What do you think?
Rate this book
أحادية الآخر اللغوية
ها أنذا أعود مرة أخرى إلى جاك دريدا لأقدم للقارئ العربي الترجمة الأولى لأحد أهم كتبه وهو "أحادية الآخر اللغوية"، كتاب ينتقل فيه دريدا من أقاليم اللغة بحمولاتها الحاضرة ودلالاتها الغائبة إلى البحث في أقانيم الهوية بمسمياتها المتفردة تارة، وألاعيبها المتكثرة تارة أخرى. إن عودتي لدريدا هنا لا تحمل من العودة سوى معنى العودة، فهي ليست عودة تفكيكية، ولا بنيوية، وإنما هي عودة تهدف إلى وضع دريدا على محك "البحث الهرمينوطيقي"، ومحاولة إدخاله مملكة المعنى، المرجع، الدلالة وبالمرة إخراجه من أقنوم اللغة الباحثة عن انسجامها داخل غرائبية لفظية متعبة، مرهقة تكاد أن تجعل من الإنسان رمزاً ضمن قائمة مرموزاتها الكثيرة.
من مقدمة المترجم.
من مقدمة المترجم.
149 pages
First published January 1, 1996
36 people are currently reading
929 people want to read
About the author
Jacques Derrida
650 books1,794 followersJacques Derrida was a French philosopher best known for developing deconstruction, a method of critical analysis that questioned the stability of meaning in language, texts, and Western metaphysical thought. Born in Algeria, he studied at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he was influenced by philosophers such as Heidegger, Husserl, and Levinas. His groundbreaking works, including Of Grammatology (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Speech and Phenomena (1967), positioned him at the center of intellectual debates on language, meaning, and interpretation.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Derrida argued that Western philosophy was structured around binary oppositions—such as speech over writing, presence over absence, or reason over emotion—that falsely privileged one term over the other. He introduced the concept of différance, which suggests that meaning is constantly deferred and never fully present, destabilizing the idea of fixed truth. His work engaged with a wide range of disciplines, including literature, psychoanalysis, political theory, and law, challenging conventional ways of thinking and interpretation.
Throughout his career, Derrida continued to explore ethical and political questions, particularly in works such as Specters of Marx (1993) and The Politics of Friendship (1994), which addressed democracy, justice, and responsibility. He held academic positions at institutions such as the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and the University of California, Irvine, and remained an influential figure in both European and American intellectual circles. Despite criticism for his complex writing style and abstract concepts, Derrida’s ideas have left a lasting impact on contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism, reshaping the way meaning and language are understood in the modern world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
September 17, 2016
رغم اني لم امسك كل ما في الكتاب بشكل جيد ورغم كل ما اثره في من تساؤلات
لم استطع تجميعها حول اللغة والهوية ,
كما حدث معي عند القراءة لكيليطو الا انه مدخل جيد وبداية مهمة
لعالم دريدا وافكاره ورؤيته للغة والمعنى وقلق الهوية
اظن ان اعماله نبعت وخرجت من هذا القلق والازدواج
احادي اللغة, يتحدث لغة معينة وفي نفس الوقت محروم منها , ان تمتلك لغة ليست لغتك
October 23, 2016
أحادية الآخر اللغوية
جاك دريدا
الهوية مفهوم ينحته دريدا بطريقته التفكيكية جاعلاً من اللغة ماهيته ولكن ماهية تشكيكية لا تستكين لهذا الوضع اللغوي ، فأين يكون الانتماء وبما يكون ؟ أبالأرض أم بالدولة أم بالديانة ؟ وهو اليهودي الجزائري الفرنسي ، تشكلت ذاته لتكون الاشكالية بين الذات والآخر واللغة وفي محاولة لتفكيك ذاته في رفضه ان يكون يهودي ويمتلك لغة واحدة هي الفرنسية الا انها ليست لغته الأم وينتمي الى دولة فرنسا ولكنها ليست المولد الأصلي ، هذا التفكيك سوف يأخذ شكل سيرة ليس على غرار الاعترافات لجان جاك روسو او اوغسطين بل سيرة مفكك يمتلك أداة اللغة ليفكك بها لغته ألا أنه أحادي اللغة وهنا يكون مأزق تمفصل الثقافة في تكوينه والنظرة للآخر الثقافي مقابلا له ، ويأتي السؤال مباغتاً هل في التشكل الثقافي عبر اللغة تتكون الهوية ؟ وقد يكمن الجواب عند دريدا اذا ما حُلّ التناقض في الافتراضين المتناقضين : ١- لا يمكننا أن نتكلم أبدا الا لغة واحدة
٢- لا يمكننا ان نتكلم لغة واحدة فقط .
فالتشرذم واقع اذا ما كانت هناك لغة أصلية ولغة اجنبية ، هذا التشرذم يحدث انزياح للثقافي والديني وغيرها من أقاليم وتخوم يصعب معها تموضع الذات والهوية ويصعب تحديد الميلاد أهو ميلاد اللغة أم الديانة أم الأرض ؟
إشكالية دريدا في تكوين ذاته كونه الفرانكو- مغاربي فالمواطنة في أيهما ؟ مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار ان المواطنة تشكّل اصطناعي آني مُهدد ، كما ان التهديد يطال اللغة الأم في الكثير من الأحيان من خلال سيطرة لغات أخرى هي لغة المال والاقتصاد فلكي يعيش بعضهم لابد ان يفقد لغته مقابل التمثل لغات أجنبية عنه ، وما هذا التمثل الجديد للغة الا الوجه الآخر لما كانت عليه الكولونيالية خصوصا في الجزائر الفرنسية .
