Linguistics and Grammatology Author(s): Jacques Derrida and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak Source: SubStance, Vol. 4, No.

10 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 127-181 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3683950 Accessed: 07/12/2009 19:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

LINGUISTICS AND GRAMMATOLOGY"

Jacques Derrida

is nothing but the repreWriting sentation it is bizarre of speech; that one gives more care to the of the image than to determining the object. J. J. Rousseau, d'un essai sur inedit Fragment les langues

The concept of writing should of a science. define the field But can it be determined outside of all the historicoby scholars that we have just so situated metaphysical predeterminations What can a science of writing if to signify, clinically? begin it is granted: the very idea of science was born in a certain 1) that epoch of writing; it was thought and formulated, as task, 2) that idea, proin a language a certain kind of structurally and ject, implying and writing; determined between axiologically speech relationship to that extent, to the conit was first related 3) that, of phonetic valorized as the cept and the adventure writing, telos of all writing, even though what was always the exemplary model of scientificity--mathematics--constantly moved away from that goal; of a general the strictest notion science 4) that of writing was born, a certain for non-fortuitous of reasons, during period the world's around the eighteenth and history (beginning century) within a certain determined of relationships between system and inscription; "living" speech *(c) for the English Gayatri Chakravorty version. This Spivak constitutes the second essay of Jacques chapter Derrida's De Za (c) Les Editions de Minuit, Grammatologie. 1967. Professor translation Spivak's of the entire English book is forthcoming. Printed with permission. 127 SUB-STANCE No. 10, 1974

1 "8

Derrida

of science--and ticular pointed the possibility

5) that

writing

jectivity.
the episteme.

Before

its first, possibly object--but out in The Origin of Geometry, of ideal and therefore objects

is not only

an auxiliary

means in the service

as IIusserl the condition of scientific in parof ob-

being

its

object,

writing

is

the condition

of

of 6) that historicity is tied to the possibility itself of writing to the possibility in general, writing; beyond those in the name of which we have long forms of writing particular Before and without history. spoken of peoples without writing an historical science--writing being the object of a history--of And the forof history--of historical becoming. opens the field
mer

look for its object of writing should therefore The science should of writing The history at the roots of scientificity. of the A science turn back toward the origin of historicity. which would A science of the science of science? possibility
no

(Historie

in

German)

presupposes

the

latter

(Geschichte).

of philosophy? or a history of history, the possibility are of writing sciences and the classical The positive this sort of question. to repress point, Up to a certain obliged of positive to the progress is even necessary such repression be held Beside the fact that it would still investigation. the ontophenomenological within a philosophizing question logic, of essence, that is to say of the origin of writing, could, by or historical or sterilize the typological itself, only paralyze research of facts. not to weigh that prejudicial moreover,.is My intention, of and somewhat facile question that dry, necessary, question, researches of the positive the power and efficacy against right, and system of The genesis which we are allowed to witness today. had never led to such profound, extended, and assured exscripts a matter of weighing the question It is not really plorations. are since the questions the importance of the discovery, against If the issue is not quite imponderable, they cannot be weighed. has real consequences that, it is perhaps because its repression case in the present in the very content of the researches that, and in a privileged way, are always arranged around the problems and commencement. of definition himleast of all can avoid questioning The grammatologist of of his object in the form of a question self about the essence means "where and when does writing "What is writing?" origin; come very quickly. The responses They circle generally begin?" and move within evidence which within little-criticized concepts that a It is around these resnonses always seems self-evident. are always on the growth of writing typology of and a perspective of writing are comAll works dealing with the history organized. classiand teleological posed in the same form: a philosophical the critical exhausts fication problems in a few pages; one passes We have a contrast between the of facts. next to an exposition and the historical, of the reconstructions theoretical fragility wealth of information. philological ethnological, archaeological,

longer

have

a logical

but

a grammatical

form?

A history

of

Linguistics

and Grammatology

129

The question of the origin of writing of and the question the origin of language are difficult to separate. Grammatolowho are generally gists, historians, by training epigraphists, and archaeologists, seldom relate to the their researches modern science of language. It is all the more surprising that, of man," linguistics whose is the one science among the "sciences is given as an example with a zealous and insistent scientificity unanimity. Has grammatology, then, the right to expect from linguistics an essential that it has almost never looked for? assistance On at work, in the the contrary, does one not find efficaciously sets itself up as a science, very movement by which linguistics a metaphysical about the relationship between presupposition Would that presupposition not hinder the speech and writing? constitution of a general science of writing? Is not the liftof the landscape an overthrowing ing of that presupposition installed? of language is peacefully For upon which the science better and for worse? For blindness as well as for productivity? This is the second type of question that I now wish to outline. To develop this question, I should like to approach, as a priviand texts of Ferdinand de Saussure. leged example, the project That the particularity of the example does not interfere with the generality of my argument is a point which I shall occasionally try not merely to take for granted. thus wishes to be the science of language. Let Linguistics us set aside all the implicit decisions that have established such a project and all the questions about its own origin that the fecundity of this science Let us allows to remain dormant. first that the scientificity of that science is simply consider often acknowledged because of its phonoZogical foundations. it is often said today, communicates its scientificity Phonology, to linguistics, which in turn serves as the epistemological model for all the sciences of man. Since the deliberate and of linguistics orientation systematic phonological (Troubetskoy, out an intention carries which was originally Jakobson, Martinet) I shall, at least provisionally, confine myself to Saussure's, the latter. Will my argument be equally a fortiori to applicable the most accentuated forms of phonologism? The problem will at least be stated. of linguistics field The science determines language--its of objectivity--in simthe last instance and in the irreducible of its essence, as the unity of the phonZ, the gZossa, plicity and the logos. to all is by rights anterior This determination the possible that arose within the systems of differentiations of the different schools [Zangue/ terminology (language/speech paroZe]; code/message; scheme/usage; linguistic/logic; phonology/ And even if one wished to phonematics/phonetics/glossematics). on side of sensible and the the signikeep sonority contingent fier since formal (which would be strictly speaking impossible, identities isolated within a sensible mass are already idealities that are not purely sensible), it would have to be admitted that and the immediate and privileged unit which founds significance

130

Derrida

the act of language is the articulated of sound and sense unity the phonie. With regard to this within would unity, writing be derivative, accidental, exterior, always particular, doubling the signifier: said Aristotle, "Sign of a sign," phonetic. and Hegel. Rousseau, that the intention as institutes Yet, linguistics general a science remains in this within a contradiction. Its' respect declared indeed what goes without purpose confirms--saying saysubordination of grammatology, the historico-metaphysiing--the cal reduction of writing to the rank of an instrument enslaved to a full But another and originarily spoken gesture language. of purpose, here what does not go without statement (not another is done without written without said, being proffered) saying being of a general of which linguisliberates the future grammatology area. would be only a dependent and circumscribed tics-phonology in and statement Let us follow this tension between gesture Saussure. The Outside and the Inside

On the one hand, true to the occidental tradition that connot only in theory trols but in practice (in the principle of its the relationships between and writing, Saussure speech practice) does not recognize in the latter more than a narrow and derivative Narrow because it is nothing but one modality function. among a language a modality of the events which can befall others, unas the facts whose essence, seem to show, can remain forever and does have a definite contaminated "Language by writing. of writing" oral tradition is independent that stable (Cours de Derivative because p. 46) representative: generale, linguistique of the selfof the first signifier representation signifie'r, of the immediate, and direct natural, voice, significapresent of the ideal of the meaning of the concept, tion (of the signified, definor what have you). Saussure takes object up the traditional in Plato and Aristotle, was restricted of writing ition which, already of words. Let us and the language to the model of phonetic script definition: recall the Aristotelian "Spoken words are the symbols words are the symbols of spoken of menta and written experience words." and writing are two distinct Saussure: sys"Language the second tems of signs; exists of reprefor the sole purpose 23]. This reprethe first." mine)[p. (p. 45; italics senting with sentative beside determination, essentially communicating or an evaluation, a choice the idea of the sign, does not translate a psychological or metaphysical does not betray presupposition it describes the strucreflects to Saussure; or rather peculiar ture of a certain which we use, script, type of script: phonetic in general of which the episteme and within the principles (science could be founded. and philosophy), in particular, and linguistics than structure; it is not a question One should say model rather but of an ideal and functioning of a system constructed perfectly is never which in fact a functioning completely directing explicitly of essence to which I shall for reasons but also In fact, phonetic. return. frequently

Linguistics

and Grammatology

131

To be sure this factum of phonetic it is massive; writing commands our entire and our entire and it is culture science, not just one fact it does Nevertheless certainly among others. not respond to any necessity of an absolute and universal essence. this as a point of departure, Saussure defines the project Using and object of general "The linguistic is linguistics: object not both the written and the spoken the spoken forms of words; constitutes the object" mine) form alone Ep. 23-243. (p. 45; italics thus entailed The form of the question to which he responded of word is of knowing what sort the response. It was a matter the object of linguistics between and what the relationships the Now atomic and the spoken word are. unities that are written the word (vox) is already a unity of sense of concept and sound, and voice, of Saussurian or, to speak a more rigorously language, the signified and the signifier. This last was terminology moreover in the domain of spoken first alone, proposed language of linguistics in the narrow sense, and not in the domain of to retain to desigthe word sign ("I propose semiology Csignel nate the whole and sound-image and to replace respecconcept and signifier tively by signified Esignifig] Csignifiant]" a constituted The word is thus already p. 99 cp. 673). unity, an effect of "the somewhat mysterious . . . that fact 'thoughtsound' division" 1123. Even if the word is implies (p. 156)Ep. in its turn articulated, as even if it implies other divisions, the question of relationships between long as one poses speech and writing in the light of the indivisible units of the "thoughtthere will be the ready response. will sound," always Writing be "phonetic," it will be the outside, the exterior representation of language and of this It must necessarily "thought-sound." from already constituted of signification, units in the operate formation of which it has played no part. the objection will be made that writing Perhaps up to the has not only not contradicted, but indeed confirmed,the present of the word. I seem to have maintained Hitherto that linguistics of the unit called word has prevented only the fascination giving to writing the attention I seemed to that it merited. By that to accord to the an absolute that, suppose by ceasing privilege would become that much more attentive word, modern linguistics to writing and would finally to regard it with suspicion. cease Andre Martinet comes to the opposite In his study conclusion. "The Word," he describes the necessity that linguiscontemporary tics with the if not to dispense obeys when it is led, everywhere of the word, at least to make its concept usage more flexible, to associate it with the concepts units of smaller or greater In accrediting and consolidating the (monemes or syntagms). division of language into words in certain areas of linguistics, would thus have encouraged classical in its writing linguistics would have constructed or at least condensed prejudices. Writing the "screen of the word." What a contemporary well illustrates to structural research can say about the word linguist the functionaZ what extent and thirty-five of the last years

132

Derrida

has had to revise traditional to in order concepts foundations for the observation lay the scientific and description Certain of language. applications such as the research to of linguistics, applying mechanical which translation, by the emphasis they on the written form of the language place might seem to lend importance in the written to spaces text and it is from speech lead us to forget that one should start in order to understand the real nature always Thus more than ever it is indisof hunan language. to insist on the necessity the pensable of pushing eramination the immediate and beyond appearances the structures most familiar to the researcher. beyond The fundamental traits are often of hunan language to be found behind the screen of words. One cannot but subscribe to this caution. Yet it must be recognized that it throws only on a certain always suspicion to the empirically type of writing: phonetic writing conforming determined and practiced of ordinary divisions oral language. The processes of mechanical to which it alludes translation conform to that similarly practice. spontaneous Beyond that model and that of writing, this entire demonstration must, concept it seems, be reconsidered. For it remains in the Saussurian trapped limitation that we are attempting to explore. In effect Saussure limits the number of systems of writing to two, both defined as systems of representation of the oral and global either words in a synthetic language, representing the elements or representing of sounds manner, phonetically words: constituting There are only two systems 1) In an of writing: each word is represented ideographic system by a that is unrelated to the sounds sign of the single word itself. Each written stands sign for a whole word and, consequently, for the idea expressed by the word. The classic of an ideographic example o f writing is Chinese. 2) The system commonly system known as "phonetic" to reproduce the succession tries that make up a word. are Phonetic of sounds systems sometimes based sometimes i.e., syllabic, alphabetic, on the irreducible Moreelements used in speaking. becone mixtures over, freely ideographic systems when certain idecqrans lose their value and original become symbols sounds. 25-26] of isolated (p. 47)Ep. This limitation is fundamentally in Saussure's justified, of the arbitrariness of the sign. eyes, by the notion Writing as "a system of signs," is no "symbolic" defined there being no figurative there (in the Saussurian sense), writing writing; of natural a relationship is no writing as long as graphism keeps but to what is not signified and of some resemblance figuration of pictographic or natural The concept etc. drawn, represented,

133

Linguistics

and Grammatology

If be contradictory would therefore for Saussure. writing of one considers the now-recognized of the notions fragility and the uncertainty of the frontiers etc;, pictogram, ideogram, between so-called and phonetic scripts, ideographic, pictographic, limitaone measures not only the imprudence of the Saussurian tion but the need for general to abandon an entire linguistics of concepts, inherited from metaphysics--often through family around the the intermediary of a psychology--and clustering of arbitrariness. All this refers, beyond the nature/ concept culture to a supervening between opposition, opposition physis is perand nomos, function and techng, whose ultimate physis not to recognize haps to derive and, paradoxically, historicity; the rights of history, institutions etc;, except production, under the form of the arbitrary and on a base of naturalism. But let us keep that question this perhaps provisionally open: inis also over metaphysics, which in truth gesture, presides of in the concept scribed of history and even in the concept time. In addition, Saussure limitaintroduces another massive "I shall tion: limit discussion to the phonetic and system to the one used today, the system that stems from especially the Greek alphabet" 263. (p. 48)Cp. These two limitations are all because the more reassuring to what we need at a specific to respond they are just point the most legitimate for of exigencies; in fact, the condition of linguistics is that the field of linguistics scientificity it be a system that have hard and fast frontiers, regulated strucand that in a certain way its by an internal necessity, of writing facilThe representativist ture be closed. concept If writing is nothing but the "figuration" itates (p. things. it to exclude one has the right 23] of the language, 44)cp. from the interiority of the system (for it must be believed that there is an inside of the language), as the image may be of reality. excluded without damage from the system Proposing as his theme "the representation of language by writing" is "unrelated Saussure thus begins that writing by positing 233. to Ethel . . . inner of language system" (p. 44)Cp. such External/internal, image/reality, representation/presence, the is the old grid to which is given the task of outlining that Of a science domain of a science. And of what science? can no longer answer to the classical of the episteme concept it because the originality that of its field--an originality it that the opening of the "image" within inaugurates--is can that of "reality;" a relationship as the condition appears and the undifference no longer be thought within the simple of "outside" and "reality," of "image" exteriority compromising with the entire and "inside," of "appearance" and "essence," from it. of oppositions which necessarily Plato, follows system between about the relationship who said basically the same thing a more subtle, and being had at least (or idea), writing, speech, of image, and less more critical, theory painting, complacent of over the birth than the one that presides and imitation Saussurian linguistics.

