Prolegomena to a Possible Translation (1): Derrida, Saussure, and the Value of Deconstruction

A Letter. AI image

Introduction

In Letter to a Japanese Friend, Jacques Derrida responds to what appears to be a practical question: how should the word deconstruction be translated into Japanese? Yet instead of proposing an equivalent term, he begins with an unexpected qualification. What he offers, he writes, are merely "prolegomena to a possible translation" of the word into Japanese (Derrida, 1985, p. 1). The formulation is striking. Why only prolegomena? Why only a possible translation?

The answer leads beyond the problem of translation narrowly conceived. Rather than searching for a lexical equivalent, Derrida transforms the translator's question into an inquiry into how words acquire significance in the first place. Read in this light, the letter reveals an unexpected affinity with Ferdinand de Saussure's theory of linguistic value. Before translation can begin, both thinkers suggest, one must understand that words do not contain self-identical meanings waiting to be transferred from one language to another.

Why Only a "Possible" Translation?

« Il s'agissait en somme de prolégomènes à une traduction possible de ce mot en japonais. »
— Jacques Derrida, Lettre à un ami japonais

The opening sentence already signals Derrida's caution. A prolegomenon is not a solution but a preliminary reflection, an examination of the conditions under which a problem may be approached. Derrida therefore refuses to present himself as someone who simply possesses the correct Japanese equivalent for deconstruction.

The second qualification is equally revealing. He does not speak of a translation but of a possible translation. The adjective introduces uncertainty at the very moment the question is posed. Translation is not assumed to be a straightforward operation.

Derrida explains why almost immediately. One should not begin, he writes, by believing that the word deconstruction corresponds "to some clear and univocal signification" in French (Derrida, 1985, p. 1). If the source language itself does not contain a stable meaning that can be isolated and extracted, the translator faces a more complicated task than finding an equivalent term.

The problem is therefore no longer simply how to translate a word. It becomes a question about the nature of meaning itself.

Saussure and the Myth of Pre-Existing Concepts

A remarkably similar problem appears in Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. Discussing translation, Saussure observes:

"If words had the job of representing concepts fixed in advance, one would be able to find exact equivalents for them as between one language and another" (Saussure, 1916/2011, p. 116).

His examples are well known. French uses the verb louer both for granting and taking a lease, whereas German distinguishes these actions through vermieten and mieten. Other languages divide time, aspect, and verbal action in ways that do not correspond neatly to French categories.

For Saussure, these differences reveal something fundamental. Languages do not merely attach labels to concepts that already exist. Rather, they organize experience through systems of distinctions. As a result, conceptual boundaries vary from one linguistic system to another.

Translation therefore exposes a crucial fact: meaning is not composed of ready-made units waiting to be transferred intact across languages. Instead, linguistic values emerge from the internal organization of each language. Once this point is recognized, Derrida's caution regarding translation becomes easier to understand.

Differential Concepts and the Meaning of Deconstruction

Saussure draws a radical conclusion from this observation. Concepts themselves are not self-contained entities. Instead,

"the concepts in question are purely differential" (Saussure, 1916/2011, p. 117).

They are defined not by intrinsic content but by their relations to other concepts within the same system. A concept is what neighboring concepts are not:

“They are concepts defined not positively, in terms of their content, but negatively by contrast with other items in the same system. What characterises each most exactly is being whatever the others are not” (Saussure, 1916/2011, p. 117).

This formulation sheds new light on Derrida's description of deconstruction. When asked what the word means, he repeatedly answers by explaining what it is not:

"Deconstruction is neither an analysis nor a critique... Deconstruction is not a method. It must also be made clear that deconstruction is not even an act or an operation" (Derrida, 1985, p. 3).

Later, he condenses the point into a memorable formula:

"What deconstruction is not? everything of course! What is deconstruction? nothing of course!" (Derrida, 1985, p. 5).

The statement is often read as a paradox. Yet viewed through a Saussurean lens, its logic becomes clearer. Derrida does not attempt to disclose an essence hidden behind the word. Instead, he situates the term within a field of contrasts. Deconstruction acquires its identity through its differences from analysis, critique, method, operation, and related concepts.

One might even say that Derrida answers the question "What does deconstruction mean?" in much the same way that Saussure explains the value of a linguistic sign: by locating it within a network rather than by revealing a positive content concealed inside it. Before asking what deconstruction is, Derrida asks what it is not.

The Value of a Word

The affinity becomes even more explicit when Derrida writes:

"The word 'deconstruction', like all other words, acquires its value only from its inscription in a chain of possible substitutions" (Derrida, 1985, p. 4).

The vocabulary is noteworthy. Derrida does not speak of meaning but of value, a term that occupies a central place in Saussure's linguistic theory. A sign possesses value because of its relations to other signs within the system.

Equally important is Derrida's reference to a "chain of possible substitutions." The expression recalls what Saussure called associative or paradigmatic relations: the absent alternatives that help determine the value of the term that actually appears. What is present acquires significance partly through what could have appeared in its place.

The implication for translation is profound. What requires translation is not an isolated concept but a position within a network. The translator must therefore attend to the relations that give a term its value rather than searching for a supposedly equivalent meaning hidden inside it.

Conclusion

Letter to a Japanese Friend begins with a question about translation, but it quickly becomes an inquiry into the conditions that make translation possible. Derrida's insistence on offering only "prolegomena to a possible translation" reflects his refusal to treat meaning as a self-identical substance capable of moving unchanged from one language to another.

Read alongside Saussure, the letter reveals a conception of language grounded in value, difference, and relation. Words do not carry fixed concepts across linguistic borders. They acquire significance through the systems to which they belong. Translation, consequently, is not the transfer of a ready-made meaning but an attempt to negotiate between distinct networks of differences.

Seen from this perspective, Derrida's opening formulation is not merely a cautious preface. It is already the argument of the letter in miniature. Before a translation can be proposed, one must first understand why translation is never simply the transfer of a concept but the negotiation of a value within a new system of relations.

Related Post

Untranslatable Words: Saussure, Derrida, and the Impossibility of Translation

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2025/10/blog-post_22.html

References

Derrida, J. (1985). Letter to a Japanese friend. In D. Wood & R. Bernasconi (Eds.), Derrida and différance (pp. 1–5). Northwestern University Press.

Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1916)