دريدا في هذا النص يعيش اغتراب اللغة في ذاته ، واغتراب ذاته في اللغة ، يمتلك من الأدوات التي تفكك اللغة الى تكوينات أصلية وغريبة في الوقت الذي يحتبس داخلها مؤطر نفسه بها ولها في محاولة ان تشكل اللغة هويته الا انه بات بدون هوية حينما اسقط عليها معول التفكيك .
جاك دريدا
الهوية مفهوم ينحته دريدا بطريقته التفكيكية جاعلاً من اللغة ماهيته ولكن ماهية تشكيكية لا تستكين لهذا الوضع اللغوي ، فأين يكون الانتماء وبما يكون ؟ أبالأرض أم بالدولة أم بالديانة ؟ وهو اليهودي الجزائري الفرنسي ، تشكلت ذاته لتكون الاشكالية بين الذات والآخر واللغة وفي محاولة لتفكيك ذاته في رفضه ان يكون يهودي ويمتلك لغة واحدة هي الفرنسية الا انها ليست لغته الأم وينتمي الى دولة فرنسا ولكنها ليست المولد الأصلي ، هذا التفكيك سوف يأخذ شكل سيرة ليس على غرار الاعترافات لجان جاك روسو او اوغسطين بل سيرة مفكك يمتلك أداة اللغة ليفكك بها لغته ألا أنه أحادي اللغة وهنا يكون مأزق تمفصل الثقافة في تكوينه والنظرة للآخر الثقافي مقابلا له ، ويأتي السؤال مباغتاً هل في التشكل الثقافي عبر اللغة تتكون الهوية ؟ وقد يكمن الجواب عند دريدا اذا ما حُلّ التناقض في الافتراضين المتناقضين : ١- لا يمكننا أن نتكلم أبدا الا لغة واحدة
٢- لا يمكننا ان نتكلم لغة واحدة فقط .
فالتشرذم واقع اذا ما كانت هناك لغة أصلية ولغة اجنبية ، هذا التشرذم يحدث انزياح للثقافي والديني وغيرها من أقاليم وتخوم يصعب معها تموضع الذات والهوية ويصعب تحديد الميلاد أهو ميلاد اللغة أم الديانة أم الأرض ؟
إشكالية دريدا في تكوين ذاته كونه الفرانكو- مغاربي فالمواطنة في أيهما ؟ مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار ان المواطنة تشكّل اصطناعي آني مُهدد ، كما ان التهديد يطال اللغة الأم في الكثير من الأحيان من خلال سيطرة لغات أخرى هي لغة المال والاقتصاد فلكي يعيش بعضهم لابد ان يفقد لغته مقابل التمثل لغات أجنبية عنه ، وما هذا التمثل الجديد للغة الا الوجه الآخر لما كانت عليه الكولونيالية خصوصا في الجزائر الفرنسية .
دريدا في هذا النص يعيش اغتراب اللغة في ذاته ، واغتراب ذاته في اللغة ، يمتلك من الأدوات التي تفكك اللغة الى تكوينات أصلية وغريبة في الوقت الذي يحتبس داخلها مؤطر نفسه بها ولها في محاولة ان تشكل اللغة هويته الا انه بات بدون هوية حينما اسقط عليها معول التفكيك .
August 1, 2020
[fr]
//Disclaimer : Je suis mauvaise philosophe. Il est ainsi tout à fait possible, même probable, que je manque d'intelligence pour comprendre un homme dont l'esprit atteint des sommets pour moi inatteignables. ( Chomsky aussi, d'ailleurs?) Malgré ou bien à cause de mon ignorance, je reste une sceptique des écritures déconstructionnistes, qui me semblent peu accessibles et souvent futiles.//
Une réflexion de Derrida sur son rapport (mais non seulement le sien) vis-à-vis la langue française, en tant que Juif (séphardique) né d'Algérie, une condition rendue unique par l'acquisition-perte-réacquisition de citoyenneté française. Une écriture parfois intéressante, même émouvante, mais surtout fastidieuse.
Le livre tourne autour de deux propos : (1) "On ne parle jamais une seule langue." (2) "On ne parle jamais qu'une seule langue." Formulation initialement intéressante, et finalement justifiée. Mais j'imagine qu'il existe 10 000 autres manières plus simples et tout aussi intelligentes de le dire. Je me rapporte parfois, de manière partielle - dans ces passages où Derrida se permet de narrer les évènements plutôt que jouer le poète (il est d'ailleurs mauvais poète) - aux sentiments exprimés envers le français, étant donné ma propre histoire avec la langue de Molière ; je remarque qu'une lectrice indienne sur GR ressent de même vis-à-vis l'anglais. Je suggérerais quand même qu'un essai bien révisée, longueur d'une tribune sur The New Yorker, aurait mieux narré tout cela que ces 130 pages pompeuses.