134

Derrida

of It is not by chance that the exclusive consideration a response of the to the exigencies writing phonetic permits The basic functional of phonetic "internal system." principle of the and protect to respect the integrity is precisely writing it does not of the language, even if in fact "internal system" in doing The Saussurian does not respond, succeed so. limitation to the scientific of the exigency by a mere happy convenience, is itself as the That exigency "internal constituted, system." in general, of by the very possibility epistemological exigency to and by the exteriority writing of the "notation" phonetic internal logic. too is not on that point Saussure But let us not simplify: to would he give so much attention Why else quite complacent. that exiled that that external outside, figuration, phenomenon, "to simply it impossible that double? disregard" Why does he judge of"3 what is nevertheless "make abstraction Eliterally designated of language? to the inside even with respect as the abstract thozuh Writing, used continually disregard simply its usefulness, cp. 233. inner is to its unrelated system, We cannot to represent language. with We must be acquainted it. and dangers (p. 44) shortcomings,

that one attributes would thus have the exteriority Writing and a dangerous, tool to what is even an imperfect to utensils; better One understands almost why, instead maleficent, technique. or marginally, of treating in an appendix exterior this figuration at the opento it nearly so laborious a chapter Saussure devotes a question of outlining than of It is less ing of the Cours . of the the internal and even of restoring system protecting, most of its the gravest, in the purity concept language against to which has not ceased contamination most permanent perfidious, of what Saussure in the course that even to corrupt menace, system, as an to consider in spite of all wishes, opposition, strongly the language of accidents as a series external affecting history, at the moment of "notation" and befalling it from without, (p. 45) in Already began and ended with notation. cp. 243, as if writing of writing is seen as coming from without the Phaedrus, the evil of or the threat the fact The contamination (275a). by writing, or preacher of the moralist are denounced in the accents by it, at the it is as if, The tone counts; the linguist from Geneva. its would come into of the logos moment when the modern science to it became necessary and its again scientificity, autonomy heard when, at a heresy. attack This tone began to make itself the within and the logos the episteme the moment of already tying same possibility, the Phaedrus as the intrusion denounced writing a forced of a totally of an artful sort, original entry technique, a of the outside assault an archetypal violence; upon the inside, of the soul, the living the interiority into self-presence breaking to lends the help that of the soul within the true speech logos, aims at vehement Saussure's itself. Thus incensed, argumentation at a sort more than a moral fault: more than a theoretical error,

Linguistics

and Grammatology 135

of stain and primarily often-at a sin. Sin has been defined and by Kant--as of the inversion among others by Malebranche the natural between the soul and the body through relationship Saussure at the inversion of the natural here points passion. between and writing. It is not a simple relationship speech the letter, has the sensible analogy: writing, inscription, as the body and been considered tradition always by occidental matter and to the to the spirit, to breath, external to speech, And the problem of soul and body is no doubt derived logos. from the problem of writing to which it seems--conversely--to lend its metaphors. sensible matter and artificial a Writing, exteriority: It has sometimes been contested that speech clothed "clothing." Lavelle have all questioned it. But thought. Husserl, Saussure, has it ever been doubted that writing was the clothing of speech? For Saussure it is even a garment of perversion and debaucherie, a dress of corruption and disguise, a festival mask that must be exorcised, that is to say warded off, by the good word: obscures it is not a guise for language but "Writing language; a disguise" 301. One already sus(p. 51)Ep. Strange "image." if writing that is "image" and exterior pects "figuration," this is not innocent. bears The outside with "representation" the inside a relationship that as usual, but simple is, anything The meaning of the outside was always within exteriority. present the inside, outside the outside, and vice versa. imprisoned Thus a science of language must recover the natural,-that the simple and original--relationships between is, speech and writing, that between an inside and an outside. It must is, restore its absolute and the purity of its before youth, origin, a history and a fall which has perverted the relationships between outside and inside. Therefore there would be a natural of relationships order between and graphic linguistic signs, and it is the theoretician of the arbitrariness of the sign who reminds us of it. to the historico-metaphysical According preevoked there would be first a natural bond suppositions above, of sense to the senses to that passes from sense and it is this sound: "the only true bond," Saussure "the bond of sound" says, This natural bond from the signified (p. 46) p. 253. (concept or sense) to the phonic the natural would condition signifier to speech. relationship (visible writing image) subordinating It is this natural that has been inverted relationship by the original sin of script: "The graphic form Cimag e manages to force itself them at the the expense of sound . . .and upon natural is reversed" 253. Malebranche sequence (p. 47)[p. sin as inattention, of ease the temptation explained original and idleness, that was Adam's "distraction," by that nothing alone before the innocence of the divine the word: culpable latter exerted no force, no efficacy, had taken since nothing Here too, one gave in to ease, but which is curiously, place. as usual, on the side of technical and not within the artifice inclination of the natural or deviated: movement thus thwarted First, the graphic form Cimage] of words strikes

136

Derrida

us as being son ething and stable, better pernanent suited than sound to account for the unity of language time. Though it creates a purely fictitious throughout the superficial bond of writing is m uch easier unity, to grasp than the only true Enaturel] the bond bond, 253. of sound (p. 46; italics mine)cp. form of words strikes That "the graphic us as being something and stable, better suited than sound to account for the permanent of language is that not a natural unity time," throughout phenomenon too? a bad nature, In fact and "fictitious" "superficial" a good nature and "easy," effaces that which ties by imposture; sense to sound, to the tradition the "thought-sound." Fidelity of the with the fatal violence that has always associated writing as with Rousseau It is clearly a matter, institution. political that was for example, of a rupture with nature, of a usurpation of to the natural essence blindness with the theoretical coupled bond between the "instituted at any rate to the natural language, of voice and "the first of man," the "cry of nature" signs" language "But the spoken word is so intimately Saussure: Discourse). (Second to usurp the bound to its written image that the latter manages Rousseau: 243. is main role" "Script (p. 45; italics mine)cp. that one of speech; it is bizarre but the representation nothing more care to the determining of the image than to the object." gives a certain letter must be pronounced Saussure: "Whoever says that a certain the written image of a sound for the way is mistaking . . . . Ebizarrerie] One] attributeEs] the oddity sound itself 30] . What is intolerto an exceptional (p. 52)Cp. pronunciation" is indeed the intimacy able and fascinating image and intertwining invertto the point where by a mirroring, thing, graph and phone, turn the speculum seems in its and perverting effect, speech ing, to usurp the main role." of writing, which "manages Representato the point where one with what it represents, tion mingles were as if the represented as one writes, one thinks speaks A of the representer. more than the shadow or reflection nothing the between and a nefarious complicity promiscuity dangerous narbe seduced itself which lets and the reflected reflection, of orithe noint In this play of representation, cissistically. like There are things reflecting pools, gin becomes ungraspable. but no from one to the other, reference an infinite and images, a simple a spring. There is no longer a source, origin. longer and not only as an addiis split'in For what is reflected itself the The reflection, the image, of its to itself tion image. of the speculation The origin what it doubles. double, splits is not one; and a difference. What can look at itself becomes to its of the origin the law of the addition representation,-of three. one makes at least that one plus the thing to its image,-is the that install and theoretical The historical oddity usurpation as the forgettinr are determined of reality the rights image within The disfor Saussure. but also of a simple By Rousseau origin. foris that people "The result is hardly anagrammatic: placement and the to write to speak before they learn get that they learn of 25]. The violence is reversed" natural (p. 47)Cp. sequence

Linguistics

and Grammatology

137

a mnemotechnic means, good forgetting. Writing, supplanting It is memory, spontaneous memory, signifies forgetfulness. what Plato said in the Phaedrus, to exactly comparing writing as hypomnesis to mneme, the auxiliary aide-memoire to speech the living because and it is a mediation memory. Forgetfulness the departure of the logos from itself. Without the writing, latter would remain in itself. is the dissimulation of Writing the natural, and immediate of sense to the primary, presence soul within the logos. Its violence befalls as unconthe soul sciousness. this tradition will not consist of Deconstructing of making writing Rather of showing innocent. it, reversing of writing an innocent does not befall why the violence language. There is an originary of writing is violence because language in a sense to be revealed first, writing. progressively, has always of the right The sense "Usurpation" begun. already side in a mythological effect of return. appears and the arts" "The sciences have elected to live within this their has consecrated and violence, "progress" forgetfulness manners Saussure Cmoeurs3." "corrupted again anagrammatizes Rousseau: "The literary adds to the undeserved language impor. . . . tance of writing Thus writing assumes undeserved importance C ne importance a laquelle elle n'a pas droit]" (p. 47) When linguists become embroiled in a theoretical misCp. 253. take in this when they are taken area, in, they are culpable, their fault is above all moral; to imagination, they have yielded to sensibility, to passion, into the "trap" they have fallen (p. have let themselves be fascinated 46) Cp. 25] of writing, by the "influence of the written form" (ibid), of that stable [prestiqe] that second nature. "Thus language does have a definite custom, and stable oral tradition that is independent of writing, but the influence of the written our seeing form prevents Eprestige3 We are thus not blind this." to the visible, but blinded by the "The first confused dazzled visible, by writing. linguists and writing, as the humanists them. had done before language just Even Bopp . . . . His immediate into fell successors the same had already Rousseau to the the same reproach addressed trap." Grammarians: "For the Grammarians, the art of speech seems to be very little more than the art of writing." the As usual, is artifice in nature. dissimulated This explains "trap" why The Course in General this treats strange first Linguistics external to rethat is writing. As necessary system preamble to itself, the the natural one must first disassemble storing We read a little on: further trap. To substitute what is natural for what immediately is artificial would be desirable; is imbut this the sounds without possible first of what studying is language; sounds from their apart graphic symbols, are only vague notions, and the prop provided by is still writing, though deceptive, preferable. The first who knew nothing about the linguists, were constantly sounds, of articulated physiology into a trap; [to them, loosening their falling grip

138

Derrida

on the a first ing of

letter to me, meant losing ground;] in the direction of truth step (p. the chapter on Phonology) Ep. 32]

it means 55. Open-

For Saussure, in to the "prestige to give of the written form" is, as I have just It is to give in to passion. said, I weigh my word--that and critiSaussure passion--and analyzes cizes as a moralist and a psychologist of a very old here, tradition. As one knows, is tyrannical and enslaving: passion criticism is still on one point: it deficient "Philological follows the written and neglects the living language slavishly of writing," Saussure "The tyranny (p. 14) cp. 1-2]. language" the That tyranny is at bottom says elsewhere (p. 53) Cp. 313. and a of the body over the soul, is a passibity mastery passion The of the soul, moral perversion is pathological. sickness on speech of writing is "wrong [vicieusel," effect reciprocal are really "such mistakes Saussure (p. 53) pathological" says, would thus The inversion of the natural relationships Ep. 31]. of the letter-image: sin of have engendered the perverse cult for the letter," Saussure says in the idolatry,4"superstition in proving of where he has difficulty the existence Anagrams, a "phoneme anterior of artifice to all writing." The perversion one all artificial monsters. like Writing, engenders languages would wish to fix and remove from the living of the natural history It is a deviation in this monstrousness: language, participates from nature. of the Leibnizian The characteristic type and Esperanto would be here in the same position. irritation Saussure's "A with such possibilities drives him to pedestrian comparisons: man proposing a fixed that posterity would have to accept language for what it is would be like a hen hatching a duck's egg" (p. 111) And Saussure to save not only the natural wishes life cp. 763. life of language, of writing. but the natural habits Spontaneous of scientific must be protected. the introduction Thus, exigencies must into and the taste for exactitude ordinary writing phonetic In this would bring desolabe avoided. case, death, rationality must be That is why common orthography and monstrousness. tion, of the linguist, and the multiplying kept away from the notations must be avoided: of diacritical signs Are there a phonologic for substituting grounds in use? Here I can for a system already alphabet I think this that subject. interesting only broach be for the use of should writing phonological how would it be possible First, only. linguists to make the English, etc. Germans, French, adopt a uniform an alphabet Next, system! applicable would probably be weighed to all down languages and--to marks; of the say nothing by diacritical of a page of phonological distressing appearance to gain precision would obviously writing--attempts the reader what the writing confuse by obscuring to express. The advantages would not was designed be sufficient to compensate for the inconveniences.

Linguistics

and Grammatology

1 139

exactitude Phonological outside science (p. 57)

is not very Cp. 343

desirable

I hope my intention I think is clear. Saussure's reasons are good. I do not question, on the level on which he says it, the truth of what Saussure in such a tone. And as long says as an explicit a critique of the relationships problematics, between and writing, is not elaborated, what he denounces speech as the blind of classical or common experience prejudice linguists indeed a blind remains on the basis of a general prejudice, which is no doubt common to the accused and the presupposition prosecutor. I would rather announce the limits and the presuppositions of what seems here to be self-evident and what seems to me to retain the character and validity of evidence. The limits have of general already begun to appear: Why does a project linguisthe internal in general in tics, concerning of language system outline the limits of its field as general, by excluding, a particular in general, of writing, exteriority system howeyer it might be, even were it to be in fact universal? important A particular which has for or its system precisely principle at least for its declared to be exterior to the spoken project of principle, Declaration wish and historical language. pious violence of a speech its full dreaming self-presence, living itself as its own resumption; autoself-proclaimed language, of a speech declared Socrates production alive; said, capable, of helping a logos which believes itself to be its own itself, lifted thus above written infans and father, being discourse, infirm at not being able to respond when one questions it and since its is [always] needed" which, "parent ( Tou axTp6q &ec 6eLTTL --Phaedrus be born out of a 275d) must therefore Po-qou it to wanderprimary gap and a primary expatriation, condemning to mourning. but ing and blindness, Self-proclaimed language deluded into believing itself speech, actually alive, completely and violent "for . . . Cit] cannot or defend Citself3" protect the other ) except (6uvcaT6q pBv acivxi txur&t through expelling and especially its own other, it outside and below, throwing under the name of writing. But however it might be, important and were it in fact universal or called upon to become so, that model which is phonetic no does not exist; particular writing is ever totally faithful to its Even before practice principle. as I shall do further and a priori on, of a radical speaking, one can already remark its massive necessary infidelity, phenomena in mathematical or in punctuation, in spacing in script which it is difficult to consider as accessories general, simply of writing. That a speech alive can lend itself to supposedly in its own writing is what puts it originarily in relaspacing tion to its own death. the "usurpation" of which Saussure the Finally, speaks, violence would substitute for its itself own by which writing for that which ought not only to have engendered it but origin, to have been engendered from itself,--such a reversal of power cannot be an accidental aberration. Usurpation necessarily

1 40

^o~~140

~Derrida

refers us to a profound of essence. This is without possibility a doubt inscribed itself within have quesand he should speech tioned even started from it. it, perhaps the system of the spoken with Saussure confronts language the system of phonetic as with (and even alphabetic) writing the telos of writing. This teleology to the interpretaleads of the non-phonetic as tion of all within writing eruptions and accident to of passage, and it is right crisis transitory a preconsider to be an Occidental this ethnocentrism, teleology Even and a preformalist mathematical intuitionism. primitivism, if this it should to some absolute teleology responds necessity, invites be problematized as such. The scandal of "usurpation" How was the trap and us expressly and intrinsically to do that. never to this Saussure the usurpation replies question possible? a a psychology of the passions or of the imagination; beyond This best to its most conventional schemata. reduced psychology a determined semiolinside sector linguistics, why all explains of psychology: is placed under the authority'and supervision ogy, "To determine the exact of semiology is the task of the place The affirmation of the essential (p. 33) Cp. 163. psychologist" and "natural" the privilege bond between the phone and the sense, to an order the major accorded of signifier then becomes (which and in conof all other signified depend expressly, signifiers) of the Saussurian levels to the other tradiction discourse, upon and of intuitive consciousness. of consciousness a psychology here is the essential does not question What Saussure possibility non-inthis of non-intuition. determines Saussure Like Husserl, of the The empty symbolism as crsiis. tuition teleologically also for example--is written mathematical notation--in technique for Husserlian us far from the intuitionism that which exiles that is to say from the full evidence of the sense, clear presence of the signified in its and thus opens the possibitruth, Nevera crisis of crisis. This is indeed of the logos. lity with the for Husserr, this linked remains theless, possibility and the production of Bdeal objectivity: of truth very movement it has in fact an essential need for writing. By one entire of his text, Husserl makes us think the negativity that aspect But it is then the concept of the crisis is not a mere accident. it to of crisis of what ties that should be suspect, by virtue a dialectical of negativity. and teleological determination and the for the "usurpation" to account On the other hand, and very superficial the classical of "passion," argument origin of the written not to be simply of the solid thing, permanence no longer which are precisely calls forth false, descriptions be will never of psychology. the province within Psychology the within its that which constitutes able to accommodate space of the to say nothing of the absence of the signatory, absence two absences. is the name of these referent. Besides, Writing about the affirmed is it not contradictory to what is elsewhere more] "a definite and [far of language tradition oral having of writing" is indendeedent tradition that stable oral (p. 46) the usurpation by means of writing's power [p. 241, to explain of of the substance of duration, by means of the durabilZity

