"[5] 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.
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.
Derrida deconstructs the apparent inner, phonological system of language, stating in Chapter 2, Linguistics and Grammatology, that in fact and for reasons of essence Saussure's representative determination is "...an ideal explicitly directing a functioning which...is never completely phonetic".
[10] The idea that writing might function other than phonetically and also as more than merely a representative delineation of speech allows an absolute concept of logos to end in what Derrida describes as infinitist metaphysics.
[13]Inherent in Saussure's reasoning, a structuralist approach to literature began in the 1950s [14] to assess the literary text, or utterance, in terms of its adherence to certain organising conventions which might establish its objective meaning.
Again, as for Saussure, structuralism in literary theory is condemned to fail on account of its own foundation: '...language constitutes our world, it doesn't just record it or label it.