Si je m'identifie parfois dans les propos de Derrida sur son intérêt (réflexif, difficilement justifiable) pour la pureté du français et sa défense, je m'offusque presque que monsieur se présente de cette manière. Les petits jeux de mots maladroits, les phrases tortueuses, l'inélégance par rapport à la moyenne des écrivains français... bon, après, le goût et l'esthétique littéraire sont peut-être subjectifs. Mais j'avoue, mon petit esprit avait du mal.
Je ne dis pas que je n'aime pas (deux étoiles sur GR indique "it is okay" alors qu'une seule évoquerait "I didn't like it"). Le livre m'a parfois touché, et quelques passages j'ai beaucoup appréciés. Mais au final, cela ne m'intéresse pas d'explorer davantage les pensées de Derrida. Not for me.
///
[eng]
It was okay. I enjoyed reading about his life and his relationship to French. It was moving, at times even relatable, and sometimes interesting. But nothing seemed to me radically original or enlightening. Mostly, he waxes his woes over 130 pages with dense language, when the reflection (or what I understood of it) wasn't as dense. I thought a New Yorker-type autobiographical essay might've conveyed the message better than this sort of book, which lies in in an awkward, jargony middle between theory and personal story. Don't even get me started on the 30 pages footnote he did — I know academics often allow themselves to do that, but I thought it was just poor etiquette.
Given the rage, maybe it's just that my brain is incapable of capturing Derrida's depths (possible, maybe even probable). Anyway, glad I've tried it, decided he's not for me.
//Disclaimer : Je suis mauvaise philosophe. Il est ainsi tout à fait possible, même probable, que je manque d'intelligence pour comprendre un homme dont l'esprit atteint des sommets pour moi inatteignables. ( Chomsky aussi, d'ailleurs?) Malgré ou bien à cause de mon ignorance, je reste une sceptique des écritures déconstructionnistes, qui me semblent peu accessibles et souvent futiles.//
Une réflexion de Derrida sur son rapport (mais non seulement le sien) vis-à-vis la langue française, en tant que Juif (séphardique) né d'Algérie, une condition rendue unique par l'acquisition-perte-réacquisition de citoyenneté française. Une écriture parfois intéressante, même émouvante, mais surtout fastidieuse.
Le livre tourne autour de deux propos : (1) "On ne parle jamais une seule langue." (2) "On ne parle jamais qu'une seule langue." Formulation initialement intéressante, et finalement justifiée. Mais j'imagine qu'il existe 10 000 autres manières plus simples et tout aussi intelligentes de le dire. Je me rapporte parfois, de manière partielle - dans ces passages où Derrida se permet de narrer les évènements plutôt que jouer le poète (il est d'ailleurs mauvais poète) - aux sentiments exprimés envers le français, étant donné ma propre histoire avec la langue de Molière ; je remarque qu'une lectrice indienne sur GR ressent de même vis-à-vis l'anglais. Je suggérerais quand même qu'un essai bien révisée, longueur d'une tribune sur The New Yorker, aurait mieux narré tout cela que ces 130 pages pompeuses.
Si je m'identifie parfois dans les propos de Derrida sur son intérêt (réflexif, difficilement justifiable) pour la pureté du français et sa défense, je m'offusque presque que monsieur se présente de cette manière. Les petits jeux de mots maladroits, les phrases tortueuses, l'inélégance par rapport à la moyenne des écrivains français... bon, après, le goût et l'esthétique littéraire sont peut-être subjectifs. Mais j'avoue, mon petit esprit avait du mal.
Je ne dis pas que je n'aime pas (deux étoiles sur GR indique "it is okay" alors qu'une seule évoquerait "I didn't like it"). Le livre m'a parfois touché, et quelques passages j'ai beaucoup appréciés. Mais au final, cela ne m'intéresse pas d'explorer davantage les pensées de Derrida. Not for me.
///
[eng]
It was okay. I enjoyed reading about his life and his relationship to French. It was moving, at times even relatable, and sometimes interesting. But nothing seemed to me radically original or enlightening. Mostly, he waxes his woes over 130 pages with dense language, when the reflection (or what I understood of it) wasn't as dense. I thought a New Yorker-type autobiographical essay might've conveyed the message better than this sort of book, which lies in in an awkward, jargony middle between theory and personal story. Don't even get me started on the 30 pages footnote he did — I know academics often allow themselves to do that, but I thought it was just poor etiquette.
Given the rage, maybe it's just that my brain is incapable of capturing Derrida's depths (possible, maybe even probable). Anyway, glad I've tried it, decided he's not for me.
March 15, 2024
Reading this in one sitting on an exercise bike was a fucking fever dream let me tell you
July 21, 2024
Derrida versa sobre la identitat i la llengua; podríem pensar-nos sense el llenguatge? És realment nostra la nostra llengua o ens ve donada de fora? Som realment nosaltres quan ens pensem a través d'una llengua que ens ve donada des de l'altre? Derrida contestarà que vivim sota aquest "dol permanent d'allò que mai s'ha tingut", una verdadera llengua materna per expressar-nos de veritat. Aquest breu assaig reflexiona entre paradoxes sobre aquesta línia de pensament, una lectura densa però que entre anècdotes autobiogràfiques passa prou bé.
