet intertwined approaches to understanding language. Saussure’s perspective emphasizes the need for distinctions and terminological precision to elucidate the dual nature of language, which thrives on both similarities and differences. This systematic framework for language analysis is illustrated by his attempts to disambiguate terms like sign, signifié, and signifiant, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of linguistic discussions.

Conversely, Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy challenges these distinctions, embracing the inherent ambiguity and fluidity of language. By using terms such as "writing," "arche-writing," "trace," "différance," and "supplementarity" interchangeably, Derrida disrupts traditional logocentric views, promoting a dynamic and relational understanding of meaning. This strategy highlights the interconnectedness of linguistic elements and keeps interpretation perpetually open-ended.

While Derrida's approach lacks the empirical rigor of Saussure’s method, it can be viewed as an extension and radicalization of Saussure’s ideas, though Saussure and Derrida likely had different goals in mind. The debate between these two perspectives raises important questions about the nature of language, the validity of different linguistic methods, and the balance between clarity and ambiguity in our understanding of meaning.

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

Related Post: 

Democratizing Knowledge: The Shifting Tides of Clear and Complex Language in Intellectual History

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/07/blog-post_05.html

Bibliography

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

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger. Arbre d’Or, Genève, 2005.

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.

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