Editing Logocentrism (section)

== In linguistics ==
According to [[Jacques Derrida]], with the logos as the site of a representational unity, linguistics dissects the structure of the logos further and establishes the sound of the word, coupled with the sense of the word, as the original and ideal location of metaphysical significance. Logocentric linguistics proposes that "the immediate and privileged unity which founds significance and the acts of language is the articulated unity of sound and sense within the phonic."<ref>Derrida, p. 29</ref> As the science of language, linguistics is a science by way of this semiotic phonology. It follows, therefore, that speech is the primary form of language and that writing is secondary, representative, and, importantly, outside of speech. Writing is a "sign of a sign"<ref>Derrida, p. 29</ref> and, therefore, is basically phonetic.

[[Jonathan Culler]] in his book ''Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction'' says:

:Traditionally, Western philosophy has distinguished "reality" from "appearance," things themselves from representations of them, and thought from signs that express it. Signs or representations, in this view, are but a way to get at reality, truth, or ideas, and they should be as transparent as possible; they should not get in the way, should not affect or infect the thought or truth they represent. In this framework, speech has seemed the immediate manifestation or presence of thought, while writing, which operates in the absence of the speaker, has been treated as an artificial and derivative representation of speech, a potentially misleading sign of a sign (p. 11).

This notion that the written word is a sign of a sign has a long history in Western thought. According to [[Aristotle]] (384 BC – 322 BC), "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words."<ref>(Derrida, p. 30)</ref> [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] similarly states, "Writing is nothing but the representation of speech; it is bizarre that one gives more care to the determining of the image than to the object."<ref>(Derrida, p. 27)</ref>

Derrida’s critique of logocentrism examines the limitations of linguistic systems that prioritize speech over writing and assume a direct, stable connection between language and meaning. He argues that traditional linguistics fails to be "general" as it remains bound by rigid distinctions—between inside and outside, essence and fact—which prevent a complete understanding of language's structure.

For Derrida, writing isn't merely a secondary "image" or representation of speech; rather, it challenges the very notion of a pure linguistic core. He suggests that if signs always refer to other signs, then writing is inherent within language itself, not a detached representation. This concept undermines the idea of language as a transparent tool for representing a stable reality.

Derrida identifies this bias, logocentrism, as central to Western metaphysical thought, which privileges "presence" and direct expression in speech. This bias has stifled deeper inquiry into writing's origin and role, reducing it to a mere technical tool rather than acknowledging it as fundamental to meaning-making. Consequently, logocentrism restricts linguistic theory, making it impossible to fully explore the complex, interconnected nature of language and writing. <ref>{{cite web |last1=Carter |first1=Mason |title=Derrida's Critique of Logocentrism: The Deconstruction of the World |url=https://www.classwithmason.com/2023/12/derridas-critique-of-logocentrism.html |website=Class with Mason}}</ref>