January 16, 2012
"(As this goes without saying, and does not deserve any overly long development here, let us recall briefly, in passing, that this discourse on the ex-appropriation of language, more precisely, of the 'mark' opens out into politics, a right, and an ethics; let us even go so far as to say that it is the only one with the power to do it, whatever the risks are, precisely because the undecidable ambiguity runs those risks and therefore appeals to the decision where it conditions, prior to any program and even any axiomatics, the right and the limits of a right to property , a right to hospitality, a right to 'ipseity' in general, to the 'power' of the 'hospes' himself, the master and possessor, particularly of himself-'ipse' 'compos', 'ipsisssimus', 'despotes' 'potior'. 'possidere', to cite in no particular order a chain reconstructed by Benveniste of which we were speaking earlier.)" (p24)
There's probably two standard ways of approaching anything by Derrida. One is to think your inevitable failure to "understand" what's written is not due to the way it's written but because you're simply too dumb, and if only you too were a genius, you might "understand" what he's on about. This is probably the default response and makes a whole publishing industry of "How to read D..How to understand D D for dummies..." books possible.
The other is to be haunted by the feeling that if you stripped the syntax back to what he's actually saying, then he isn't really saying much at all. The struggle to find exactly the right word is admirable, but why he has to leave the trail of his fumblings with the dictionary and not edit is an interesting question.
The third option is to enjoy the syntax and redefine "To Understand'.
This book belongs to the still current fashion for making Language into a fetish, and acting as though the only form of communication people are capable of is the equivalent of finding a torn scrap of windblown paper on a park bench, written in an unfamiliar handwriting by someone you've never met about an unannounced subject you have never previously encountered. And to believe that you are somehow the language you speak, its prisoner, puppet and fractured creation.
If you think that's the total possibility of human communication, then this could be your book:
But it reminds me of the bad old days when you forked out money to see your favorite performer and they turned up stoned or wasted or eat a ham sandwich during the performance of your favorite song...or didn't even play your favorite song but did stuff you wouldn't have turned up to see if they'd told you in advance.
If I part with money for writing: i want something in return. I wouldn't pay to watch my favorite guitar player play scales. And the "look at me, I'm being a profound genius" syntax is exactly that.
There's probably two standard ways of approaching anything by Derrida. One is to think your inevitable failure to "understand" what's written is not due to the way it's written but because you're simply too dumb, and if only you too were a genius, you might "understand" what he's on about. This is probably the default response and makes a whole publishing industry of "How to read D..How to understand D D for dummies..." books possible.
The other is to be haunted by the feeling that if you stripped the syntax back to what he's actually saying, then he isn't really saying much at all. The struggle to find exactly the right word is admirable, but why he has to leave the trail of his fumblings with the dictionary and not edit is an interesting question.
The third option is to enjoy the syntax and redefine "To Understand'.
This book belongs to the still current fashion for making Language into a fetish, and acting as though the only form of communication people are capable of is the equivalent of finding a torn scrap of windblown paper on a park bench, written in an unfamiliar handwriting by someone you've never met about an unannounced subject you have never previously encountered. And to believe that you are somehow the language you speak, its prisoner, puppet and fractured creation.
If you think that's the total possibility of human communication, then this could be your book:
But it reminds me of the bad old days when you forked out money to see your favorite performer and they turned up stoned or wasted or eat a ham sandwich during the performance of your favorite song...or didn't even play your favorite song but did stuff you wouldn't have turned up to see if they'd told you in advance.
If I part with money for writing: i want something in return. I wouldn't pay to watch my favorite guitar player play scales. And the "look at me, I'm being a profound genius" syntax is exactly that.
March 31, 2012
Monolingualism of the Other fits nicely with Heidegger's essay 'On the way to Language', that is, if you're interested in studying the feature of being both inside and outside language.
Two claims roughly guide this very short text (one of the footnotes is as long as an entire chapter): "1. We only ever speak one language. 2. We never speak only one language." (7) That is, we are only ever speaking the language we are speaking but the language we are speaking is never pure. Every language is a mixture of other languages, dialects, accents, and so on and so on. Derrida takes these (relatively straightforward) claims and mixes in a bit of his own auto-biography: growing up as a Jew in Algeria when his citizenship was granted and removed without any effort of his own, where French was the official language, the language he learned as a child (his maternal language) and the language he feels most comfortable with, even though he is not of 'true French stock'.
Now, you are probably asking, why have I given this book only two stars?
Here are two reasons:
(1) the book was not very enlightening; nothing in it was either very interesting or original
(2) I'm getting sick of Derrida's meandering style. Yes, I know this is a 'personal bias'. I can't stop reading Derrida and yet I can't stand the way he writes anymore. Maybe if I take a break I'll be able to appreciate his style once again.
There is also a third reason:
(3) nearly every book on GoodReads with more than fifty ratings has between three filled stars and five. But not all books ought to have between three and five stars. Why can't we use the lower end of the scale?
This is all: Monolingualism of the Other was okay.
