Writing in Deconstruction vs Speech in Structuralism (Jacques Derrida vs Ferdinand de Saussure) Bagiu, Lucian Published in: Transilvania 2009 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Bagiu, L. (2009). Writing in Deconstruction vs Speech in Structuralism (Jacques Derrida vs Ferdinand de Saussure). Transilvania, XXXVII (CXIII)(8), 79-87. http://www.revistatransilvania.ro/nou/ro/anul-editorial- 2009/doc_download/26-numrul-82009.html Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Lucian BÂGIU Universitatea Norvegiană de Ştiinţe şi Tehnologie din Trondheim, Facultatea de Arte The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim, Faculty of Arts Writing in Deconstruction vs Speech in Structuralism (Jacques Derrida vs Ferdinand de Saussure) Writing in Deconstruction “vs” Speech in Structuralism Speech is already in itself a writing. Any concept that is to name, to stay for the abstract or concrete reality is made up of a mental trace. There is always a sleepy-waiting yet ever present trace at the origin of the representation and the naming of any ontological phenomenon. The trace is itself The apriori ontology – and this is how writing is pre-eminent to the later formal verbalization of any already traced concept of any abstract or concrete phenomenon of reality. The trace is the very possibility of the existence. The whole reality is originally “written”, then existing and finally spoken. Keywords: grammatology, linguistics, logocentrism, speech, writing Institution’s address: postal address: N-7491, Trondheim, Norway; visiting address: Departmental office, room 5557 in building 5, level 5 at Dragvoll campus; tel.: + 47 73 59 68 03, fax: + 47 73 59 65 12 Personal e-mail: [email protected] documenting expression is that it makes communications possible without immediate or acques Derrida points out in his second mediate personal address; it is, so to speak, J chapter, Linguistics and Gramma tology, communication become virtual. Through this, the J communalization of man is lifted to a new level. of his 1967, Of Grammatology that speech is a form of writing. To sustain this Written signs are, when considering from a purely apparent paradox he begins with a quotation from J.- corporeal point of view, straightforwardly, sensibly J. Rousseau and ends his argumentation with experience; and it is always possible they be Husserl’s vision. Though much of Derrida’s debate intersubjectively experienceable in common. But as concerns Saussure’s linguistics, his tone is that of a linguistic signs they awaken, as do linguistic sounds, speculative yet charismatic philosopher. Though their familiar significations. The awakening is Derrida might not convince in his linguistic something passive; the awakened signification is thus approach, however he certainly makes the given passively, similarly to the way in which any philosopher within every of its presumed readers other activity which has sunk into obscurity, once think twice. associatively awakened, emerges at first passively as a “Writing is only the representation of speech, it is more or less clear memory. In the passivity in bizarre that more care is given to determining the question here, as in the case of memory, what is image than the object.” (Rousseau 1990: 336). This passively awakened can be transformed back, so to quotation from Rousseau is the starting point for speak, into the corresponding activity: this is the Derrida to demonstrate exactly the opposite, capacity of reactivation that belongs originally to reaching Husserl’s assertion: before being the object every human being as a speaking being. Accordingly, of a science (concerned with language or the whole then, the writing-down effects a transformation of ontology), writing is much more, writing is the very the original mode of being of the meaning structure, apriori condition of the episteme. [e.g.] within the geometrical sphere of self-evidence, “The important function of written, of the geometrical structure which is put into words. 79 >>> / 2009 8 a i n a v l i s n a r T It becomes sedimented, so to speak.” (Husserl, 1989: Derrida emphasizes that Saussure’s definition is 164). fundamentally incomplete since it only applies to a For this Derrida makes war with the idea of certain type of writing: the phonetic writing. Yet, Linguistics as the science of language, revealing the writing – and language in general (thus linguistics false assumption on which it was raised in the first implicitly) – is a function in fact never completely place: the phonological foundations of Linguistics are phonetic. Completely subjective and rather absurd, looked down upon as the original sin of a later Saussure’s highly capricious and preferential structural corruption of the scientific perspective definition of the linguistic object outlaws writing and concerned with language. Derrida states that there is consequently totally ignores it as the episteme: “The a very consolidated tradition of the phonological linguistic object is not the written and the spoken orientation of Linguistics, Troubetzkoy, Jakobson forms of word: the spoken forms alone constitute the and Martinet being the mere perfectionists of object” (Saussure 1974: 23-24). For Saussure the Saussure’s intention, this being the reason for which spoken word is already a combination of sense and Derrida’s deconstruction is applied prevalent to the sound and he imposes a new terminology that applies texts of the later mentioned, as Saussure is considered to the domain of spoken language alone, an essential the initial responsible and most guilty of them all. detail ignored afterwards: “I propose to retain the The phonological perspective states that there is a word sign (signe) to designate the whole and to privileged articulated unity where the significance replace concept and sound-image respectively by and the acts of language are possible: that is the unity signified (signifié) and signifier (signifiant)” (Saussure of sound and sense within the phonic. This is how 1974: 67). Consequently, in Saussure’s vision writing writing came to be thought derivative, accidental, has to be phonetic, writing is the outside dimension, particular, exterior, doubling the phonic aspect of the exterior representation of language and of the language. Aristotle, Rousseau and Hegel considered “thought-sound” unit. The units of significations writing as “sign of a sign”, and for Derrida this means function without any contribution from writing, the “reduction of writing to the rank of an they are preexistent, writing played no part in the instrumental enslaved to a full and originarily spoken process of birth of language, yet it has to operate language” (Derrida 2002: 29). As a reaction to this with spoken language as such. According to Derrida, tremendous injustice and false thinking Derrida writing has the undeserved status of the outcast and proposes nothing less than a new science, called solely the fascination of the original phonetic unit Grammatology, “of which linguistics-phonology Saussure imposed prevented writing from being the would be only a dependent and circumscribed area” rightful protagonist of the “drama” called language. (Derrida 2002: 30). Derrida pays much attention to his approach in For Saussure the essence of language remains arguing the pre-emption of writing. He dismisses forever uncontaminated by writing: “… language such simple syllogisms as: “Most people pay more does have a definite and stable oral tradition that is attention to visual impressions simply because these independent of writing, but the influence of the are sharper and more lasting than aural impressions” written form prevents or seeing this.” (Saussure 1974: (Saussure 1974: 25). For him, such an explanation is 24). However, Saussure is not original in this respect, even dangerous because makes out visibility “the for he only reasserts what Plato and Aristotle stated tangible, simple, and essential element of writing” long time before, according to them writing being (Derrida 2002: 42). This is only one of the paradoxes restricted to the model of phonetic script and the Derrida uses in his study, yet we must note that for language of words. Aristotle’s definition in this him writing does not seems to be what one is respect is the following: “Spoken words are the commonly used to. Moreover, he speculates on an symbols of mental experience and written words are assertion made by Saussure, which could also be the symbols of spoken words” (Aristotle 1990: 25 [1, considered as a paradox: “The thing that constitutes 16a 4-6]). Saussure’s definition is nothing but an language is (…) unrelated to the phonic character of echo: “Language and writing are two distinct systems the linguistic sign” (Saussure 1974: 7). Thus, for of signs; the second exists for the sole purpose of Derrida language is not phonic and writing is not representing the first” (Saussure 1974: 23). We point visible. If language is not phonic (though the out that Aristotle mentions the “mental experience” linguistic sign might be), then writing is not an as the first step of spoken words, a step highly “image” or “figuration” of language, writing is not ignored afterwards and out of which Derrida will sign of a sign.