The Writing on the Wall: A Critical Look at Derrida’s Reading of Saussure

                       mene, mene, tekel, parsin

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics establishes key distinctions and frameworks that continue to influence the field. By focusing on the linguistic structure (la langue) and differentiating it from the external elements of language, Saussure sought to provide a clear object of study for linguistics, one that would encompass the diverse and multifaceted nature of language while remaining coherent and structured. His decision to exclude “writing” from his analysis, viewing it as an external element, has been a significant point of contention, particularly for Jacques Derrida in his Of Grammatology. Derrida's critique questions whether Saussure’s methodology inadvertently reinforced a speech-writing hierarchy, deeply rooted in Western thought, or if Derrida himself misinterpreted or oversimplified Saussure’s theoretical framework. This article explores Derrida’s argument from both perspectives: as a purposeful challenge to the foundational assumptions of Western linguistics, or as a possible failure to appreciate the intricacies and methodological choices inherent in Saussure’s work.

Saussure’s Views on Language

In his Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure addresses the challenge of defining the field of inquiry in linguistics. Unlike other sciences with clear objects of study, linguistics lacks a predetermined object. While a word might initially appear to be a well-defined object, closer examination reveals its multiple dimensions: phonetic properties, conceptual meanings, etymological roots, and more.

"At first sight, one might think this would be an example of an independently given linguistic object. But more careful consideration reveals a series of three or four quite different things, depending on the viewpoint adopted." (Course in General Linguistics, [23])

This observation underscores that linguistic objects are not fixed but are instead dependent on the focus of the study. Furthermore, language encompasses both individual and social aspects and should be considered from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, as the dimension of time plays a crucial role in defining linguistic objects.

To navigate these complexities, Saussure proposes focusing on the linguistic structure, or la langue, as the primary object of study. By analyzing the internal structure of language during a relatively stable period, linguists can create a coherent framework that accommodates its diverse nature and serves as a principle of classification. Saussure explains:

"A language as a structured system, on the contrary, is both a self-contained whole and a principle of classification." (Course in General Linguistics, [25])

"While language in general is heterogeneous, a language system is homogeneous in nature." (Course in General Linguistics, [32])

This approach led Saussure to draw a distinction between "internal linguistics" and "external linguistics":

"Our definition of a language (la langue) 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´". (Course in General Linguistics, [40])

In a letter to his colleague Antoine Meillet, Saussure expressed his disillusionment with the inability of the linguistics of his time to address what he considered the most critical issues in the field. This dissatisfaction led him to shift his focus to the question of "language in general," which he defined as the core aspects of language. Within his theoretical framework, the term "general" took on a specific technical meaning. As elaborated in Course in General Linguistics, "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. 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). Considering the context provided so far, let’s address Derrida’s critique and assess its validity.

Derrida’s Critique of Saussure’s Linguistic Theory in "Of Grammatology"

In light of the information provided above, Derrida’s critique of Saussure’s theory in Of Grammatology can be examined from two possible perspectives:

1. Misunderstanding or Oversimplification of Saussure’s Theory: Derrida might not have fully appreciated the subtle distinctions within Saussure's theory, particularly regarding the concept of "general" in linguistics and the methodological decisions to focus on "internal linguistics."
2. Deliberate Critique of Foundational Assumptions: Derrida may have been aware of these subtleties but chose to challenge the underlying assumptions and implications of Saussure’s methodology, arguing that even a focused, "internal" study of language should not exclude “writing.”

Understanding Saussure’s Theory

To provide a balanced assessment, it's crucial to first outline the essential aspects of Saussure’s theory as presented in his lectures and writings:

1. Defining Linguistic Objects: Saussure acknowledges the complexity of defining linguistic objects, highlighting their multidimensional nature. Language encompasses phonetic, semantic, and etymological dimensions, making it a challenging object of study.
2. La Langue and La Parole: Saussure distinguishes between "la langue" (the language system) and "la parole" (speech). La langue is the structured, self-contained system that serves as the focus of internal linguistics, while la parole is the individual use of language, encompassing external elements.
3. Internal vs. External Linguistics: Saussure differentiates between internal linguistics, which examines the language system's structure, and external linguistics, which considers factors like history, culture, and writing.
4. "General" in Saussure’s Framework: In Saussure’s framework, "general" refers to the foundational structures of language, not a comprehensive inclusion of all aspects. His decision to focus on these structures was a methodological choice to create a coherent framework.
5. Exclusion of Writing: Saussure explicitly excludes writing from his definition of internal linguistics, considering it an external element. He believed that writing, while important, does not belong to the internal structure of language.