Two claims roughly guide this very short text (one of the footnotes is as long as an entire chapter): "1. We only ever speak one language. 2. We never speak only one language." (7) That is, we are only ever speaking the language we are speaking but the language we are speaking is never pure. Every language is a mixture of other languages, dialects, accents, and so on and so on. Derrida takes these (relatively straightforward) claims and mixes in a bit of his own auto-biography: growing up as a Jew in Algeria when his citizenship was granted and removed without any effort of his own, where French was the official language, the language he learned as a child (his maternal language) and the language he feels most comfortable with, even though he is not of 'true French stock'.
Now, you are probably asking, why have I given this book only two stars?
Here are two reasons:
(1) the book was not very enlightening; nothing in it was either very interesting or original
(2) I'm getting sick of Derrida's meandering style. Yes, I know this is a 'personal bias'. I can't stop reading Derrida and yet I can't stand the way he writes anymore. Maybe if I take a break I'll be able to appreciate his style once again.
There is also a third reason:
(3) nearly every book on GoodReads with more than fifty ratings has between three filled stars and five. But not all books ought to have between three and five stars. Why can't we use the lower end of the scale?
This is all: Monolingualism of the Other was okay.
April 5, 2021
This is a fantastic text, and I have selected some of the (philosophical) moves which Derrida makes that I particularly liked.
p. 57
Translation is only possible because there is what is untranslatable. If there did not exist the untranslatable, then we would simply have equations, because one thing from one language would simply be equal to another thing from another language.
Therefore, translation is sustained by its own impossibility. Hence, "translation is another name for the impossible."
p. 2, 22
There is no meta-language, no third language, no platform or vantage point from which to look. We cannot operate outside of language. Language engulfs us, precedes us, constitutes us; we are unable to pass it, to look at it from the outside; we are bound to inhabit it and feel one with it.
p. 1
"I only have one language; it is not mine."
p. 25
This supposed alienation or lack of one's own language, as it is the language of the other, is not a constitutive lack because there is nothing for which it is the lack, i.e. nothing that is lacking.
p. 61
We have no language, and so we are always translating into a language. But if we do not have a language, what are we translating from? What is the "originary" that is being translated?
There are only languages that are translated into. But then, what is it that these target languages are translating? How do they become uttered, if there is no way to understand from where they are coming? How do they reach themselves?
(In translation,) We have only "arrival" because it is not clear from where we are coming. Desire arises during/from this "arrival" because desire is prior to the self-hood (I-me) which desires. This amorphous, nebulous desire is the urge to reconstruct origin, but this itself is actually a desire to invent a mother tongue which would come before the origin so it could translate, articulate, enunciate, this origin.
Thus, this translation is of a memory which does not take place because we always have only an "arrival". (Remember, this is because we do not have our language. It is not something we take as an object, although we do dwell inside it-- il n'y a pas dehors du texte. Nonetheless, we are always in translation. Another way of looking at it is that we always speak a particular idiom, which means that we are always translating.)
But we avow that the origin did take place, and this presents a trace, a spectre, a mark, something that betrays the binary of absence and presence.
So, the past presents as a trace, a haunting, and by our avowal to this defective origin, we are forced into l'écriture. So, what is this avowal?
p.67-8
It is a promise: an appeal to come - appel à venir ; avenir - the future. When we use language, it has the structure of a promise. This means there is a certain openness towards l'avenir, so we are open to what is à venir when we promise. But this openness is also a terror of the language of the other.
p. 40
All language is the "language of the other" because we get our language from other people; it exists in/from others; we speak it for others; others listen to us and make us heard.
Our language is bound, tied up, (gagged) with the other from the beginning and every utterance thereafter.
p. 57
Translation is only possible because there is what is untranslatable. If there did not exist the untranslatable, then we would simply have equations, because one thing from one language would simply be equal to another thing from another language.
Therefore, translation is sustained by its own impossibility. Hence, "translation is another name for the impossible."
p. 2, 22
There is no meta-language, no third language, no platform or vantage point from which to look. We cannot operate outside of language. Language engulfs us, precedes us, constitutes us; we are unable to pass it, to look at it from the outside; we are bound to inhabit it and feel one with it.
p. 1
"I only have one language; it is not mine."
p. 25
This supposed alienation or lack of one's own language, as it is the language of the other, is not a constitutive lack because there is nothing for which it is the lack, i.e. nothing that is lacking.
p. 61
We have no language, and so we are always translating into a language. But if we do not have a language, what are we translating from? What is the "originary" that is being translated?
There are only languages that are translated into. But then, what is it that these target languages are translating? How do they become uttered, if there is no way to understand from where they are coming? How do they reach themselves?
(In translation,) We have only "arrival" because it is not clear from where we are coming. Desire arises during/from this "arrival" because desire is prior to the self-hood (I-me) which desires. This amorphous, nebulous desire is the urge to reconstruct origin, but this itself is actually a desire to invent a mother tongue which would come before the origin so it could translate, articulate, enunciate, this origin.
Thus, this translation is of a memory which does not take place because we always have only an "arrival". (Remember, this is because we do not have our language. It is not something we take as an object, although we do dwell inside it-- il n'y a pas dehors du texte. Nonetheless, we are always in translation. Another way of looking at it is that we always speak a particular idiom, which means that we are always translating.)