Linguistics

and Grammatology

141

If these two "stabilities" were of the same nature and writing? if the stability of the spoken and indewere superior language of writing, its the origin and its pendent, supposed "prestige' would remain an inexplicable harmfulness It seems then mystery. as if Saussure wishes the corrupat the same time to demonstrate tion of speech to denounce the harm that the latter by writing, does to the former, and natural the inalterable and to underline of language. are independent of writing" independence "Languages is Such is the truth of nature. And yet nature (p. 45) Ep. 24]. an overturning it in affected--from which modifies without--by its from and obliges it to be separated denatures it, interior, naturitself. Nature itself, denaturing from itself, separating a its into outside its is catastrophe, inside, ally gathering or monstrosity, a natural natural event that overthrows nature, deviation nature. The function assumed in Rousseau's within discourse is here delegated (as we shall see), by the catastrophe to monstrousness. of Chapter Let us cite the entire conclusion VI of the Course which of Language"), ("Graphic Representation must be compared to Rousseau's text on Pronunciation: But the tyranny of writing goes even further. itself By imposing upon the masses, spelling This happens and modifies influences language. where written only in highly literary languages texts role. Then visual play an important such mistakes lead to wrong pronunciations; images are really cause Spelling pathological. practices in the pronunciation mistakes of many French words. For instance, there were two spellings for the surname one popular and simple, faber), Lefevre (from latin Lefevre and learned the other and etymological: in Lefebvre. v and u were not kept avart Because Lefebvre the old system was read as of writing, with a b that has never existed Lefebure, really and a u that was the result Now, the of ambiguity. latter form is actually Ep. 31]. (p. 53-54) pronounced Where is the evil? And what has been invested in the "living that such "aggressions" of writing are insupportable? What word," the constant of writing investment action by determining begins and an aggression? as a deformation What prohibition has thus been transgressed? Where is the sacrilige? the Why should of writing? be protected from the operation mother tongue Why as a violence, the transdetermine that and why should operation formation be only a deformation? the mother-tongue Why should its not have a history, or, what comes to the same thing, produce and domestic own history in a perfectly natural, autistic, way, without ever affected Why wish to punish being by any outside? to reserve for a monstrous of wanting to the point crime, writing for it, even within a "special scientific comparttreatments, ment" that holds within a it at a distance? For it is indeed wants sort of intra-linguistic that Saussure to conleper-colony tain of deformations and concentrate the problem writing. through

142

Derrida

that he wrould take the innocent to be convinced And, in order all Lefeasked very ill--for after that we have just questions us read this bure is not a bad name and we can enjoy play--let to us that the "play" The passage below explains the following. are pessimistic: and its accents is not "natural", "Mispronunciand will due to spelling ations appear more frequently probably as time goes on, the number of letters by speakers pronounced the in the same context, As in Rousseau will increase." probably in the 't' "Some Parisians is accused: pronounce already Capital The historical women'." Strange example. femmes 'seven sept it is indeed that one must stop in order history separation--for to protect from writing--will only widen: language Darmsteter two the day when even the last foresees will be pronounced--truly letters of vingt 'twenty' deformaSuch phonic an orthographic monstrosity. bzt do not stem from its tions to language belong natural functioning. They are due to an external a should put them into influence. Linguistics for observation: they are compartment special cases mine) (p. 54; italics cp. 31-32]. teratological and of fixity, the concepts It is clear that permanence, between the relationships which here assist thinking duration, inuncritical are too lax and open to every and writing, speech and minute more attentive vestiture. analyThey would require to which to an explanation The same is applicable ses. according beto visual "most people simply impressions pay more attention than aural and more lasting are sharper impressions" cause these is not only of "usurpation" This explanation (p. 46) Cp. 251. it rein its it is problematic in its content, form, empirical faculof sensory and to an old physiology to a metaphysics fers of as by the experience ties by science, disproved constantly It imprudently as language. and of the body proper language element and essential the tangible, makes of visibility simple, as the natural the audible in considering Above all, of writing. and articumust naturally which language within milieu fragment its thus exercising its instituted late arbitrariness, signs, relaof some natural all possibility excludes this explanation it at the very moment that and writing between speech tionship of the notions of deliberately it. Instead affirms dismissing to be which ought it constantly that nature and institution uses, and most imporIt finally the two. it thus confuses done first, to which affirmation the capital contradicts according tantly is de la langue] Cl'essentie constitues that "the thing language of the linguistic character . . .unrelated to the phonic sign" it will soon occupy This affirmation us; within Cp. 7]. (p. 21) the of the Saussurian the other side denouncing proposition comes to the fore. of script" "illusions First and presuppositions limits What do these signify? outits as long as it defines is not general a linguistics that as long in terms of determined models; side and inside linguistic in their from fact essence as it does not rigorously distinguish

Linguistics

and Grammatology

143

of generality. The system of writing in genrespective degrees eral is not exterior to the system of language in general, unless it is granted that the division between exterior and interior the interior of the interior or the exterior of passes through the exterior, to the point where the immanence of language is to the intervention of forces that are essentially exposed alien to its For the same reason, apparently system. writing in general is not "image" or "figuration" of language in general, if the nature, the logic, and the functioning of the image except within the system from which one wishes to exclude it be reconsidered. is not a sign of a sign, if one Writing says except it of all which would be more profoundly If all true. signs, refer to one sign, and if "sign of a sign" writsigns signifies certain I shall conclusions--which at the approconsider ing, moment--will become inevitable. What Saussure saw without priate knew without to realize, able in that the seeing, being following entire a certain is that model of writing tradition, metaphysical was necessarily but provisionally (but for the inaccuracy imposed in principle, of fact, and the permanent insufficiency usurpation) as instrument and technique of representation of a system of And that this in style, was so prolanguage. movement, unique found that it permitted the thinking, of conwithin language, of the sign, like those cepts langutechnique, representation, The system of language associated with phonetic-alphabetic age. is that within which writing logocentric determining metaphysics, the sense of being as presence, has been produced. This logothis has always in centrism, epoch of the full speech, placed and suppressed for essential all parenthesis, reasons, suspended, tree reflection on the origin and status of writing, all science of writing which was not technology and the history of a techniitself and a metaphor of a natural upon a mythology que, leaning It is this the internal writing. logocentrism which, limiting of language in general system by a bad abstraction, prevents Saussure and the majority of his successors from determining and that is which called and con"the fully explicitly integral crete of linguistics" object (p. 23) Cp.73. But conversely, as I announced it is when he is not above, with writing, when he feels he has closed the expressly dealing on that that Saussure of a parentheses subject, opens the field Which will not only no longer be excluded general grammatology. from general but will dominate it and will contain linguistics, it within What was chased itself. off limits, outthe wandering cast of linguistics, has indeed never ceased to haunt language as its primary and most intimate which Something possibility. was never and which is nothing other than writing itself spoken, as the origin of language writes itself within Saussure's discourse. We glimnse the germ of a profound but indirect explanation of usurpation and of the traps condemned VI. in Chapter This explanation will overthrow even the form of the question to which it was a premature reply.

