Between 1907 and 1911, Ferdinand de Saussure gave three series of lectures on the topic of general linguistics. After his death, these lecture notes were gathered together by his students and published as the Course in General Linguistics. And in the past one hundred years, there has been no more influential and divisive reading of Saussure than that of Jacques Derrida. This book is an examination of Derrida’s philosophical reconstruction of Saussurean linguistics, of the paradigm shift from structuralism to post-structuralism, and of the consequences that continue to resonate in every field of the humanities today. Despite the importance of Derrida’s critique of Saussure for cultural studies, philosophy, linguistics and literary theory, no comprehensive analysis has before been written. The magnitude of the task undertaken here makes this book an invaluable resource for those wishing to interrogate the encounter beyond appearances or received wisdom. In this process of a close reading, the following themes become sites of debate between Derrida and Saussure: - the originality of Saussure within the history of Western metaphysics - the relationship between speech and writing - the relationship between différance and difference - the intervention of time in structuralism - linguistic relativism and the role of the language user. This long-overdue commentary also poses new questions to structuralism and post-structuralism, and opens up exciting new terrain in linguistic and political thought.

This reflection paper focuses in an evident pattern that I observe in the past lectures that there seems to be a leaning towards the supremacy of speech over writing. It is an alarming phenomenon because this parasitic tendency to go back to binary opposition would put into question the intention of structuralism to move away from the spell of logocentrism. Derrida's manner of unmasking this issue is really intriguing, for it will possibly shake the ground where structuralism laid its foundation as free from this logocentric bias. Thus, one of the most important concerns this paper wanted to establish is for structuralism to remain steadfast despite a deconstructive attempt from Derrida. Derrida looked at the entire history of Western Metaphysics as a continuous search for a logos or an originary presence. We keep trying to find the logos and behind this search is a desire for a higher reality, a full presence that is beyond and is not implicated in the play of structure-metaphysics of presence. This logos promises to get meaning and purpose to all things, to act as the universal center. Structuralism on the other hand made a deliberate step to move away from the tradition of Western metaphysics by claiming that there is no such thing as an encompassing reality. As defined by Peter Caws (1988), " structuralism is a philosophical view according to which the reality of the objects of human or social sciences is relational rather than substantial. " 2 This definition is not holistic; it applies to one kind of reality but says nothing about the other. 3 In effect, it is a step away from the centering impulse for there is a realization that the relations between the intelligible world and the material world may vary, there is no presence of one metaphysical structure that can explain everything that there is.

The Cours de linguistique générale (1916), which became the master text for structuralist linguistics and semiotics, is characterized by a series of dichotomies. Some of them, e.g. langue and parole, signified and signifier, arbitrary and motivated, are very well known, others less so. This paper looks at Saussure’s semiotics in terms of these dichotomies, and considers how later critiques, such as Voloshinov’s (1929), and reformulations, particularly Hjelmslev’s (1935, 1942) and the concept of enunciation which emerged conjointly in the work of Jakobson, Lacan, Dubois, Benveniste and others, were shaped as responses to the Saussurean dichotomies. Also examined in terms of its contrast with Saussure is Bally’s stylistics. The aim is a fuller understanding of the shapes taken by structuralist semiotics, in view of the heritage on which they were based and the broader intellectual climate, including phenomenology and Marxism, in which they developed.

By far the dominant reading of Saussure today is Derrida's. But what if Derrida was wrong about Saussure, or at least, if Derrida's reading was limited? What if, for example, Derrida went too far in incorporating Saussure within a "classical semiology," which is itself of doubtful unity? Or if it were possible to separate phonocentrism from logocentrism? What if Saussure did not reproduce a transcendental signified, that is, a concept independent of language? What if Saussurean theory does not join a sign to a referent, or betray a nostalgia for presence? It is clear why Saussure was necessary for Derrida's legitimate project of identifying logocentric presuppositions in even the most careful projects of anti-metaphysics. But an unfortunate result of Derrida's efforts is that the true specificity and originality of Saussure - in his approach to the language user - continues to be overlooked. I feel that the dominance of the Derridean reading of Saussure has meant that certain explorations in structuralism were extinguished before they even began, and that there are some extremely difficult but rewarding ways of thinking that a new reading of Saussure can offer us now; a reinvigoration of certain possibilities of Saussurean thought which have been compressed into the logocentric framework. Above all, it is to rethink Saussure's forgotten dictum, that "In order to determine to what extent something is a reality, it is necessary and also sufficient to find out to what extent it exists as far as the language users are concerned."

Difference and differance are the two important key terms of the post structuralism given by the two prominent philosophers, namely, Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Derrida. In order to explain these two terms in a broader way we will try to establish the relations between these two in this paper and will also try to show some differences between them. In the very first part of this paper we will first explain the two prominent movements, namely, structuralism and post-structuralism which will shape the background of this paper and will also help all of us to understand issues on hand. These two were two different linguistic philosophic movements started with the prime concern of understanding languages on their own accord.