But we avow that the origin did take place, and this presents a trace, a spectre, a mark, something that betrays the binary of absence and presence.
So, the past presents as a trace, a haunting, and by our avowal to this defective origin, we are forced into l'écriture. So, what is this avowal?
p.67-8
It is a promise: an appeal to come - appel à venir ; avenir - the future. When we use language, it has the structure of a promise. This means there is a certain openness towards l'avenir, so we are open to what is à venir when we promise. But this openness is also a terror of the language of the other.
p. 40
All language is the "language of the other" because we get our language from other people; it exists in/from others; we speak it for others; others listen to us and make us heard.
Our language is bound, tied up, (gagged) with the other from the beginning and every utterance thereafter.
July 3, 2012
I love and miss the way people would struggle to find just the right word in their writing, and the attempt for precision. The French intellectuals seem to do this best, or maybe I think that because I only read translations, and the struggle could be the translator's more than the writer's, but somehow I doubt that.
As a person who grew up speaking English in India, I could relate with this work of Derrida's more than some of his others, and I felt like Jacques wrote this for me! It was like he was whispering the story of his life and his struggles into my ears! Yes I do have a huge crush on Derrida, and yes I am gushing over him.
My advice to people who have only just picked up Derrida, or they HAVE to read it because it is part of their Univ coursework, don't give up! Just persist for a few days, because it will be very rewarding. It is not just high strung intellectual mumbo jumbo, it is a very personal, intimate account of a person's relationship with a language.
As a person who grew up speaking English in India, I could relate with this work of Derrida's more than some of his others, and I felt like Jacques wrote this for me! It was like he was whispering the story of his life and his struggles into my ears! Yes I do have a huge crush on Derrida, and yes I am gushing over him.
My advice to people who have only just picked up Derrida, or they HAVE to read it because it is part of their Univ coursework, don't give up! Just persist for a few days, because it will be very rewarding. It is not just high strung intellectual mumbo jumbo, it is a very personal, intimate account of a person's relationship with a language.
December 1, 2013
كتاب جدا جميل أنا استمتعت فيه ؛ صحيح أني لم أصل لكل مافي دفتي الكتاب من أفكار (والسبب ظروف الضوضاء البسيطة وقت القراءة) ولكن كتجربة أولى لا أجد دريدا صعب وهو ككتاب يستحق القراءة مرة أخرى فهو سلس في كتابته جذاب ولا يدع لك فرصة في التفكير في غير المحتوى الذي بين دفتيه
March 10, 2019
profound, moving, elegant, and penetrating as always, Derrida looks into his own past to explore the problem of linguistic and cultural identity that has long saturated his writings. great read, and definitely will reread in the future.
Read
December 14, 2024despropósito absoluto, además de un rotundo insulto a la alfabetización. me alegro mucho de que la muerte le parase los pies a esti colgao
July 2, 2025
Jacques cette diva quand j’ai vu la note de bas de page de 15 pages (!!!) j’ai su qu’il a fait péter une durite à tous les acteurs de la chaîne du livre
February 4, 2025
I find myself very intrigued by Derrida. He writes on very complex and dense concepts which I think would be interesting to just about anybody, though they may not realize it. His style feels more like a conversation than any academic essay - and I mean that in a good way. He isn’t trying to sound ‘above’ or ‘smarter’ than anybody. He wants you to understand the things he has to say. In this piece, he deals primarily with identity and its relation to language. Writing that sentence doesn’t do the contents any kind of justice though and in order to truly get what it is he’s talking about, it is necessary to read his own words. It makes one introspective to a degree and prompts the reader to question things that they might never have thought to question before in their lives. I find great value in that. Would recommend, but it is not a critical text. More for those who would be interesting in trains of thought they might not have pondered before - or at least that they have not seen put into words by someone as talented in that regard as Derrida is.
May 1, 2025
Me pareció una gran reflexión que a pesar de sus vueltas es accesible y en su esencia es muy elemental. Lo político y lo histórico del idioma que hablamos y denominamos "materno", las limitaciones de la lengua y de la imposibilidad de ser dueño de la lengua que uno habita.
February 26, 2025
Gonna have to ponder this one for a while
Read
August 2, 2012Monolingualism of the Other has many times been viewed as Derrida’s autobiographical text. He uses his own experience to discuss language through identity, culture, and colonialism. Derrida states identity is being mistaken for identification and he emphasizes that “an identity is never given, received, or attained; only the interminable and indefinitely phantasmtic process of identification endures.” There is no monolingualism, bilingualism, or pluralingualism because one does not possess language but actually speaks the language of others, the one given and understood by others.
Through the case of Moroccan writer Abdelkebir Khatibi, Derrida examines the notion of ‘mother-tongue.’ Derrida first says he has no mother-tongue because he grew up speaking and learning French in Algeria. Therefore, Derrida never had a ‘mother’ language in relevance to national identity. His case as a person of minority in a colonized country comes as the suitable platform to examine his statement that “he only has one language yet it is not his.” In the case of Khatibi, the Moroccan writer who talks about being bilingual in his book Amour bilingue written in French, Derrida legitimizes the term ‘mother-tongue’ as part of Khatibi’s cultural identity and relationship to francophone culture.