144

~~~~144 ~Derrida

The Outside

the Inside

of the arbitrariness The thesis of the sign (so grossly misanmed, and not only for the reasons Saussure himself recognizes)8 must forbid a radical distinction between the linguistic and the No doubt this thesis concerns only the necessity graphic sign. of relationships between specific and signifieds withsignifiers in an allegedly natural between the voice and sense relationship in general, between the order of phonic signifiers and the content of the signifieds ("the only true bond, the bond of sound"). and signibetween specific Only these relationships signifiers fieds would be regulated Within the "natural" by arbitrariness. between phonic signifiers and their signifieds in relationship the relationship and between each determined signifier general, its determined signified would be "arbitrary." Now from the moment that one considers of dethe totality termined signs, as unmotivated written, spoken, and, a fortiori, suborone must exclude any-relationship of natural institutions, or orders of dination, any natural hierarchy, among signifiers If "writing" and especially signifiers. signifies inscription the durable institution of a sign (and that is the only irreducible kernel of the concept of writing), in general covers writing a certain of linguistic In that field the entire field signs. sort of instituted signifiers may then appear, "graphic" in the narrow and derivative sense of the word, ordered by a certain even if they with other instituted--hence "written," relationship The very idea of institution--hence of are "phonic"--signifiers. before the possiof the sign--is unthinkable the arbitrariness and outside of its horizon. that of writing Quite simply, bility outside the world as space of of the horizon itself, is, outside and the spatial disas the opening to the emission inscription, to the regulated of signs, tribution play of their differences, even if they are "phonic." of nature and in using this opposition Let us now persist a of physis and nomos (which also means, of course, institution, in fact by law) which a and division, distribution regulated should disturb meditation on writing everyalthough it functions of linguisin the discourse where as self-evident, particularly those tics. We must conclude that only the signs called natural, as gramthat Hegel and Saussure call "symbols," escape semiology of linguisthe field outside But they fall a fortiori matology. of the arThe thesis tics as the region of general semiology. contests but irrevocably of the sign thus indirectly bitrariness to the outer declared intention when he chases writing Saussure's accounts for a This thesis darkness of language. successfully between the phoneme and the grapheme conventional relationship between the phoneme, signifier-signified, (in phonetic writing, but by the same token it forand the grapheme, pure signifier) Now it was inbids that the latter be an "image" of the former. of writing as "external to the exclusion system," dispensable or a "figthat it come to impose an "image," a "representation," of language. of the reality reflection an exterior uration,"

Linguistics

and Grammatology

145

It matters here at least, that is in fact an little, there filiation of the alphabet. This important ideographic question is much debated of writing. What matters here is by historians that in the synchronic structure and systematic of alprinciple in general--no relationphabetic writing--and phonetic writing none of resemblance or particiship of "natural" representation, no "symbolic" in the Hegelian-Saussurian pation, relationship no "iconographic" in the Peircian be sense, sense, relationship implied. One must therefore in the very name of the arbichallenge, trariness of the sign, the Saussurian of writing as definition as natural Unless the pho"image"--hence symbol--of language. neme is the unimaginable and no visibility can resemble itself, it suffices to take into account what Saussure it, says about the difference between the symbol and the sign (p. 101) Cp. 68-691 in order to be completely baffled as to how he can at the same time say of writing that it is an "image" or "figuration" of and define and writing as "two diselsewhere language language tinct of signs" of For the property systems (p. 45) Ep. 23]. the sign is not to be an image. that also By a process engaged Freud in The Interpretation Saussure thus accumulates of Dreams, to bring about a satisfactory decision: contradictory arguments the exclusion of writing. In fact, even within so-called phonetic the "graphic" refers to the phoneme writing, signifier a web of many dimensions which binds like all it, through sigto other written a "total" and oral within nifiers, signifiers, let us say, to all possible investments of sense. system open, We must begin with the possibility of that total system. Saussure was never able to think was that writing quite a "figuration," an "image," of the spoa "representation" truly ken language, a symbol. If one considers that he nonetheless needed notions these to decide inadequate upon the exteriority of writing, one must conclude that an entire of his disstratum of Chapter VI ("Graphic of the intention course, Representation was not at all When I say this, scientific. Language"), my is not primarily Ferdinard de Saussure's intention or quarry the entire which he but rather uncritical tradition motivation, inherits. To what zone of discourse does this functionstrange this coherence of desire ing of argumentation belong, producing itself in a near-oneiric the dream it clarifies way--although to be clarified a conrather than allow itself by it--through How is this with all articulated tradictory logic? functioning of science? of theoretical the history discourse, throughout of science how does it shape from within Better the concept yet, it is itself? It is only when this is elaborated--if question are some day--,when the concepts required by this functioning of man), of all psychology sciences defined outside (as of all or "structuralist"); can now be "Marxist" outside (which metaphysics and when one is able to respect all its levels of generality be able to pose is only then that one will articulation,--it of a text of the articulated the probelm allegiance rigorously to a whole: I obviously the or otherwise) treat (theoretical a telling text at the moment only as an index, Saussurian example

146

Derrida

a given within without to use the concepts situation, professing I have just of which required by the functioning My spoken. would be as follows: this and some other indices justification a the of treatment the concept of writing) al(in way general means of broaching the de-construction ready give us the assured of the greatest of the episteme and logoconcept totality--the without ever centric which are produced, metaphysics--within methods of writing, all the radical the occidental posing question of analysis, or interpretation. reading, explication, Now we must think is at the same time more exthat writing and more to speech, not being its or its terior "image" "symbol," Even which is already in itself a writing. interior to speech, to incision, or the letit is linked before drawing, engraving, in general to a signifier to a signifier ter, signified referring of the inof the graph implies the instance the concept by it, of sigas the possibility common to all stituted trace, systems dewill toward nification. now be directed slowly My efforts from two concepts from the classical discourse these taching borrow them. will be laborious The effort which I necessarily that its will never be pure and we know a priori effectiveness and absolute. is "unmotivated" but not capricious. trace The instituted not it "should Like the word "arbitrary" according to Saussure, to the of the signifier the choice is left entirely imply that attachit has no "natural Simply, speaker" (p. 101) Cp. 68-693. of For us, the rupture within ment" to the signified reality. in question "natural attachment" the idea of naturalthat puts That is why the word "inness rather than that of attachment. the clasnot be too quicklyinterpreted within stitution" should sical of oppositions. system the be thought without trace cannot The instituted thinking where a structure of reference retention of difference within of a certain difference as such and thus permits liberty appears here-andof another terms. The absence variations among the full of the of another transcendental now, of another origin present, absence world as such, itself as irreducible presenting appearing formula of the trace, is not a metaphysical within the presence This formula, of writing. for a scientific substituted concept that it is the questioning of metaphysics beside the fact itself, of the describes the structure implied by the "arbitrariness of its short from the moment that one thinks sign," possibility and convention, between nature symbol of the derived opposition the and sign, etc. These oppositions have meaning only after reof the sign The "unmotivatedness" of the trace. possibility as is announced other a synthesis in which the completely quires or such--without any resemblance any identity, any simplicity, there what is not it. continuity--within as such: Is announced as "nonfrom what metaphysics has defined we have all history, of aniall levels through passing living" up to "consciousness," with the where the relationship mal organization. The trace, field in the entire its articulates other is marked, possibility as the being-prehas defined of the existent, which metaphysics The trace movement of the trace. from the occulted sent starting

Linguistics

and Grammatology

147

must be thought before But the movement of the the existent. is necessarily it produces trace itself as self-occultaocculted, it presents ittion. When the other itself as such, announces in the dissimulation of itself. self This formulation is not as one might believe somewhat hastily. The "theotheological, movement of the is a determined moment in the total logical" as the of the existent, before determined trace. The field being field of presence, to the diverse is structured according possiThe presentation and structural--of the trace. bilities--genetic of its "as of the other that is to say the dissimulation as such, of the existent has always such," begun and no structure already it. escapes from That is why the movement of "unmotivatedness" passes of one structure the stage when the "sign" to the other passes to a certhe "symbol." It is in a certain and according sense tain determined of the "as such" that one is authorized structure calls to say that is yet no immotivation in what Saussure there lease and which according to him, does hot--at provi"symbol" of the unThe general structure sionally--interest semiology. motivated trace connects within the same possibility, and without the strucof separation the possibility by abstraction, except the movement of temporwith the other, ture of the relationship back to a as writing. Without and language referring alization, In of the trace has always become. the immotivation "nature," its is indefinitely trace there trace:the is no unmotivated fact, what Saussure own becoming-unmotivated. In Saussurian language, is neither does not say would have to be said: there symbol nor of the symbol. sign but a becoming-sign I speak whereof the trace as it goes without Also, saying, or the is not more natural is not the mark, the natural (it sign, not more physical index in the Husserlian than culturaZ, sense) It is that than spiritual. than psychic, starting biological and with it all of the sign, from which a becoming-unmotivated is possible. and its the ulterior between other, oppositions physis In his project Peirce seems to have been more of semiotics, of this to the irreducibility than Saussure attentive becomingone must speak of a becomingunmotivated. In his terminology, here of the symbol playing of the symbol, the notion unmotivated to that of the sign which Saussure a role preopposes analogous to the symbol: cisely being by development grow. They come into Symbols or out of other from icons, signs, particularly of icons of the nature from mixed signs partaking These menWe think and symbols. only in signs. the symbol parts are of mixed nature; tal signs If a man makes a of them are called concepts. it is by thoughts new symbol, involving concepts. So it is only out of symbols that a new symbol can Omne symbolum de symbolo.9 grow. Peirce The mistake with two apparently complies here would be to sacrifice exigencies. incompatible It must one for the other.

148

Derrida

be recognized that the symbolic sense: that of "the (in Peirce's is rooted in an of the sign") in the non-symbolic, arbitrariness anterior and related order of signification: They grow. "Symbols out of other come into being signs, by development particularly . . ." roots must not from icons, or from mixed signs But these the structural of the field of symbols, compromise originality "So it is of a domain, a production, and a play: the autonomy a new symbol can grow. Omne symbolum de that only out of symbols symbolo." from sign refers But in both cases, the genetic root-system as insignito sign. No ground of non-signification--understood out to give of a present truth--stretches or an intuition ficance of signs. and the coming into it foundation under the play being to Peirce, on logic. no longer Semiotics according Logic, depends as I bein its is only a semiotics: is, sense, "Logic, general name for semiotics I have shown, lieve only another (C0tleLWTwXL), in And logic of signs." or formal, doctrine the quasi-necessary, non-formal the classical logic sense, speaking," logic "properly that semiotics within of truth, commanded by the value occupies As in Husserl level. and not a fundamental only a determined would it is most thought-provoking, although (but the analogy, the lowest it carefully), and one must apply level, stop there correof logic of the possibility the foundation (or semiotics) of Thomas of the Grammatica to the project sponds speculative Like Husserl, to Duns Scotus. attributed d'Erfurt, falsely in of elaborating, It is a matter to it. refers Peirce expressly which a discourse of conditions doctrine a formal both cases, to "mean," even in order to have a sense, in order must satisfy of that The general or contradictory. if it is false morphology of all is independent logic vouloir-dire) (Bedeutung, meaning10 of truth. The has three branches. The science of semiotic is caZled speculativa. grammatica by Duns Scotus first task to It has for its We may term it pure grammar. what must be true of the representamen ascertain in order used by every scientific intelligence is logic The second that they may embody any meaning. It is the science of what is quasi-necessariproper. inof any scientific ly true of the representamina that in order they may hold good of any telligence Or say, that is, logic proper may be true. object, science is the formal of the truth of the conditions in imitation The third, of of representations. old associations Kant's of of preserving fashion nomenclature words in finding for new conceptions, the Its task is to ascertain I call pure rhetoric. one intelliaence la7ws by which in every scientific one and especiaZZiy to another, birth gives sign another. forth 1 brings thought

Linguistics

and Grammatology

149

Peirce I have called that the goes very far in the direction deconstruction of the transcendental at one which, signified, time or another, would place a reassuring end to the reference from sign to sign. I have identified and the metalogocentrism of presence as the exigent, and irphysics powerful, systematic, for such a signified. desire Now Peirce considers repressible the indefiniteness of reference as the criterion us that allows to recognize that we are indeed with a system of signs. dealing What initiates the movement of signification is what makes its interruvtion The thing An unis a sign. impossible. itself for IIusserl, whose phenomenology remains acceptable proposition therefore--in its of principles"--the and most radical "principle most critical of the metaphysics restoration The of presence. difference between Husserl's and Peirce's is phenomenologies fundamental it concerns since the concept of the sign and of the manifestation of presence, the relationships the re-prebetween sentation and the originary of the thing itself presentation On this is undoubtedly Peirce closer to the in(truth). point ventor of the word phenomenology: in fact to Lambert proposed "reduce the theory to the theory of signs." of things According to the "phaneroscopy" or "phenomenology" of Peirce, manifestaa presence, tion itself does not reveal it makes a sign. One that "the idea of may read in the Principle of Phenomenology is the idea of a sign."1 There is thus no phemanifestation the sign the thing or the representer so that nomenality reducing to glow finally of its in the luminosity signified may be allowed a reThe so-called itself" is always presence. already "thing from the simplicity of intuitive shielded evidence. presentamen The representamen functions rise to an interpreonly by giving a sign tant that itself becomes and so on to infinity. The selfof the signified eludes our grasp through a constant identity The property of the representamen is to be itself displacement. and another, to be produced of reference, to be as a structure from itself. The property is not of the representamen separated to be proper that is to say absolutely to itEpropre], proximate self a reThe represented is always (prope, proprius). already of the sign: Definition . presentamen which determines else (its Anything something to refer to an object to which itself interpretant) in the same way, this refers (its object) interpretant in turn a sign, and so on ad infinitum.... becoming comes to If the series of successive interpretants an end is therby the sign rendered at imperfect, Zeast. 13 From the moment that are nothing but is meaning there there We think Which amounts to ruining the nosigns. only in signs. tion of the sign at the very moment when, as in Nietzsche, its is recognized in the absoluteness One of its exigency right. could call the absence of the transcendental as signifier play of play, that limitlessness is to say as the destruction of ontoand the metaphysics of presence. It is not surprising theology

150

Derrida

lets since that the shock, its origin, metaphysics undermining to bind linitself be named as such in the period when, refusing from Saussure to semantics (what all European linguists, guistics the problem outside still of meaning to Hjemslev, do), expelling refer American certain of their constantly researches, linguists as a game Here one must think of writing to the model of a game. condemned within (277e) (The Phaedrus writing preciselanguage. to the adult such childishness opposed ly as play--paidia--and of as absence This play, of speech). thought gravity (spoude) as it is not a play in the world, the transcendental signified, of containing for the purposes been defined, by has always it, of play also tradition and as the theoreticians the philosophical and going beyond it consider Bloomfield, (or those who, following or some other local to psychology refer semantics discipline). and transcendental the ontological To think probplay radically of the the question be seriously lematics must first exhausted; and of the transcenof the existent the being of being, meaning of the world--must the world-ness of the world--of dental origin movement the critical worked through, and rigorously be patiently must be effectively and Heideggerian of the Husserlian questions and legibility effectiveness to the very end, and their followed it the without Even if it were crossed must be conserved. out, will have recourse to which I shall of play and writing concepts and an empiricist, limits within remain positivregional caught that the holdThe counter-move discourse. or metaphysical ist, tradition to the pre-critical would offer ers of such a discourse but the would be nothing to and speculation metaphysical It is therefore own operation. of their worldly representation before that must be first the game of the world attemptthought; in the worlds14 all the forms of play ing to understand the of the game, then, we are within From the very opening beto this With regard of the symbol. becoming-unmotivated deis also and synchronic of diachronic the opposition coming, It would not be able to command a grammatology rived. pertinentas of the trace The immotivation ought now to be understood ly. a deas an active and not as a state, an operation movement, of "the arbiScience structure. and not as a given motivation, of the trace, of the immotivation science of the sign," trariness and in speech, before of writing science grammatology speech would abwhich linguistics within field a vast would thus cover Saussure that with the limits own area, its delineate stractly reand which must be carefully internal to its system prescribes in the world and history. in each speech/writing examined system one but verbal, which would be anything By a substitution in the program of the semiology by grammatology may replace Course in General Linguistics: the Since . .. . it Egrammatology3 I shall call no one can say what it does not yet exist, science a to existence, but it has a right would be; is only out in advance. staked Linguistics place . . .; the laws science a part of Ethat] general be applicable will discovered by Egrammatology]

Linguistics

and Grammatology

151

to

linguistics.

(p.

33)

Cp.

163.