Derrida’s Concept of Writing as a Hinge

In Of Grammatology, Derrida introduces the term “writing” as a critical hinge between its literal meaning and the concept of arche-writing (or originary writing). This arche-writing is considered “the origin without origin,” representing what make language possible beyond just the technical act of writing itself. Therefore, when encountering "writing" in Derrida’s work, it is essential to consider this dual function. It bridges the gap between the tangible act of writing and the deeper, structural role that writing plays as the condition of possibility for language in general.

Derrida’s Critique

Derrida’s critique in Of Grammatology questions why Saussure’s project, which claims to be a "general linguistics," excludes “writing.” He argues that this exclusion is arbitrary and problematic, especially given the significance of “writing” in the overall understanding of language. As Derrida puts it, the exclusion of “a particular system of writing” is questionable, “even were it to be in fact universal.” In this context, Derrida is highlighting the “hinge” character of the term “writing,” which includes both the technical act of writing and the broader concept of arche-writing.

Evaluating Derrida’s Position

1. Misunderstanding Saussure’s Theory

Derrida’s critique could be seen as a misunderstanding or oversimplification of Saussure’s theory. Saussure’s clear delineation between internal and external linguistics and his methodological choice to focus on the internal structure provide a coherent rationale for excluding writing. He was aware of the complexities of language and chose to focus on the elements that form its core structure.

Given this framework, Derrida’s question might seem misplaced or based on an incomplete understanding of Saussure’s aims. Saussure’s project was not to encompass all aspects of language but to establish a foundation for its structural analysis. In this light, Derrida’s critique could be perceived as a straw man argument, setting up a weaker version of Saussure’s theory to more easily challenge it.

2. Deliberate Critique of Foundational Assumptions

On the other hand, Derrida’s critique might be a deliberate challenge to the foundational assumptions of Saussure’s theory. Derrida could be questioning the validity of Saussure’s methodological choices, arguing that excluding “writing”—an integral part of language—undermines the completeness and universality of the linguistic theory. Again, Derrida situates “writing” between its literal meaning and arche-writing, blurring the distinction and emphasizing the overlap.

Derrida’s broader philosophical project involves deconstructing the binary oppositions and hierarchical structures in Western thought. By highlighting the exclusion of “writing,” he may be critiquing the implicit prioritization of speech over writing, a bias he sees as deeply ingrained in Western linguistics and philosophy. However, his blurring of distinctions between writing, and arche-writing introduces unnecessary complexity to his argument, leading some critics to label him a sophist.

Objectivity in Evaluation

In evaluating Derrida’s critique, it’s essential to consider the following points:

1. Complexity of Linguistic Study: Linguistics is inherently complex, and any theoretical framework will have limitations and exclusions. Saussure’s framework was a product of its time, addressing the issues he saw as most critical.
2. Methodological Choices: Saussure’s choice to focus on internal linguistics was a methodological decision aimed at establishing a clear and coherent field of study. This choice does not diminish the importance of external elements like writing but places them outside the scope of his primary focus: “External linguistics is nonetheless concerned with important matters, and these demand attention when one approaches the study of language." (Course in General Linguistics, [40])
3. Philosophical Perspectives: Derrida’s critique is rooted in his philosophical perspective, which challenges the traditional hierarchies and binaries in Western thought. His question about the exclusion of writing is not just about linguistic theory but about how Western civilization could be dismantled, the main goal of his project.

Conclusion

In examining Derrida’s critique of Saussure’s linguistic theory, it is evident that Derrida was not merely offering a linguistic rebuttal but was engaging in a broader philosophical project aimed at deconstructing what he saw as problematic oppositions prevalent in Western thought. By questioning the exclusion of “writing” from Saussure’s general linguistics, Derrida highlighted the potential biases within the framework and sought to challenge the implicit prioritization of speech over writing. However, critics argue that Derrida’s blurring of distinctions between “writing,” and arche-writing introduces unnecessary complexity and fails to consider the full integrity of Saussure’s theory. Ultimately, whether one views Derrida’s argument as a deliberate deconstruction of Western thought or as a misinterpretation of Saussure’s work, it undeniably contributes to the ongoing discourse on the relationship between language, writing, and meaning in the field of linguistics.

Related Posts:

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

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

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

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/08/blog-post_13.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.