Derrida then brings up the discussion about being a Franco-Maghrebian. The fact that Derrida classifies himself has been the subject of discussion of many studies. He then measures himself as the most Franco-Maghrebian by birth, language, culture, nationality, and citizenship. Yet, Derrida states that citizenship is an illusion and that it does not decide language because he himself was born a French citizen as France naturalized Algerian Jews but then he became stateless when France withdrew the citizenship decree off his community.
Derrida, swinging between different labels, examines the politics of language under colonization and through what he called the ‘disorder of identity.’ He himself might find such an explanation as simplified and not linked to his core-intention but, after all, this is one of the fields in which Monolingualism of the Other belongs. Derrida writes: “Quite far from dissolving the always relative specificity, however cruel, of situation of linguistic oppression or colonial expropriation, this prudent and differentiated universalization must account, and I would even say that it is the only way one can account, for the determinable possibility of subservience and a hegemony.”
In French Algeria, Derrida says zero students wanted to learn Arabic even if they were Arabs, and those who rarely did so were either rejected socially in school or they had to do so because of their French families who have financial interests as they want ‘to be obeyed by their agricultural workers’ or they wanted their children to have the advantage of speaking Arabic to use professionally in France. Derrida talks about a linguistic interdict in Algeria where you have to learn French, choose to learn Arabic (in its classical way that makes it sound as a language of an unknown other), Spanish, or German, but you cannot choose to learn Berber.
The text explains how his generation of what is so called ‘indigenous Jews’ never had a mother tongue and that language was to him decided in school. He says: “the language called maternal is never purely natural, nor proper, nor inhabitable.” As an alternative, Derrida argues that we only have promises; a promise of language, a possibility; as monolingualism, bilingualism, and pluralingualism stay impossible. There is no appropriation or reappropriation of language. Language is incalculable. Language is either a promise or a terror. This argument leads Derrida to claim that, relatively, translatability is also impossible. He says: “In a sense, nothing is untranslatable, but in another sense, everything is untranslatable; translation is another name for the impossible.”
Through the case of Moroccan writer Abdelkebir Khatibi, Derrida examines the notion of ‘mother-tongue.’ Derrida first says he has no mother-tongue because he grew up speaking and learning French in Algeria. Therefore, Derrida never had a ‘mother’ language in relevance to national identity. His case as a person of minority in a colonized country comes as the suitable platform to examine his statement that “he only has one language yet it is not his.” In the case of Khatibi, the Moroccan writer who talks about being bilingual in his book Amour bilingue written in French, Derrida legitimizes the term ‘mother-tongue’ as part of Khatibi’s cultural identity and relationship to francophone culture.
Derrida then brings up the discussion about being a Franco-Maghrebian. The fact that Derrida classifies himself has been the subject of discussion of many studies. He then measures himself as the most Franco-Maghrebian by birth, language, culture, nationality, and citizenship. Yet, Derrida states that citizenship is an illusion and that it does not decide language because he himself was born a French citizen as France naturalized Algerian Jews but then he became stateless when France withdrew the citizenship decree off his community.
Derrida, swinging between different labels, examines the politics of language under colonization and through what he called the ‘disorder of identity.’ He himself might find such an explanation as simplified and not linked to his core-intention but, after all, this is one of the fields in which Monolingualism of the Other belongs. Derrida writes: “Quite far from dissolving the always relative specificity, however cruel, of situation of linguistic oppression or colonial expropriation, this prudent and differentiated universalization must account, and I would even say that it is the only way one can account, for the determinable possibility of subservience and a hegemony.”
In French Algeria, Derrida says zero students wanted to learn Arabic even if they were Arabs, and those who rarely did so were either rejected socially in school or they had to do so because of their French families who have financial interests as they want ‘to be obeyed by their agricultural workers’ or they wanted their children to have the advantage of speaking Arabic to use professionally in France. Derrida talks about a linguistic interdict in Algeria where you have to learn French, choose to learn Arabic (in its classical way that makes it sound as a language of an unknown other), Spanish, or German, but you cannot choose to learn Berber.
The text explains how his generation of what is so called ‘indigenous Jews’ never had a mother tongue and that language was to him decided in school. He says: “the language called maternal is never purely natural, nor proper, nor inhabitable.” As an alternative, Derrida argues that we only have promises; a promise of language, a possibility; as monolingualism, bilingualism, and pluralingualism stay impossible. There is no appropriation or reappropriation of language. Language is incalculable. Language is either a promise or a terror. This argument leads Derrida to claim that, relatively, translatability is also impossible. He says: “In a sense, nothing is untranslatable, but in another sense, everything is untranslatable; translation is another name for the impossible.”
February 19, 2017
ديريدا هو أسلوب، ومن يقرأ لديريدا لا بد وأن يتنازل عن مركزية العقل وأهمية المحتوى، ويعلي من شأن الأسلوب.
February 27, 2017
"Still, assuming there were some historical unity of a France and a Maghreb, which is far from being certain, the 'and' will never have been given, only promised or claimed. At bottom, that is what we must be talking about, what we are talking about without fail, even if we are doing it by omission. The silence of that hyphen does not pacify or appease anything, not a single torment, not a single torture. It will never silence their memory. It could even worsen the terror, the lesions, and the wounds. A hyphen is never enough to conceal protests, cries of anger or suffering, the noise of weapons, airplanes, and bombs."