The advantage of this substitution will not only be to give to the theory of writing the scope to counter needed logocentric and the subordination to linguistics. It will liberrepression ate the semiological itself from what, in spite of its project theoretical remained greater extension, by linguistics, governed as if linguistics were at once its and its center organized telos. Even though was in fact more general and more semiology than linguistics, it continued to be regulated as comprehensive The linguistic if it were one of the areas of linguistics. sign remained it dominated it as the masterfor semiology, exemplary and as the generative the master-model. model: sign that are wholly better than realize Signs arbitrary the others the ideal of the semiological process; that is why language, the most complex and universal is also the most of all of expression, systems in this characteristic; sense can belinguistics come the master-pattern for all branches of semiolis only one particular semiogy although language mine) ological (p. 101; italics Cp. 68] system. Consequently, reconsidering scribed by Saussure, apparently Barthes in part to the whole, intention of the Course: of dependence the order preof the relationship inverting fact carries out the profoundest the

From now on we must admit the possibility of reverssome day: is ing Saussure's linguistics proposition not a part, even if privileged, science of the general it is semiology that is a part of linguisof signs, 15 tics. This coherent to a "translinreversal, submitting semiology to its leads full a linguistics historiguistics," explicitness dominated for which in fact cally by logocentric metaphysics, there is not and should not be "any meaning as named" except Dominated that "civilization (ibid). of writing" by the so-called we inhabit, a civilization of so-called that writing, phonetic is to say of the logos where the sense of being in its is, telos, determined as parousia. The Barthesian is fecund and reversal for the description of the fact and the vocation indispensable within the enclosure of this of signification eopch and this civilization in the process of disappearing in its very globalization. Let us now try to go beyond and architectonic these formal and concrete Let us ask in a more intrinsic considerations. way, to a how language is not merely a sort of writing, "comparable of writing" writes curiously-system (p. 33) Cp. 161--Saussure in the larger but a species Or rather, since sense. of writing or fronto language no longer relates as an extension writing on the let us ask how language founded is a possibility tier,

152

Derrida

of writing. one would general possibility this, Demonstrating become aware at the same time of that "usurpation" which alleged could not be an unhappy accident. It supposes on the contrary a common root and thus excludes the resemblance of the "image", or representative reflexion. And thus one would bring derivation, back to its true meaning, to its the apparprimary possibility, innocent and didactic which makes Saussure ently analogy say: is a system Language of signs and is therefore comparable the alphabet of deaf-mutes, formulas, military signals, most important these of all italics mine) cp. 163 that express ideas, to a system of writing, rites, symbolic polite etc. But it is the (p. 33; systems. a hundred and thirty as difference phonic a material viewpoint")16, resources from the example

it is not by chance Further, that, at the moment of explaining later, pages the condition of linguistic value.("from he must again borrow all his pedagogic of writing:

Since an identicaZ state is observable of affairs in writing, another we shall use of signs, system to draw some comparisons that will writing clarify the whole issue. (p. 165) Cp. 1191 Four demonstrative all their schemas and items, borrowing from writing,follow. 17 content Once more, then, we definitely have to oppose to Saussure himself. or not being Before being "noted," "represented," "figin a "graph," the linguistic ured," sign an'originary implies it is not to the thesis of the arbitrariwriting. Henceforth, ness of the sign that we shall but to what Saudirectly, appeal with it as an indispensable ssure associates and correlative which would seem to us rather to lay the foundations for it: the thesis of difference as the source of linguistic value.18 What are, from the grammatological of view, the conpoint of this theme that is now so well-known sequences (and upon which Plato in the Sophist)? reflected already is never a sensible difference in itself By definition, its the allegation contradicts plenitude. Therefore, necessity of a naturally essence of language. It contests by the phonic same token the supposed of the graphic natural signidependence nifier. That is a conclusion Saussure himself the draws against the internal of language. He must now premises defining system exclude the very thing thich had permitted him to exclude writing: sound and its For "true bond" with meaning. Zlien naturel example: their The thing that constitutes Zanguage to the phonic show later, unrelated linguistic sign (p. 21) rp. 73. as I shall is, character of the

Linguistics

and Grammatology

153

And in

a paragraph

on difference:

It is impossible a material elefor sound aZone, to belong to language. It is only a secondment, substance to be put to use. All our conary thing, values ventional have the characteristic of not being with the tangible which supports element confused . . . The linguistic them. . . . is not [in signifier essence] but incorporeal--constituted not by phonic its material substance but the differences that separate its others from all (p. 164) sound-image The idea or phonic that a substance Cp. 118-119]. is of less contains than the other sign importance that surround it. (p. 166) Cp. 1203 signs Without this reduction of phonic bethe distinction matter, tween language and speech, decisive for Saussure, would have no to It would be the same for the oppositions that happened rigor. descend etc. from it: code and message, between schema and usage, Conclusion: bears only an auxili"Phonology--this repeating--is [of the science excluof language] and belongs ary discipline to speaking" thus draws from this sively (p. 56) cp. 333. Speech stock of writing, noted or not, that and it is here is, language that one must meditate between the two "staupon the complicity of the phone reveals The reduction this bilities." complicity. and What Saussure in general about the sign says for example also which he "confirms" of writing, the example applies through of general semito language: are governed "Signs by a principle is this in time; in time is coupled to change continuity ology: of deaf-mutes, confirmed the speech by orthographic systems, etc." (p. 111) cp. 16]. of phonic substance thus does not only permit The reduction the distinction on the one hand (and a fortiori between phonetics and or the physiology of the phonating the accoustics organs) itself an on the other. It also makes of phonology phonology indicated Here the direction by Saussure "auxiliary discipline." to follow of those takes the phonologism who profess us beyond to him on this in fact the indifference believes Jakobson point: the phonic of expression and illegitito be impossible substance mate. which reHe thus criticizes of Hjelmslev the glossematics And and practices the neutralizing of sonorous substance. quires in the text maintain that the cited Jakobson and Halle above, and contingent in parenthesis sonorous substance (as an empirical is: content) 1. as "Eli Fischer-Jorgensen exposes since, impracticable at every substance into account] "the sonorous Cit]", Cis taken a "troubling of the analysis."18a But is that discrepancy," step for it as Jakobson and Halle would have it? Can one not account who as do the phenomenologists as a fact as an example, serving it always an exemplary within empirineed, sight, always keeping of which is independent of an essence cal content in the reading it by right?

154

-~~~154

~Derrida

2. since one cannot consider in principle inadmissible form is opposed to substance in language as a constant "that demonstraof this second It is in the course to a variable." the within formulas Saussurian the literally tion that reappear the and writing; between of the relationships speech question of the "accessory," order of exteriority, of the "occasional," italics of the "parasitic" of the "auxiliary," mine) (p. 116-117; to the of Jakobson and Halle The argument appeals cp. 16-171. in the of writing and invokes the secondariness factual genesis does one mastered sense: having speech "Only after colloquial commonsensical Even if this and writing." to reading graduate I do not bethat were rigorously proved,-something proposition an immense problem),harbors each of its lieve (since concepts to of its pertinence assurance have to receive one would still were here a facile Even if "after" the argument. representation, while asand stated what one thought well if one knew perfectly to speak, learned to write that one learns having after suring is to conclude that what thus comes "after" would that suffice were And what if writing And what is a parasite? parasitic? about paraour logic that which makes us reconsider precisely sites? reand Halle Jakobson moment of the critique, In another that of graphic the imperfection call imperfecrepresentation; of letters dissimilar tion is due to "the cardinally patterning and phonemes:" or only partially, Letters never, reproduce on which distinctive the different features is based and the phonemic unfailingly pattern the structural of. relationship disregard these (p. 116) Cp. 17]. features dissimilardoes not the radical it above: I have suggested derivation? and phonic--exclude ity of the two elements--graphic concern of graphic Does not the inadequaciy only representation does formalism to which glossematic common alphabetic writing, the phonoall if one accepts refer? not essentially Finally, be recognized it must still thus, presented arguments logical of the spoken word to a a "scientific" that concept they oppose What I would wish to show is that one of writing. concept vulgar of "the strucexclude from the general cannot experience writing of course, Which amounts, features." of these tural relationship of writing. to reforming the concept to Saussure is faithful if the Jakobsonian In short, analysis of Chapter so to the Saussure is it not especially in this matter, the inseparahave maintained would Saussure VI? Up to what point the most important and form, which remains of matter argubility The question and Halle ment of Jakobson may be (p. 117) cp. 17]? of Andre Martinet who, in in the case of the position repeated to the letter.19 VI of the Course follows this debate, Chapter dissociates And only Chapter expressly VI, from which Martinet of the privilege effaces in the Course, of what, the doctrine After substance. why "a dead language having explained phonic

Linguistics

and Grammatology

155

with a perfect that is to say a communication effecideography," tive the system of a generalized not have "could script, through and why nevertheless, "such a system would be any real autonomy," so particular that one can well understand something why linguists want to exclude it from the domain of their science' (La linguisMartinet criticizes mine), p. 18; italics tique synchronique, those a certain trend in Saussure, the who, following question character of the linguistic essentially sign: phonic "Many people will be tempted to think Saussure is right that when he announces that 'the that constitutes de Za CZ'essentiel thing language is . . . unrelated to the phonic of the lincharacter langue] of the master, to the teaching guistic and, going beyond sign," declare that the linguistic does not necessarily have that sign character" phonic (p. 19). On that precise it is not a question of "going bepoint, it. but of following and extending yond" the master's teaching Not to do it is to cling to what in Chapter limits VI massively formal and structural research and contradicts contestthe least able of Saussurian doctirne. To avoid findings beyond," "going one risks to a point that falls short. returning I believe that is not just the idea of writing generalized a system or a futo be invented, an hypothetical characteristic I think ture possibility. on the contrary oral that language a modifito this But that presupposes already writing. belongs of the concept of writing that we for the moment merely cation one is not given that modified Even supposing that anticipate. of pure a system that one is considering concept, supposing as an hypothesis for the future or a working hypothesis, writing a linguistics refuse itself faced should with that hypothesis, withit and of integrating its formulation the means of thinking that most linguists Does the fact in its theoretical discourse? Martinet seems to be of that do so create a theoretical right? a purely elaborated After opinion. having "dactylological" of language, he writes: hypothesis between the parallelism It must be recognized that is complete as and phonology this "dactylology" and much in synchronic as in diachronic material, the terminology with the latter associated may be when the used for the former, of course except terms refer to the phonic substance. if Clearly, we do not desire to exclude from the domain of the systems of the type we have just linguistics to modify tradiit is most important imagined, to the articulation tional relative terminology to all so as to eliminate of signifiers reference when as does Louis substance; Hjelmslev phonic he uses "ceneme" and "cenematics" instead of Yet it is under"phoneme" and "phonematics." hesitate that the majority of linguists standable terminoloto modify the traditional completely advanfor the only theoretical edifice gical of in the field able to include tages of being

156

Derrida

their science some purely systems. hypothetical to envisage To make them agree such a revolution, in attested that, linguisthey must be persuaded tic in considersystems, they have no advantage substance of units of expression ing the phonic italics interest as to be of direct mine). (p. 20-21; of these we do not doubt the value Once again, phonological to the presuppositions behind which I have attempted arguments, it would Once one assumes these above. presuppositions, expose a derivative in the to reintroduce be absurd confusedly writing of this derivation. and within the system area of oral language the all the frontiers within Without ethnocentrism, escaping It is not a would then be confused. of its sphere legitimacy nor of in the narrow sense, of rehabilitating writing question Phonolothe order of dependence when it is evident. reversing the as long as one conserves gism does not brook any objections of speech which form the solid and-writing colloquial concepts of its and quotidian fabric concepColloquial argumentation. an old inhabited tions, besides--uncontradictorily enough--by limited visible the more rigorous history, by hardly yet all frontiers. derivativeI would wish rather to suggest that the alleged real and massive, was possible ness of writing, however only on had "natural" etc. that the "original," one condition: language, that and untouched never been intact never existed, by writing, whose neAn archi-writing it had itself been a writing. always and I wish to indicate and outline and new concept here; cessity it essentially which I continue to call writing only because The latter of writing. communicates with the vulgar concept itself could not have imposed historically except by the disdisfor a speech simulation of the archi-writing, by the desire differits and working to reduce and its double its other placing it is beIf I persist-in that difference ence. writing, calling within the work of historical was, by writing repression, cause, difference. the most dangerous to signify its destined situation, from the closest for the living It threatened the desire speech and from from within it encroached speech proximity, upon living difference to see, And as we shall the very beginning. begin without the trace. cannot be thought is invoked its This archi-writing, by the although concept canand of difference, of the sign" themes of "the arbitrariness It as the object not and can never be recognized of a science. to the form which cannot let itself be reduced is that very thing and of the object of presence. all orders The latter objectivity That is why what I would be tempted all relation of knowledge. callof the Course as "progress," to consider in the development of Chapter in return the uncritical positions ing into question of writing. to a new "scientific" rise concept VI, never gives which of Hjelmslev, Can one say as much of the algebraism from that proconclusions drew the most rigorous undoubtedly gress?

Linguistics

and Grammatology

157

The Principes de grammaire out (1928) generaZe separated within the doctrine of the Course and the phonological principle the principle of difference. a concept It isolated of form which a distinction between formal and phonic difference permitted and this even within difference, "spoken" language (p. 117). Grammar is independent of semantics and phonology (p. 118). That independence is the very principle ot glossematics as the formal of language. science Its formality that supposes "there is no necessary connection between sounds and language."20 That formality is itself of a purely the condition functional The idea of a linguistic and of a purely linfunction analysis. unit--the then not only the consideraguistic glosseme--excludes tion of the substance of expression but also substance) (material that of the substance of the content substance). (immaterial "Since is a form and not a substance (F. de Saussure), language the glossemes are by definition immaof substance, independent terial and logical) and material (semantic, (phonps,chological of language, of the finctioning The study etc.)." ic, graphic, of its play, that the substance of meaning and, among presupposes other of sound, in parenthesis. that be placed substance, possible The unity of sound and of sense is indeed as I propsed here, the reassuring of play. situates his above, closing Hjelmslev of the schema or play the lineage of of language within concept Saussure--of Saussure's and his theory Alof value. formalism to the "value of to compare value though he prefers linguistic in the economic sciences' rather than to the "purely exchange a limit to this he assigns logico-mathematical value," analogy. An economic is by definition two value with a value not only does it play the roZe of a constant faces: the concrete vis-a-vis units of money, but it aZso the role a vis-a-vis of a variable itself plays it as a which serves fixed of merchandise quantity In linguistics standard. on the other hand there is nothing That that to a standard. corresponds is why the game of chess reand not economic fact mains for F. de Saussure the most faithful image The scheme of language is in the of a grammar. a game and nothing last more.22 analysis In the Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1943), setting forth the opposition for which he substitutes expression/content, the difference and in which each term may be signifier/signified, from the point considered of view of form or substance, Hjelmslev criticizes the idea of a language bound to the substance naturaZZy of phonic It is by mistake that it has hitherto been expression. the substance-expression of a spoken "that language supposed should of 'sounds':" consist out by the Zwirners in parThus, as has been pointed is has been overlooked the fact that ticular, speech certain of speech accompanied by, and that components can be replaced as and that in realituy, by, gesture,

158

Derrida

not only the so-called the Zwirners of organs say, and nose), but very nearly (throat, mouth, speech in the exerall musculature the striate cooperate it is possicise Further, of "natural" language. the usual subble to replace sound-and-gesture as approthat offers with any other stance itself Thus external under changed circumstances. priate in be manifested the same linguistic form may also or phonemic as happens with a phonetic writing, orthonotation and with the so-called phonetic the Finnish. Here is a as for example graphies, exclusivewhich is addressed "substance" graphic into ly to the eye and which need not be transposed or to be grasped in order a phonetic "substance" "substance" And this understood. can, pregraphic be from the point of view of the substance, cisely 3 sorts. various of quite a "derivation" to presuppose Refusing of phonic expression ing from the substance of the area of structural outside problem stics. followof substances this Hjelmslev places and of linguianalysis

what is derived it is not always certain Moreover that the discovwe must not forget and what not; in prehistory is hidden writing ery of alphabetic attencalls Russell En.: Bertrand rightly quite that we have no means of decidtion to the fact is the older or speech form writing ing whether of Philosophy, (An Outline of human expression that the assertion so that 1927, London, p. 47)], is only one of it rests on a phonetic analysis it may also the possible. diachronic hypotheses; on a formal be rested of linguistic analysis structure. as is recognized But in any case, by are considerations diachronic modern linguistics, irrelevant (p. 104-105). for synchronic descriptions of the fact a remarkable formulation H. J. Uldall provides to at the same time thanks criticism that glossematic operates the proper as I suggested and against Saussure above, him; that, is at the same time opened and closed of a grammatology by space did not Saussure To show that The Course in General Linguistics. he of his discovery," "all the theoretical consequences develop writes: the that when we consider It is even more curious have been widely drawn, inconsequences practical Saudeed had been drawn thousands before of years the concept of a ssure, for it is only through that we can between form and substance difference and writing the possibility of speech explain

Linguistics

and Grammatology

159

at the same existing and the same language. the stream substances, were an integral ink, it would not be self, to the other without

