Challenging 'the General': A Debate Over Writing in 'General' Linguistics

Introduction

In the article The Nuanced Meaning of 'General' in Saussure's 'General' Linguistics (see link below), we explored how Ferdinand de Saussure's early career in Paris began with high expectations, only for his scholarly productivity to diminish as he encountered the limitations of the linguistic terminology of his time. Disillusioned by its inability to address what he saw as the most critical issues in the field, Saussure shifted his focus to the question of "language in general." Within his theoretical framework, the term "general" took on a specific technical meaning, which he later elaborated in his Course in "General" Linguistics. Here, "general" referred not to a broad, all-encompassing concept but to the foundational structures of language that underpin its various forms. This focused definition led Saussure to deliberately exclude "external" elements, such as writing, from his analysis—a decision that has been the subject of significant criticism, most notably from Jacques Derrida in Of Grammatology.

In this follow-up article, we will delve deeper into these criticisms, focusing particularly on Derrida's argument that Saussure's boundaries for linguistic inquiry were too narrowly drawn, limiting the potential for a more comprehensive understanding of the origin (arche-) of language.

Context of Derrida's Question and the Main Criticism

In "Of Grammatology," Derrida takes issue with Saussure’s approach to defining the boundaries of linguistic inquiry. He focuses specifically on Saussure’s exclusion of writing from what he terms "General Linguistics." Derrida raises the critical question: "Why does a project of general linguistics, concerning the internal system in general of language in general, outline the limits of its field by excluding, as exteriority in general, a particular system of writing, however important it might be, even were it to be in fact universal?" (O.G., p. 39). This inquiry is rooted in Derrida’s broader critique of the logocentric bias in Western thought, which privileges speech over writing.

Saussure's Notion of "General Linguistics"

For Saussure, the concept of "general" in linguistics is centered on the study of the internal structure of language as an underlying system of differences and oppositions. In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussure sought to identify and analyze this fundamental, or “general,” principle, focusing primarily on the systematic relationships between signs within language (la langue). His notion of "general" is thus tied to the idea of uncovering this underlying structure. In this framework, the term "general" does not refer to the broad, inclusive meaning one might expect but rather to the foundational structural aspects that allow linguists to understand the internal mechanisms and workings of language.

Exclusion of Writing from "General Linguistics"

Saussure’s focused definition of "general" led him to exclude "external" elements, such as writing, from his analysis. He argued that writing falls under the category of "external linguistics," which deals with elements that are not essential to the core system of language. In Chapter 5 of his Course in General Linguistics, titled "Internal and External Elements of a Language," Saussure elaborates on this distinction. He posits that "general linguistics" should be concerned solely with the structural aspects of language as a system. Consequently, writing, which Saussure considered to belong to external linguistics, was not included in his framework for the scientific study of language, although he recognized that “external linguistics is nonetheless concerned with important matters”: Our definition of a language assumes that we disregard everything which does not belong to its structure as a system; in short everything that is designated by the term ‘external linguistics’. External linguistics is none the less concerned with important matters, and these demand attention when one approaches the study of language. [CGL] [40]

Derrida’s Notion of "General Grammatology"

Derrida challenges Saussure’s exclusion of writing by proposing a broader, more inclusive approach to the study of language, which he refers to as "general grammatology." Unlike Saussure, Derrida argues that writing is not merely a secondary system but is integral to the constitution of meaning in language. By advocating for a study that does not privilege speech over writing, Derrida seeks to dismantle the hierarchical binary oppositions that have long structured Western thought. His critique suggests that a truly "general" study of language must include writing as a fundamental component.

Note: Just as Saussure uses the term "general" in a specific and idiosyncratic way, Derrida’s use of "writing" also carries a unique connotation within his theoretical framework. He often shifts between writing and "writing" (arche-écriture) without explicit distinction. Therefore, readers should be mindful of this nuanced usage when interpreting his arguments.

The Common Meaning of "General" vs. Saussure’s Idiosyncratic Use of the Term

The discrepancy between Saussure's and Derrida's use of "general" may be partly attributed to their different interpretations of the term. In common usage, "general" refers to something broad and inclusive, encompassing all relevant aspects of a subject. However, Saussure's use of "general" in his linguistic framework is more specialized, focusing on the internal structure of language (la langue) rather than on external factors. Saussure’s "general linguistics" applies to the internal system of language, excluding elements like writing, which he considers outside the primary object of study.

Derrida’s Interpretation of "General"

Derrida’s interpretation of "general" aligns more closely with the common understanding of the term. He expects a "general" theory of language to be all-encompassing, inclusive of all aspects of language, including writing. From this perspective, Derrida’s critique is rooted in his expectation that a comprehensive study of language should not exclude any significant aspects, particularly something as integral as writing. He argues that writing is deeply implicated in the structure of language and should not be marginalized in linguistic studies.

However, as we have seen, Derrida’s criticism may have stemmed in part from a terminological discrepancy. The term "general," as used by Saussure, was imbued with a specific technical meaning within his own conceptual framework, focusing on the internal structures of language. Therefore, while Derrida's broader interpretation of "general" emphasizes inclusivity, it overlooks the precise and context-dependent usage intended by Saussure. Technical terms such as "general" should be understood within the framework in which they were conceived, rather than being applied indiscriminately. This misalignment underscores the importance of recognizing that there is no "master signified" with a universal and necessary meaning applicable across all theoretical contexts.

Conclusion

The debate over the concept of "general" in Saussure's framework and Derrida's critique highlights a fundamental tension within linguistic theory regarding the proper scope and focus of study. Saussure's exclusion of writing from his definition of "general linguistics" reflects his commitment to the study of the internal structure of language, concentrating on the systematic relationships between signs (la langue). "General," in this respect, pertains to internal linguistics, which deals with the fundamental questions of language as a system of differences and oppositions. Writing, although important, falls under the domain of external linguistics, which Saussure distinguished from the internal structures that define the primary object of linguistic study.

Derrida's critique, presented through his "general grammatology," questions this exclusion and challenges the underlying assumptions of Saussure's framework. However, Derrida seems to have overlooked the specific and idiosyncratic meaning that Saussure attributed to the term "general." By interpreting "general" in its broader, more inclusive dictionary sense, Derrida assumes that it should encompass all aspects of language, including writing. This misinterpretation leads him to question why writing is excluded from "general linguistics," a question that might not have arisen had he fully grasped Saussure's focused definition.

In light of this, the debate between Saussure and Derrida underscores the importance of understanding the specific terminology and conceptual frameworks employed by scholars. While Derrida's arguments invite a broader and more inclusive approach to the study of language, they also illustrate the pitfalls of applying generalized interpretations to specific theoretical constructs. This discussion underscores the ongoing need for precision in linguistic inquiry and the importance of acknowledging the distinct boundaries and definitions that shape academic discourse.

Related Posts:

The Nuanced Meaning of 'General' in Saussure's 'General' Linguistics

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_12.html

A Conversation with Saussure

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_12.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.