as expressions of one two If either of these of air or the stream of itpart of the language to go from one possible the language.24 changing

time

the Copehagen School a field thus frees of reUndoubtedly search: it becomes to direct attention not only to the possible of a form freed from all "natural" bonds to a substance, purity but also to everything in the stratification of language, that, on the substance of graphic and An original depends expression. delimited of this rigorously description may thus be promised. that an "analysis of writing without Hjelmslev recognizes regard to sound has not yet been undertaken" While regretting (p. 105). also that "the substance of ink has not received the same attention on the part of linguists that bestowthey have so lavishly ed on the substance of air," H. J. Uldall these 'delimits problems and emphasizes the mutual of the substances of independence He illustrates it particularly in expression. that, by the fact no grapheme to accents of pronunciation orthography, corresponds this was the misery and the menace of writing) and (for Rousseau in pronunciation, no phoneme corresponds to that, reciprocally, the spacing between written words (p. 13-14). the specificity of writing, did not Recognizing glossematics itself the means of describing the graphic element. merely give It showed how to reach the literary to what in literaelement, ture passes an irreducibly the play tying through text, graphic of expression. substance If there is of form to a determined in literature which does not allow to be reduced itself something to the voice, to epos or to poetry, one cannot it exrecapture of that bond tying cept on the condition rigorously isolating the play of form to the substance of graphic (It expression. will thus reby the same token be seen that "pure literature," in its also risks the play, respected irreducibility, limiting it. The desire to restrict is irresistible.) stricting play This interest literature was in fact manifested by the Copen2n It thus removes the Rousseauist and Saussurian hagen School. caution with regard to literary arts. It radicalizes the efforts of the Russian of the O.PO.IAZ, formalists, who, in specifically their attention to the being-literary of literature, perhaps favored the phonological it instance and the literary models that dominates. That which, of within the history Notably poetry. literature and in the structure of a literary text in general, that merits a type of description whose norms instance, escapes and conditions of possibility has perhaps better glossematics isolated. It has perhaps to study thus better itself prepared the purely stratum within the structure of the literary graphic text within of the becoming-literary the history of literality, in its notably "modernity." a new domain is thus opened to unpublished and Undoubtedly However it is not that parallelism researches. or that fecund of expression of substances that interests us parity recaptured

160

Derrida

It is clear if the phonic that substance lost its primarily. it was not to the advantage of the graphic substance, privilege, to the same substitutions. which lends itself To the extent that and is irrefutable, it liberates still with glossematics operates a popular of writing. However original and irreducible concept it might be, the "form of expression" linked to by correlation the graphic "substance of expression" remains very determined. It is very dependent and very derivative with regard to the of which I speak. This archi-writing would be at archi-writing work not only in the form and substance of graphic expression, in those of non-graphic but also It would constitute expression. or not only the pattern form to all substance, uniting graphic a conbut the movement of the sign-function otherwise, linking or not. to an expression, it be graphic This theme tent whether could in Hjelmslev's not have a place system. irreIt is because movement ofdifferance,25a archi-writing, at once, in one and the same ducible archi-synthesis, opening and with the other temporalization, relationship possibility, as the condition of all cannot, language, systems, linguistic and be situated as form a part of the linguistic itself, system field an object field. in its (Which does not mean it has a real in no way could Its concept another site.) elsewhere, assignable and "immanent" enrich the scientific, (in the Hjelmslepositive, the of the system itself. vian Therefore, sense) description neits would no doubt have questioned of glossematics founder all the extraand legitimately, en bloc as he rejects, cessity, immafrom the irreducible which do not arise theories linguistic of the linguistic nence He would have seen in that system.26 which a theory should notion one of those to experience appeals He would not have understood with.27 why the name writdispense so different to be used for that X which becomes ing continued from what has always been called "writing." and especially this I have already word, begun to justify of archithe concept between of this the necessity communication to deconof writing submitted and the vulgar concept writing to do so below. As for the I shall continue struction by it. Like all the here. it is most unwieldy of experience, concept and of metaphysics it belongs to the history I am using, notions has [sous we can only use it under erasure rature]. "Experience" that whether with a presence, the relationship always designated or not. At any rate, had the form of consciousness relationship of contortion and contention to this sort we must, according the reto undertake, exhaust is here obliged which the discourse of experience and in before sources of the concept attaining It its foundation. order to attain, ultimate by deconstruction, is the only way to escape and the "naive" critiques "empiricism" of experience the experiat the same time. for example, Thus, is not ence whose "theory," "must be independent" Hjelmslev says, to a certain the whole of experience. It always corresponds type of factual or regional (historical, psychological, experience that rise to a science etc.), sociological, giving physiological, outside is itself and, as such, linguistics. rigorously regional as archi-writing. in the case of experience That is not so at all

Linguistics

and Grammatology

161

The parenthesizing of regions of experience or of the totality of natural a field must discover of transcendental experience experiThis experience is only accessible ence. in so far as, after like isolated the specificity of the linguishaving, Hjelmslev, tic and excluded all and metaphysithe extrinsic sciences system cal speculations, one asks the question of the transcendental of the system as a system of the objects of a itself, origin which of the theoretical science, and, correlatively, system it: studies here of the objective and "deductive" which system wishes to be. Without the decisive glossematics that, progress of its of the originality accomplished respectful by a formalism of "the immanent system of its is plagued object, objects," by a scientificist that is to say by another unperceived objectivism, in the work or unconfessed This is often noticeable metaphysics. this It is to escape of the Copenhagen School. back into falling I refer naive here to a transcendentality that that objectivism I believe that I elsewhere It is because put into question. To there are a within and a beyond of transcendental criticism. is to see to it that to the within the beyond does not return of a pathway the necessity in the contortion recognize Eparcours]. a track in the text. Without that That pathway must leave track, of its abandoned to the simple content the ultraconclusions, transcendental text will so closely the pre-critical resemble text as to be indistinguishable from it. We must form and medinow upon the law of this the tate What I call resemblance. of concepts of that future erasure ought to mark the places arche meditation. For example, the value of the transcendental be must make its felt itself before [archie] letting necessity must comply with both that The concept of archi-trace erased. and not It is in fact erasure. and that contradictory necessity The trace the logic is not only of identity. within acceptable that we susthe discourse of origin,--within the disappearance the it means that to the path that we follow and according tain it was never did not even disappear, that constituted origin the trace, which thus except by a non-origin, reciprocally of the origin. From then on, to wrench the becomes the origin of the trace from the classical scheme which would derive concept and which would it from a presence or from an originary non-trace make of it an empirical mark, one must indeed speak of an origidesor archi-trace. that Yet we know that concept nary trace is its there name and that, if al with the trace, begins troys above all no originary trace. We must then situate, as a reduction the phenomenological moment of the discourse, simple and the Husserlian To reference to a transcendental experience. the extent of the concept of experience that in general--and in Husserl in particular--remains transcendental experience, it participates in the movegoverned by the theme of presence, Present (lebenment of the reduction of the trace. The Living form of transcenand absolute is the universal dige Gegenwart) to which Husserl In the descripdental refers us. experience does not that of the movements of temporalization, all tions form seems the simplicity and the domination of that torment to indicate to us how much transcendental belongs phenomenology

162

IDerrida

of to metaphysics. But that must come to terms with the forces In the originary temporalization and the movement of rupture. with the outside, as I-usserl describes actually relationship as or de-presentation is as "originary" them, non-presentation That is why a thought can no more of the trace presentation. to it. than be reduced break with a transcendental phenomenology to to pose the problem in terms of choice, Here as elsewhere, it by a yes or no, oneself to answer or to believe obliged oblige as or as non-belonging of belonging to conceive as an allegiance of speech, is to confuse freedom very different levels, paths, of the arche, one does not In the deconstruction and styles. make a choice. the concept I admit the necessity of going Therefore through us from the inHow does that direct of the archi-trace. concept leads How does the path that of the linguistic terior system? the originary forbid us to avoid to Hjelmslev from Saussure trace? the its passage In that form is a passage through through would be more in general of differance And the meaning imprint. of that double to us if the unity accessible passage appeared more clearly. of neufrom one must begin the possibility In both cases, substance. the phonic tralizing the the end point, the phonic On the one hand, element, as such withwould not appear is called that sensible, plenitude Such is them form. or opposition which gives out the difference as the to difference of the appeal the most evident significance and functionsubstance. Here the appearing of phonic reduction not prean originary synthesis presupposes ing of difference Such would be the originary ceded by an absolute simplicity. exof temporal in the minimal unit a retention Without trace. in the as other the other a trace without retaining perience, would appear. would do its work and no meaning same, no difference but difference of a constituted It is not the question here, of the pure of the content, all before determination rather, trace is differdifference. The (pure) movement which produces or ance. audible It does not depend on any sensory plenitude, the condion the contrary, It is, or graphic. visible, phonic it does not exist, of such a plenitude. tion although Although its possiof all plenitude, outside a being-present it is never that one calls to all anterior is by rights (signisign bility or operation, etc.), concept content/expression, fied/signifier, not more sensible is therefore This differance motor or sensory. of signs the articulation and it permits than intelligible among or graphic order--a the same abstract themselves within phonic It perof expression. two orders between text for example--or the colloquial and writing--in of speech mits the articulation the between the metaphysical it founds sense--as opposition and sigthen between and the intelligible, sensible signifier were not alIf language etc. and content, nified, expression would be no derived "notation" a writing, in that sense, ready, between of relationships and the classical possible; problem Of course the positive not arise. could and writing speech

Linguistics

and Grammatology

1 63

of signification can only describe sciences the work and the fact of differance, the determined differences and the determined that they make possible. There cannot be a science of presences differance in its itself as it is impossible to have a operation, of the origin of presence science is to say of a that itself, certain non-origin. is therefore But it is on Differance the formation of form. It is wellthe other of the imprint. hand the being-imprinted and known that the "sound-image" Saussure between distinguishes He thus gives the the objective himself sound (p. 98) Cp. 663. of in the phenomenological to "reduce," the sciences sense, right at the moment that he institutes the accoustics and physiology of the science of language. The sound-image is the structure which is anything of the sound CZ'apparattre du son] appearing It is the soundbut the sound appearing [le son apparaissant]. not the name signified image that he calls reserving signifier, for the thing, to be sure is reduced by the act and the very (it of language), an unbut for the "concept," undoubtedly ideality "I of the sense. let us say for the ideality here; happy notion to retain the whole the word sign to designate propose [signe] and to replace and sound-image by signified respectively concept not the sound is what is heard; The sound-image [signifie]." is structurheard but the being-heard of the sound. Being-heard to an order dissimilar and belongs radically ally phenomenal to that of the real sound in the world. can only One divide this subtle but absolutely decisive by a heterogeneity is therefore The latter reduction. indispensphenomenological able to all of being-heard, whether by they be inspired analyses or other linguistic, preoccupations. psychoanalytic, Now the "sound-image," the structured appearing [l'appara~tre] of the sound, and informed lived the "sensory matter" by differdistinct what Husserl would name the hyle/morphe structure, ance, from all mundane reality, is called the "psychological image" by is not the material Saussure: "The latter [the sound image] a purely of but the psychological sound, imprint thing, physical The soundthe impression it makes on our senses. the sound, that it is it 'material,' and if I happen to call image is sensory, term it to the other and by way of opposing sense, only in that more abstract" of the association, the concept, which is generally is not perthe word "psychological" (p. 98) [p. 663. Although a phenomenological in this matter haps convenient, exercising marked. of this locus is well the originality caution, Before let us note that this is not necessarily it, specifying as "the mentalwhat Jakobson and other could criticize linguists ist point of view" In the oldest back to of these going approaches, the Baudouin de Courtenay and still surviving, or intended, opposed phoneme is a sound imagined to the emitted sound as a "psychophonetic" phenoIt is the menon to the "physiophonetic" fact. exteriorized sound.29 mental an of equivalent

164

Derrida

the notion of the "psychological Although image" thus defined is to say according to a pre-phenomenological of (that psychology the imagination)is of this indeed mentalist it could inspiration, be defended Jakobson's criticism against 1) that by specifying: it could be conserved without "our inthat necessarily affirming . . . is confined ternal to the distinctive features to speech the exclusion of the configurative, or redundant features;" 2) that the qualification is not retained if it desigpsychological nates another natural internal and not exreality, exclusively ternal. Here the Husserlian correction is indispensable and not real) transforms of the debate. even the premises Real (reelZ, of lived the hylZ/morphe is not a structure component experience, As to the intentional for example (Realitat). reality object, the content of the image, it does not really either (reeZl) belong to the world or to lived of the non-real experience: component lived The psychological image of which Saussure experience. must not be an internal one. an external reality speaks copying who criticizes I this of "portrait" in Ideen concept Husserl, shows also in the Krisis should (p. 63f) Za how phenomenology overcome the naturalist and the whereby psychology opposition, other of man survive, and "external" sciences between "internal" It is therefore to preserve the disindispensable experience. sound LCe son apparaissant] tinction the appearing and between in order of the sound the appearing to du son] Zl'apparattre of confusions: and it and the most prevalent the worst escape is in principle to do it without to overpossible "attemptEing3 come the antinomy between invariance and variability by assignto the internal and the latter to the external ing the former The difference p. 112) Cp. 123. experience" (Jakobson, op. cit., between invariance and variability two does not separate-the domains from each other, it divides each of them within itself. That gives indication that the essence of the phone cannot enough be read directly in the text of a mundane science, and,primarily of a psycho-physio-phonetics. These precautions it sould be recognized that it is taken, in the specific zone of this in the and this trace, imprint of a lived which is neither in the temporalization experience world nor in "another which is not more sonorous than world," not more in time than in space, that differences luminous, appear or rather among the elements them, make them emerge as produce such and constitute of the texts,. the chains, and the systems in traces. and systems These chains cannot be outlined except the fabric of this trace or imprint. beThe unheard difference tween the appearing and the appearance et l'apCl'apparaissant the "world" and "lived is the (between paratrel experience") and it condition of all other of all other differences, traces, and is already this last is absolutely a trace. Further, concept to all physiological "anterior" by rights concerning problematics the nature or metaphysical concernof the engramme, problematics is thus opened of absolute whose trace ing the meaning presence to deciphering. The trace is in fact the absolute origin of sense is no in general. Which amounts once again to saying that there in general. The trace is the differance absolute origin of sense

Linguistics

and Grammatology

165

which opens and signification. Articuappearance cl'apparaitre] the living in general, of all lating upon the non-living origin of ideality, the trace is not more ideal than repetition, origin not more intelligible than sensible, not more a transparent real, than an opaque energy and no concept of metaphysics signification And as it is a fortiori anterior to the distincit. can describe of sensibility, to sound as much as tion anterior between regions a sense a "natural" is there in establishing to light, hierarchy for example, and the visual between the sound-imprint, (graphic) and the acoustic The graphic image imprint? image is not seen; of the is not heard. The difference between the full unities voice in the body of the remains unheard. And, the difference is invisible. inscription The Joint [La Brisure]

I suppose, You have, dreamt of a single word for desigfinding and articulation. difference nating I have perhaps it by chance located in RobertE's if I play dictionary] on the word, or rather its indicate double This word is meaning. " -broken brisure break] [joint, fault, Cf breach, fracture, part. cassure, cbreche, fragment, split, fracture, faille, fente, fragment.] articulation of two parts --Hinged The hinge of wood- or metal-work. the brisure of a [hinge-joint] shutter. Roger Cf. joint." (letter) Laporte of and time, this of the experience of space writing Origin beof the trace, the difference this fabric difference, permits in the to appear as such, tween space and time to be articulated, of an experience out of a "same" body (of a "same" lived unity a This articulation therefore permits proper [corps propre]). to be adapted, chain or "tactile," ("visual" graphic "spatial") to a spoken in a linear "temporal") fashion, ("phonic," possibly articulation of this chain. It is from the primary possibility that one must begin. is articulation. Difference VI: This is indeed what Saussure Chapter says, contradicting takes The question of the vocal obviously apparatus a secondary in the problem of speech Clangage]. place One definition of articulated speech might confirm articulus means a member, In Latin, that conclusison. to speech, or subdivision of a sequence; applied part, the subdivision either articulation of a designates or the subdivision chain into of the spoken syllables ... into units. chain Using of meanings significant

166

Derrida

the second definition, we can say that what is natural to mankind is not oral speech but the faculty of cona language; i.e. a system of distinct structing signs to distinct ideas (p. 26; italics mine) corresponding cp. 103 The idea of the "mental imprint" therefore essentirelates Without the difference between ally to the idea of articulation. the sensory appearing Lapparaissant] and its lived appearing the temporalizing ("mental imprint"), [apparaCtre] synthesis, which permits differences to appear in a chain of significations, could not operate. That the "imprint" is irreducible means also that speech is originarily but in a sense of passivity passive, that all intramundane This passivmetaphors would only betray. to a past, to an always-alreadyity is also the relationship of the origin there that no reactivation could fully master and awaken to presence. This impossibility of reanimating absolutely the evidence to an of an originary refers us therfore presence absolute That is what authorized us to call trace that past. be summed up in the simplicity which does not let itself of a It could in fact have been objected that, in the indepresent. of temporalization, is as indiscomposable synthesis protention And their two dimensions are not added up as retention. pensable To be sure, the other in a strange fashion. but the one implies in protention does not disjoint the present what is anticipated than does that which is retained any less from its self-identity the irreduciBut if anticipation were privileged, in the trace. of the always-already-there and the fundamental passivity bility On the other hand, if time would risk effacement. that is called us it is because it obliges to an absolute the trace refers past, in'the form of a to think a past that can no longer be understood modified presence, as a present-past. Since past has always sigin the the absolute nified past that is retained present-past, Another name merits the name "past". trace no longer rigorously since the strange movement of the trace proto erase, especially differance claims as much as it recalls: defers/differs[differe3. it may be and under the same erasure, With the same precaution is also its relationship with the "fusaid that its passivity in and future, ture." The concepts of present, everything past, of them-evidence the concepts of time and history which implies the metaphysical adequately concept of time in general--cannot the simAnd deconstructing of the trace. the structure describe for the of presence does not amount only to accounting plicity of proindeed of a "dialectic" horizons of potential presence, in the heart of the and retention that one would install tention It is not a matter of it with it. of surrounding instead present its homogenof time while conserving the structure complicating for exeity and its fundamental successivity, by demonstrating constitute and the future present ample that the past present it, the form of the living present. originarily, by dividing the same that Husserl which is in effect Such a complication, rein spite of an audacious phenomenological described, abides, and of a linear, and presence objective, duction, by the evidence

Linguistics

and Grammatology

167

mundane model. Now B would be as such constituted by the retention of Now A and the protention of Now C; in spite of all the play that would follow from it, from the fact that each one of in itself, this model the three Now-s reproduces that structure a Now X from taking the place of of successivity would prohibit Now A, for example, and would prohibit that, by a delay that is in to consciousness, be determined, inadmissible an experience its very present, by a present which would not have preceded it It is to it. "anterior" but would be considerably immediately of which the problem of the deferred effect (NachtragZichkeit) Freud speaks. to which he refers cannot be that The temporality or of which lends itself to a phenomenology of consciousness and one may indeed wonder by what right all that is in presence here should still be called uestion time, now, anterior present, etc. delay, In its greatest this immense problem would be formuformality, lated thus: is the temporality described by a transcendental as possible, a ground which the phenomenology as "dialectical" let us say the unconscious of temporality structures, structures, Or is the phenomenological would simply modify? model itself as a warp of language, fundamental constituted, evidence, logic, is security, upon a woof that is not its own? And which,--such the most difficult no longer at all mundane? For it problem--is is not by chance that the transcendental phenomenology of the to place cosmic time so careful internal time-consciousness, and even as internal within brackets, must, as consciousness of the time of live a time that is an accomplice consciousness, or exthe world. Between consciousness, (internal perception even in the subtle form and the "world," the rupture, ternal), of the reduction, is perhaps not possible. It is in a certain "unheard" sense, then, that speech is in calls senwhich metaphysics the world, rooted in that passivity in general. Since there is no non-metaphoric language sibility to oppose to metaphors here, one must, as Bergson wished, multiis how Maine "Wish sensibilized," ply antagonistic metaphors. named the vocalic de Biran, with a slightly different intention, word. That the logos be first imprinted and that that imprint be to be sure, that the the writing-resource of language, signifies, the continuous full element of logos is not a creative activity, the divine word, etc. But it would not mean a single step outif only a new motif of "return to finitude," side of metaphysics of this move. It is that were the result of'God's death," etc., that must be deconstructed. and that problematics conceptuality is Differance It belongs to the onto-theology it fights against. also something other than finitude. its of speech is first the passivity According to Saussure, between passivity The relationship with language. relationship befrom the relationship and difference cannot be distinguished of language (as rootedness tween the fundamental unconsciousness within the language) and the spacing (pause, blank, punctuation, of sigwhich constitutes interval in general, the origin etc.) It is because "language is a form and not a subnification. of the activity stance" (p. 169) cp. 1221 that, paradoxically,

168

Derrida

draw from it. But if it is a form, can and must always speech " in language there are only differences" it is because (p. 166) that word speaks this the articulaCp. 120]. (notice Spacing tion of space and time, the becoming-space of time and the beis always the unperceived, the non-present, of space) coming-time if one can still exand the non-conscious. use that As such, the very in a non-phenomenological pression way; for here we pass limits occur as spacing cannot as of phenomenology. Archi-writing It of a presence. the phenomenological such within experience of the living the presence marks the dead time within present, form of all presence. The dead time is always within the general of all in spite the discursive That is why, once again, at work. the concept that the former may borrow from the latter, resources of writing. of the trace will never be merged with a phenomenology of in general, a phenomenology of the sign As the phenomenology in the place can be realized No intuition is impossible. writing to take on an importance" indeed where "the (Preface 'wwbtes' Coup de des) . to understand it is now easier why Freud says of the Perhaps than to a to a writing rather it is comparable that dreamwork writthan to a phonetic rather and to a hieroglyphic langyage, it that of Saussure And to understand ing. language says why With or withof the speaker" "is not a function (p. 30) Cp. 14]. must all these of their out the complicity authors, propositions of a metaphysics reversals as more than the simple be understood and disof presence or of conscious Constituting subjectivity. is other than the subject, it at the same time, writing locating be can never is understood. the latter sense in whatever Writing it is modified, however of the subject; under the category thought it or unconsciousness, it is endowed with consciousness however to the substanof its thread will history, refer, by the entire or to the identiof a presence by accidents, unperturbed tiality of self-relationin the presence CZe propre] ty of the selfsame does not run withof that history And the thread clearly ship. is an X as a subject To determine of metaphysics. in the borders an indifferit is never of a pure convention, never an operation to writing. ent gesture in relation and the becomingis the becoming-absent as writing Spacing of the subject. unconscious drift/derivaBy the movement of its in return tion of the sign constitutes the emancipation E[drive3 that the desire of presence. That becoming--or drift/derivation it or would would choose not befall the subject'which --does reAs the subject's be drawn along by it. let itself passively is the constitution this own death, with its becoming lationship is that of life's levels On all of subjectivity. organization, are of a testamenAll graphemes to say of the 3conomy of death. of writof the subject absence And the original tary essence. or the referent. of the thing the absence ing is also the which is in fact of spacing, the horizontality Within of so far, ahd which is I have been speaking dimension precise it is not even necesnot opposed to it as surface depth, opposes to drop within and causes cuts, drops, spacing sary to say that cadence this without is nothing the unconscious the unconscious:

Linguistics

and Grammatology

169

and before this caesura. Thus signification forms itself only the hollow of differance: of discontinuity within and of disof the diversion and the reserve of what does not creteness, as writing, This hinging of language this Lbrisure] appear. could at a given moment within have, discontinuity, linguistics, a rather run up against Renounccontinuist precious prejudice. must indeed all between renounce distinctions ing it, phonology and the spoken word, and thus renounce not itself, writing in but rather What Jakobson phonology, recognized phonologism. this is most important for us: respect The stream continuous, of oral speech, physicaZly the mathematical theory confronted originally of more communication with a situation "considerably involved" W. 3 Weaver CThe (EC.E. Shannon and Mathematical 1949, Urbana, Theory of Communication, than in the case of a finite set of 112f3) p. 74f, discrete as presented cons-tituents, by written came to rehowever, speechz. Linguistic analysis, oral solve series into a finite of elemenspeech units. These ultimate discrete tary informational the so-called are "distinctive units, features," into simultaneous termed bundles aligned 'lphonemes, t which in turn are concatenated into sequences. has a manifestly Thus form in language granular 32 structure and is subject to a quantal description. The hinging a sign, that marks the impossibility Ebrisure] and a signified, within the the unity of a signifier be produced That is why of a present and an absolute presence. plenitude much one might wish to restore however there is no full speech, thinkBefore of psychoanalysis. it by means or without benefit which of the full it or restore the meaning speech ing to reduce and of of meaning to be truth, one must ask the question claims of of a problematic Such is the place its in difference. origin the trace. of this word? What led us to the choice Why of the trace? I have begun to answer is such, this But this question question. of the one and and such the nature the place of our answer, that of the other If words and conmust constantly be in movement. one can of differences, receive only in sequences cepts meaning a and one's of terms, choice one's only within language, justify can thereThe justification and an historical strategy. topology to a condifor never be absolute and definitive. It corresponds and translates an historical tion of forces calculation. Thus, numa certain over and above those that I have already defined, to the discourse of our time have prober of givens belonging must choice The word trace this imposed upon us. gressively discourses of itself to a certain refer number of contemporary I accept Not that I intend account. whose force to take into conthe clearest establishes But the word trace them totally. with certain me to dispense with them and thus permits nections effectiveness their demonstrated which have already developments

1 70

Derrida

in those fields. this concept of trace to what Thus, I relate is at the center of the latest work of Emmanuel Levinas and his of ontology33: a relationship to the illeity as to the critique of a past that never was and can never be lived in the alterity or modified form of presence. to a Reconciled here originary it is not in Levinas' Ileideggerian intention,--as thought--this notion signifies, sometimes beyond Heideggerian the discourse, has undermining of an ontology which, in its innermost course, determined the meaning of being as presence and the meaning of of speech. To make enigmatic language as the full continuity "imwhat one thinks one understands by the words "proximity," Cproche], the own [propre], (the proximate mediacy," "presence" and the pre- of presence), This deconis my final intention. of presence itself struction accomplishes through the deconstrucnotion of consciousness, and therefore through the irreducible and tion of the trace (Spur), as it appears in both Nietzschean notain all scientific And finally, Freudian discourse. fields, to be dominant and this notion seems-currently bly in biology, irreducible. of "memory," which must be If the trace, archi-phenomenon of nature and culture, animality thought before the opposition and humanity, etc., belongs to the very movement of signification, or not, is a priori whether inscribed then signification written, and "spatial" element in a '"sensible" in one form or another, of first that is called "exterior." possibility Archi-writing, the the spoken word, then of the "graph" in the narrow sense, denounced from Plato to Saussure, of "usurpation," birthplace in general, this trace is the opening of the first exteriority to its other and of an of the living the enigmatic relationship and "obThe outside, to an outside: inside "spatial" spacing. we know as the most familwhich we believe exteriority jective" would not appear iar thing in the world, as familiarity itself, withas temporalization, without the gramme, without differance within the meaning of the other inscribed out the non-presence'of with death as the concrete the present, without the relationship of the living structure Metaphor would be forbidden. present. which one should not even call of the trace, The presence-absence reits ambiguity but rather its play (for the word "ambiguity" even when it begins to disobey that quires the logic of presence, and the the problems of the letter in itself carries logic), of body and soul, and of all the problems whose primary spirit, of the imall theories All dualisms, I have recalled. affinity as well as all monisms, or of the spirit, of the soul mortality are the unior vulgar, dialectical or materialist, spiritualist was compelled to whose entire history que theme of a metaphysics of The subordination of the trace. strive toward the reduction thle humsummed up in the logos, the trace to the full presence such beneath a speech dreaming its plenitude, bling of writing the are the gestures determining required by an onto-theology as presence, and eschatological meaning of beinl archaeological another name for death, as life without difference: as parousia, That historial metonymy where God's name holds death in check. is why, if this movement begins its era in the form of Platonism,

Linguistics

and Grammatology

171

can reit ends in infinitist being metaphysics. Only infinite in presence. In that the name of God, duce the difference sense, within classical as it is pronounced such at least rationalism, can is the name of indifference itself. infinity Only a positive it (it has recently been proposed lift the trace, "sublimate" this be translated as sublimation; that the Hegelian Aufhebung but the juxworth as translation, translation may be of dubious We must not therefore is of interest here). speak of taposition when it is a a "theological sporadically functioning prejudice," as the sublimathe logos of the logos; of the plenitude question are alInfinitist of the trace is theological. tion theologies or not. whether Spinoza they are creationisms ways logocentrisms, it was the of the understanding--or said himself logos--that the even calling mode of the divine infinite immediate substance, to this It is also its eternal son in the Short Treatise. logos of the with a theology with Hegel, "reaching completion" epoch, all absolute as logos, that the non-critical concepts concept that at least to the extent accredited belong, by linguistics it--the avoid must confirm--and how can a science linguistics of language." out "the internal Saussurian decree system marking the exclusion that permitted It is precisely these concepts and intelligible, sensible of writing: image or representation, etc. and technique, nature and culture, nature They are solidary with a and particularly with all metaphysical conceptuality of the determination and derivative naturalist, objectivist, outside and inside. between difference I borrow of time." And above all with a "vulgar concept at the end of It designates, from Heidegger. this expression movement from spatial of time starting Being and Time, a concept from Aristotle's all philosophy or from the now, and dominating all which determines This concept, to Hegel's Logic. Physics carewas not born out of a philosopher's classical ontology, the totalIt is within failure. or from a theoretical lessness its metaphysic of what unites of the Occident, ity of the history with the associated see it later And we shall and its technique. of and with the linearist of writing, linearization concept from phonolois undoubtedly This linearism inseparable speech. a linear that to the same extent its voice it can raise gism; of entire Saussure's to it. theory can seem to submit writing from this could be interpreted of the signifier" the "linearity of view. point command only the have at their signifiers Auditory are presented Their elements dimension of time. This feature in succession; they form a chain. when they are represented becomes readily apparent . . .The in writing. auditory, being signifier, in time from which it gets is unfolded soZely (a) it represents characteristics: the following in a and (b) the span is measurable a span, it is a line.35 dimension; single

1 72

Derrida

on which Jakobson It is a point with Saussure disagrees for the homogenousness of the line decisively by substituting the structure of the musical "the chord in music."36 staff, What is here in question is not Saussure's affirmation of the essence of discourse but the concept of time that guides temporal this and analysis: affirmation time conceived as linear successas "consecutivity." This model works by itself and ivity, the Course but Saussure is seemingly less sure of it throughout in the Anagrams. At any rate, its value seems problematic to him and an intersting a question elaborates left paragraph suspended: That the elements a word follow one another forming is a truth that it would be better for linguistics not to consider as a thing because uninteresting but which on the contrary in advance evident, gives the central on of all reflections useful principle words. In a domain as infinitely as the special one I am about it is always to treat, by virtue of the fundamental law of the human word in general that a question like or that of consecutiveness non-consecutiveness may be posed.37 of time is therefore one of the deepThis linearist concept of the modern concept of the to its est adherences own hissign itFor at the limit, it is indeed of the sign the concept tory. however the signifyand the distinction, between tenuous, self, of faces to the history that remain committed ing and signified and correspondence of the classical The parallelism ontology. That this first or the planes faces distinction, change nothing. of a in Stoic was necessary for the coherence logic, appearing us forbids scholastic thematics infinist theology, dominated'by I debt to it as a contingency or a convenience. to treat today's are clearer at the outset, this and perhaps the reasons suggested to a res, as to its now. The signatum referred, referent, always to an existent and spoken, created or at any rate first thought and speakable, in the eternal of the divine thinkable present to in its breath. If it came to relate and specifically logos of a finite or not; in any case of an the speech (created being of a signans, the intra-cosmic the intermediary existent) through had an immediate with the divine logos relationship signatum and for which it was not a which thought it within presence is a trace, And for modern linguistics, if the signifier trace. in principle the full the signified within is a meaning thinkable to of an intuitive consciousness. The signified face, presence from the the extent it is still that distinguished originarily a trace: it has no is not considered face, by rights, signifying need of the signifier It is at the depth of to be what it is. linthis that of relationships the problem between affirmation to the This reference and semantics must: be posed. guistics of all and possible thinkable outside of a signifier sigmeaning I that nifiers remains dependent upon the onto-theo-teleology It is thus the idea of the sign that must be evoked. have just which would merge, a meditation deconstructed upon writing through

Linguistics

and Grammatology

173

as it must, with the undoing lsollicitation337a of onto-theology, it in its totality and making it insecure in faithfully repeating its most assured evidences.38 One is led to this of necessity from the moment that the trace affects the totality of the sign in both its aspects. That the signified and is originarily a and created spirit) (and not only for a finite essentially that it is always already in the position trace, of the signiis the apparently innocent proposition within which the fier, of the logos, of presence must and consciousness, metaphysics reflect as its death ana its resource. upon writing Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak of Iowa University COa. are to Ferdinand de Saussure, Derrida's page references 1949. Cours de tinguistiqwe Mine, placed ggneraZe, Paris, tr. Wade within C 3, to Course in General Linguistics, within [ 3 All page references Baskin, New York, 1959. where of French texts, are to English translations available.3 De interpretationes I, 16a3.3 [Parallel French, and English, Diogene 51, 1965, Ep. 543. of this journal are published simultaneously. Spanish editions Andre Martinet are to the English Diogenes.3 My references to the "courage" which would formerly have been alludes that the term 'word' itself "needed" to "foresee might definiterm could not be given a universally applicable as revealed tion" (p. 39) [p. 393. by recent "Semiology, has no need of the word" (p. 40) cp. 393. . studies, have long known that the analy"Grammarians and linguists can be pursued beyond the word without sis of utterances that is, ending with segments of going into phonetics, or phonemes, which have nothing such as syllables speech, "We are touching to do with meaning" (p. 41) Cp. 403. to here on what renders the notion of the word so suspect all true linguists. writing They cannot accept traditional first whether it reproduces without verifying faithfully of the language which it is supposed to the true structure Martinet proposes In conclusion record" (p. 48) cp. 483. of the notion of "in linguistic the replacement practice" minimal word by that of "syntagm," any "group of several "monemes." signs" that will be called to bring out the tone and the Let us extend our quotation Saussure puts of these theoretical affect propositions. is that the less "Another result the blame on writing: the what it is supposed to represent, represents writing the tendency to use it as a basis becomes. stronger to the written to draw attention Grammarians never fail the tendency is easily form. explained, Psychologically,
have to be put aside if . . . researches showed that this

COb. 1 .

2 .

1 74

Derrida

3 .

4 . 5 .

6 . 7 .

but its consequences are annoying. Free use of the words and 'pronunciation' sanctions the abuse and 'pronounce' reverses the real, between writing legitimate relationship and language. Whoever says that a certain letter must be the written pronounced a certain way is mistaking image of a sound for the sound itself. For French oi to be pronounced wa, this spelling would have to exist independentwa is written oi." Instead of meditating ly; actually of such the responsibility upon this strange proposition, a text ("actually "To wa is written oi") Saussure argues: of o the oddity to an exceptional attribute pronunciation and i is also misleading, for this implies that language form and that certain liberties depends on its written may be taken in writing, as if the graphic symbols were the 'norm' (p. 52) [p. 303. in the Pl6iade edition under the title Manuscript included Its composition is placed Prononciation (II, p. 1248). circa 1761 (cf. editors' note in the Pleiade). The sentence that I have just cited is the last one of the fragment as published in the Pleiade. It does not appear in of the same group of notes by CM. the comparable edition G.] Streckeisen-Moultou, under the title of "Fragment d'un sur le meme Essai sur les langues" and "Notes detach6es in Oeuvres et correspondances inedites de J. J. sujet," CParis], 1861, p. 295. Rousseau, Text presented in "Les anagrammes de by Jean Starobinski Ferdinand de Saussure: textes Mercure de France, inedits," 1964, Cvol. 350]. February, in the fragment on Rousseau is seemingly more cautious Prononciation: speech by "Thought is analysed by speech, signs, writing; thought by conventional speech represents and writing speech in the same way; thus the represents of art of writing is nothing but a mediated representation the only ones at least in the vocalic thought, languages, for that we use" (p. 1249; italics mine). Only seemingly, to Rousseau here forbids himself even if, unlike Saussure, the notions of speak in general of the entire system, leave the enigma inmediacy and of "vocalic languages" I shall return to this. tact. Cf. CJacques Derrida, de la geometrie ed.,] L'origine 1962. CParis3, "The signifier aspect of the system of language can conto which the phonic aspect of sist only of rules according Printhe act of speech is ordered," CN.S.] Troubetzkoy, tr. Fr. [J. Cantineaue, 1949; Paris, cipes de phonologie, A. M. Baltaxe, tr. Christiane of Phonology, Principles It is in the 19693, p. 2. Berkeley and Los Angeles, of Jakobson and Halle (the et phonetique" "Phonologie first part of Fundamentals of Language [the Hague, 19563, in Essais collected and translated de linguistique Ctr. Nicolas 19633, p. 103 [p. 13Ruwet, Paris, generale strand of the Saussurian 661) that the phonologistic proand most rigorously ject seems to be most systematically

Linguistics

and Grammatology

175

8 .

9 . 10 .

11

12 . 13 . 14 .

15 . 16 .

17

of defended, notably against Hjelmslev's "algebraic" point view. formulated himp. 101. Beyond the scruples by Saussure an entire of intralinguistic criticism can self, system be opposed to the thesis of the "arbitrariness of the "A la recherche Cf. de ltessence du sign." Jakobson, for the Essence of Language" ,]Diogene, langage,"["Quest La linguistique 51, and Martinet, EParis, synchronique But these do not interfere-criticisms 1965], p. 34. do not pretend to interfere--with Saussure's and, besides, intention at the discontinuity directed and improfound motivation to the structure of if not the origin proper the sign. Bk. II, ed. Charles Elements [Collected of Logic, Papers, Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, 1931-58, Mass., Cambridge, vol. 302. 2], p. 169, paragraph I justify of bedeuten the translation by vouloir-dire in La voix et Ze cmeaning, literally "wish-to-say"] tr. David B; Allison, and 1967; CParis, phenom~ne Speech 1973.] Phenomenon, Evanston, [ed. The Philosophy Justus Selected of Peirce: Writings, New York and London, ch. 7, p. 99. Buchler, 1940], Let us recall p. 93. that Lambert opposes phenomenology to aletheiology. Bk. I, 2, paragraph Elements 302. of Logic, These Heideggerian themes refer back to Nietzobviously sche tr. fr. in Essais et conferences La chose, (cf. 1950, Etr. Andre Pr6au, Paris, 1958], p. 214 C"Das Ding," de und Aufsatze, Le principe 1954]; Vortrage Pfullingen, tr. Fr. EAndre Preau, 1955-56, 1962], Paris, raison, Such 1957]. p. 240f [Der Satz vom Grund, Pfullingen, in Eugen Fink (Le jeu comme are presented also themes asl du monde [Spiel 1960), Stuttgart] symbole Weltsymbol, in Kostas Vers la pensee and, in France, Axelos, planein ein kunfliges and Einfuhrung taire 1964, EParis], 1966. Denken E:iTber Marx und Heidegger, Tubingen], Communications, 4, 1964, p. 2. of relaof value is made up solely "The conceptual side terms of to the other with respect and differences tions side. and the same can be said of its material language, The important in the word is not the sound alone thing to disthat make it possible differences but the phonic for differences word from all this carry others, tinguish in . . . A segment can never of language signification. on anything its nonbe based the final except analysis coincidence with the rest" 117-1183. (p. 163) [p. in is observable an identical of affairs "Since state of signs, use writing we shall another writing, system the whole that will to draw some comparisons clarify In fact: issue. there is no are arbitrary; The signs used in writing 1) t and the between the letter for example, connection, sound that it designates.

176

Derrida

18 . c18a. 19 .

is purely negative and differen2) The value of letters The same person can write t, for instance, in tial. different is that the ways: X*4 e . The only rquirement with the signs sign for t not be confused in his script used for Z, d, etc. function 3) Values in writing only through reciprocal opwithin a fixed system that consists of a set numposition ber of letters. This third characteristic, though not is closely to it, for both identical to the second, related Since the graphic sign is arbitrary, depend on the first. its form matters little or rather matters only within the limitations imposed by the system. 4) The means by which the sign is produced is completely for it does not affect the system (this also unimportant, follows from characteristic Whether I make the letters 1). in white or black, with pen or chisel-raised or engraved, all this is of no importance with respect to their signification" (p. 165-166) Cp. 119-120]. are two correlative and differential qualities" "Arbitrary (p. 163) Ep. 1183. and Roman Jakobson Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language, p. 16]. is expressed: This literal fidelity of Hjelmslev's 1. in the critical attempt ("Au exposition de L. sujet des fondements de la theorie linguistique de Paris, Bulletin de la Societe Hjelmslev," Linguistique with consistent vol. 42, p. 40): "Hjelmslev is perfectly himself when he declares that a written text has for the since the same value as a spoken text, exactly linguist He refuses the choice of the substance is not important. and is primitive even to admit that the spoken substance It seems as if it would derived. the written substance to make him notice suffice that, but for certain pathoall human beings speak, but few know logical exceptions, know how to speak long beor that children how to write, I shall not press fore they learn how to write. therefore the point" (italics mine). 2. In the Elements de linguistique 1961; [Paris, gengrale tr. Elisabeth Elements of General Linguistics, Palmer, on the vocal characLondon, 19641, where all the chapters ter of language pick up the words and arguments of Chapter to VI of the Course: "COne learns to speak before learning of spoken usage: the read:] reading comes as a reflection mine. This proposition reverse is never true" (italics even on the level seems to me to be thoroughly debatable, of that common experience which has the force of law with"The study of Martinet concludes: in this argument.) from linguistics distinct is a discipline proper, writing although practically speaking it is one of its dependenwithout rein principle cies. Thus the linguist operates We see how the forms" (p. 11) Cp. 17]. gard for written function: writing concepts of dependency and abstraction which does are alien but not independent; and its science

Linguistics

and Grammatology

177

21 22 23

. . .

24

25

[25a.

not stop them from being, immanent but not conversely, essential. Just not to affect the inenough "outside" of the language in its itseZf, tegrity pure original in its not self-identity, property; just enough "inside" to have the right or epistemological to any practical And vice versa. independence. " . . . it is from 3. In "The Word" (already cited): that in order one should to understart always speech stand the real nature of human language" (p. 53) cp. 54]. 4. and finally and above all articulation in "La double du langage," La linguistique p. 8f and p. 18f. synchronique, "On the Principles of Phonematics," 1955, Proceedings of the Second International Sciences, of Phonetic Congress p. 51. Essais (1943), ECopen"Langue et parole" linguistiques 19593, hagen, p. 77. 1943, Copenhagen, Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse as Prolegomena to A Theory of Langu(translated p. 91-9" second Ctr. Francis J; Whitfield, edition, Baltimore, age, 19613, p. 103-104. "La stratification Cf. also du langage" Essais (1954), de Copendu cercZe (Travaux linguistique Linguistiques of a The project and the terminology 1959). XII, hague, of the substance science of graphic expresgraphematics, are there of the The complexity (p. 41). sion, presented aims to remedy the fact from the that, algebra proposed of view of the distinction form and subbetween point "Saussure's can lead to confusion" stance, terminology demonstrates how "one and the same (p. 48). Hjelmslev form of expression can be manifested substances: by diverse etc." (P. 49). graphic, phonic, flag-signals, and Writing," Acta Linguistica, IV, 1944, 1938, "Speech Uldall refers also to a study by Dr. Joseph p. 11f. "Zum Problem der geschriebenen (Travaux Vachek, Sprache" to in order du Cercle de Prague 1939) VIII, linguistique and "the difference indicate between the phonologic of view." glossematic points Cf. also Eli Fischer-Jorgensen, sur les prin"Remarques de l'analyse Recherches structurales, cipes phon6mique," vol. 1949 (Travaux du CercZe linguistique de Prague, V, Bertha A Study of Glossematics cthe Siertsema, p. 231f); ch. VI), and Hennings 1955, SpangHague,] (especially and American Trends in European "Glossematics," Hanssen, [ed. Christine 1930-1960 Mohrmann, Utrecht,3 Linguistics, 1961, p. 147f. And already, in the Proin a very programmatic manner, Cf. also translation, (English p. 114-115). legomena Adolf strucd'une th6orie Stender-Petersen, "Esquisse "La notion de la litt6rature,",and turale Stevan Johanson, de signe et dans l'esthetique," dans la glossematique vol. de Copenhague, Travaux du Cercle V, 1949. linguistique the word "differance" in "La differance," Derrida presents 1972.3 de la phiZosophie, Paris, Marges:

178

Derrida

26 . 27 .

28

29

c29a. C29b. 30 .

Omkring, p. 9 (Prolegomena, p. 8). Which does not prevent from "venturing p. 14. Hjelmslev to call" his directing an "empirical principle principle" "we he adds, translation, (p. 12, English "But," p. 11). are willing to abandon the name if epistemological invesshows it to be inappropriate. From our point of tigation a question view this is merely of terminology, which does not affect the maintenance of the principle". This is of the terminological of conventionalism only one example a system, in borrowing all from the its concents which, of the metaphysics that it would hold at a dishistory tance believes (form/substance, etc.), content/expression, it can neutralize its entire historical burden by means of of intention, or quotation some declaration a preface, marks. of the concept of origin in general As for this critique we have elsewhere and/or transcendental) attemp(empirical to ted to indicate the schema.of an argument (Introduction Husserl's de la geometrie p. 60). 1962,] CParis, L'origine formulates the same reservaHjelmslev p. 111. op. cit., "It is curious tions: that so long on guard linguistics, of 'psychologism,' even seems here, against any suspicion if only to a certain extent and in very cautious proporto be on its way back to Saussure's tions, 'acoustic to 'concept,' and equally as long as that word is image,' I in strict with the doctrine that interpreted conformity in short have just to recognize, with however elaborated, of with the two aspects reservations, that, many necessary of the 'purely the linguistic one is in the presence sign, But it phenomenon'"(Course, p. 28) Cp. 11]. psychological than a a partial of nomenclatures is rather coincidence and the real The terms introduced by Saussure, analogy. in the Course, have been abandoned interpretations given not to make be equivocal, because and it is better they-can We too hesitate when we ask ourthe same mistakes again. here may be conadvocated selves how much the researches order: the reasidered to the psychological as belonging son being that psychology whose seems to be a discipline definition much to be desired" still leaves ("La stratification du langage," Essais 1954, p. 56). linguistiques, the same problem, evoked these Hjelmslev, already posing could be fully that'the "numerous nuances Genevan Master to insist it useful aware of, but which he did not find this attitude behind escapes upon; the motives naturally us" (p. 76). the Husserliana. GesammeZte Werke, ed. H. L. van Breda, 6.] vol. 1950-73, Hague, tr. Anthony Mallarme Harmondsworth, 1965, p. 209.] Hartley, of a reading of Freud from this I have attempted point et Za de l'ecriture, et la scene view "L'ecriture ("Freud "Freud and the Scene of Writing," 1967; differenceParis, No. 48, 1972.] tr. Jeffrey Yale French Studies, Mehlman, of the between the concept the relationship It exposes

Linguistics

and Grammatology

179

31 .

trace and the structure of "a-retardation" which I mention above, This theme inhabits more than one mythological system. Thoth, the Egyptian god of Among many other examples, evoked in of the technical inventor Phaedrus, writing ruse, the analogue of Hermes, also performed essential in funeral rites. functions When the opportunity offered, he was the conductor of the dead. He inscribed the accounts before the Last Judgment. He also occupied the of the secretary/substitute function who usurped first of the king, the father, the sun, of their eye. place: For example: "As a general rule, Horus' eye became the lunar eye. The moon, like everything that touched the astral Accordthe Egyptians greatly. world, intrigued the moon was created by the Sun-god to ing to one legend, itself at night: it was Thoth whom Re designated replace for the exercise of substitution. of this high function of the Another myth tried to explain the vicissitudes moon by a periodic battle were Horus whose protagonists and Seth. During the combat, Horus' eye was wrenched to return was obliged out, but Seth, finally vanquished, to his victorious opponent the eye that he had lifted; to another version, the eye returned on its according Whatever the case own, or was brought back by Thoth. and his eye back joyfully, might have been, Horus received it. The Egypput it back in its place after purifying We that eye oudjat, 'the healthy one. tians called shall see that the oudjat eye played a considerable role in the funerary religion, in the Osirian legend, and in
the sacrificial

ceived a solar counterpart: it was said that the universal master, at the origin of the world, was seen, for some unknown reason, le charged to be without an eye. Shou and Tefnout to bring it back. The absence of the to retwo messengers lasted so long that Re was obliged The eye, when it was brought place the unfaithful eye. back by Shou and Tefnout, became very angry (a), seeing that its place had been taken. Re transIn appeasement, formed it into the serpent-uraeus and placed it on his forehead as the symbol of his power; besides, he charged it to defend him against his enemies. from which men were born (a) The eye shed tears (rrmyt) the mythic origin of men clearly rests upon a (rgmet); simple word-play (Jacques Vandier, La religion egyptienne,
P.U.F.

ceremony.

This

legend

. later

re-

32 .
33 .

tion can be related to the story of the eye in Rousseau. et theorie de la communication," (op. cit., "Linguistique p. 87-88) p. 245.
Cf. particularly, et "La trace de l'autre,"

CParis,

19443,

p.

39-40).

This

myth

of

substitu-

filosofie, physique:
L'ecriture

September 1963, and my essay "Violence Essai sur la penske d'Emmanuel Levinas,"
la diffgrence.

Tidjschrift

voor

et meta-

-180

Derrida

34 . 35 .
36 37 . .

I take the liberty of referring to a forthcoming essay, "Ousia et Gramme, note sur une note de Sein und Zeit"
[this cit.

p. 103 [p. 70]. neous time," (p.

Op.

essay

is 106.

now included

See also 64f) [p.

Cf.

in Marges:

de

Za philosophie.]

everything 38f].
the Diogene

concerning
article

"homogealready de

cited.

p.

also

Mercure de France, February as Les mots sous les mots:

[37a. 38 .

ed. Jean Starobinski, 1971.] Presenting Saussure, Paris, this text, Starobinski evokes a musical model and concludes: "This reading is developed according to another at the very limit, one leaves tempo (and in another time); the time of 'consecutivity' proper to habitual language." One could of course say "proper to the habitual concept" of time and of language. Derrida comments on this Latinate use of "sollicitation"
in "Force et signification," L'ecriture et la difference,

1964, p. 254. les anagrammes

ENow published de Ferdinand

p. 13.] I have chosen to demonstrate the necessity of this "deconstruction" the Saussurian references, by privileging not only because Saussure still dominates contemporary and semiology; it is also because he seemed to linguistics us to hold himself at the limit: at the same time within the metaphysics that must be deconstructed and beyond the which he still concept of the sign (signifier/signified) uses. But Saussure's his interminable hesitascruples, in the matter of the difference betions, particularly tween the two "aspects" of the sign and in the matter of are better understood "arbitrariness," through reading
Robert Godel's Les sources manuscrites du cours de lin-

Suffice it 1957, p. 190f. [Geneva], generale guistique to say here that it is not impossible that the literality of the Course, to which we have indeed had to refer, should one day appear very suspect in the light of unpubI am lished material now being prepared for publication. of the Anagrams Cnow published, see particularly thinking note 371. for the lJp to what point is Saussure responsible Course as it was edited and published after his death? It is not a new question. Need we specify that, here at we cannot consider it to be pertinent? Unless my least, has been fundamentally it should be project misunderstood, clear by now that, about Ferdinand de caring very little Saussure's I have interested myself very thought itself, in a text whose literality has played a well-known role since 1915, operating within a system of readings, influetc. ences, misunderstandings, refutations, borrowings, What I could read--and equally what I could not read-under the title of A Course in General

all hidden and "true" important to the point of excluding of Ferdinand de Saussure. intentions If one were to discover that this text hid another text--and there will never be anything but texts,--and hid it in a determined

Linguistics

seemed

Linguistics

and Grammatology

181

I have just the reading that would not be sense, proposed for that particular reason. at least invalidated, Quite at the very end of their first the contrary. Besides, of the Course themselves foresee the editors "Preface," situation. this