"Therefore invent in *your* language if you can or want to hear mine; invent if you can or want to give my language to be understood, as well as yours, where the event of its prosody only takes place once at home, in the very place where its 'being home' disturbs the co-inhabitants, the fellow citizens, and the compatriots. Compatriots of every country, translator-poets, rebel against patriotism! Do you hear me! Each time I write a word, at the instant of a single syllable, the song of this new International awakens in me. I never resist it, I am in the streets at its call, even if, apparently, I have been working silently since dawn at my table."
It's too bad this book has such a low rating.
"Therefore invent in *your* language if you can or want to hear mine; invent if you can or want to give my language to be understood, as well as yours, where the event of its prosody only takes place once at home, in the very place where its 'being home' disturbs the co-inhabitants, the fellow citizens, and the compatriots. Compatriots of every country, translator-poets, rebel against patriotism! Do you hear me! Each time I write a word, at the instant of a single syllable, the song of this new International awakens in me. I never resist it, I am in the streets at its call, even if, apparently, I have been working silently since dawn at my table."
It's too bad this book has such a low rating.
Read
July 18, 2016Empecé a leer esto para la universidad en febrero. FEBRERO. Tuve que dejarlo en pausa porque tenía millones de otras cosas que leer y esto no era necesario hasta este mes, así que bueno, aquí estoy. Es tan satisfactorio poder decir que terminé de leer este libro. Me gusta la filosofía, pero Derrida y yo nunca nos llevaremos del todo bien.
October 22, 2009
More suggestive than systematic - another one of those books that people describe in really interesting ways, but that seems rather unrewarding when you actually read it.
June 30, 2013
صعبت علي قراءة هذا الكتاب و اعتقد ان للترجمة العربية دور كبير في هذه الصعوبة، اسقاطات اللغة على الهوية و مشكلات الهوية و الاندماج هو مبسط هذا الكتاب الذي لم استمتع به مطلقا
Read
October 5, 2013الكتاب صعب وهذا من طبيعة كتب دريدا حتى في اللغة الفرنسية يلزم تكرار القراءة مرات عديدة
May 15, 2025
It seems well-nigh impossible for Jacques Derrida to have had something more to say about the topics of this book: writing, subjectivity, French, colonialism, traces and most importantly language. Yet even while here Derrida is playing his standard game, not venturing out into unforeseen territory, he manages to show an old dog playing new tricks.
The basic task of this book, from what I can discern, is to look at in an almost phenomenological key the way that one's 'home' or 'maternal' or 'native' language and how that structures a part of our subjectivity. Especially complex when it is brought from the abstract to Derrida's case: in which even 'his' language is not his. As a Maghrébine and Algerian Jew his "native" language should have been Arabic, Berber, or maybe even Hebrew as that is the language of his heritage. But this is not the language he spoke at home, not the language he spoke at school, not the one he writes in. This language rather is French: notably not a language of Jewish origin. So in the vague process of the formation of his personal subjectivity and identity there is that vital gap between himself and his language. His maternal language is someone else's, he does not even have access to his own language. This dilemma, the bastard child of colonialism and the confusion inherent to Western Europe, is the subject of critique and analysis of the book.
It is also a work very much conscious of its political messaging. We must, for the good of those who will come after us (praying there is such a thing) continue to note and emphasize the political content of Derrida's concerns throughout his work. I believe a certain amount of the confusion about Derrida in the Anglo-American world is a certain lack of knowledge of the politics surrounding French language. The French language is a topic of considerable political debate there, of course including the (state-funded) academie Francaise which is devoted to "defending" the French language. This book is very much in communication with such debates, ultimately in a very him way ending with a lack of approval for any viewpoint. But, interestingly, he counts himself as being among the defenders of the French language; although a knowingly unorthodox one. He is as devout a defender of the French language as Hegel was a Lutheran. Consideration of his identity as one of the victims of the French and their tyrannical language is then very important. He is an Algerian Jew, possibly the two groups most resented by the French other than Muslims; and so his brilliant experimentations with the French language of which he is so known for take on a subversive tone. He is also in communication with the seemingly English critics of his thought as representing Derrida as being too totalizing about the history of Western metaphysics. He deals with them much like his forefather Heidegger did: mocking dismissals but always in a genius and suggestive way. On these debates Derrida no doubt arises correct.
There are also long passages of this work which are truly just breathtaking in their literary genius. This is particularly present in the truly awe-inspiring epilogue such as:
"...everything that has interested me for a long time... the deconstruction of... "the" Western metaphysics (which I have never identified, regardless of whatever has been repeated by it ad nauseum, as a single homogenous thing watched over by its definite article"
Or his account of being in the Parisian school Louis-le-Grand where he learned
"...the history of France; understanding by that what was taught in school under the name of the "History of France": an incredible discipline, a fable and bible, yet a doctrine of indoctrination for children of my generation."
To summarize the points and arguments made by this book and outline precisely how this contributes to the development of philosophy and continental philosophy of language in particular is to dishonor Derrida's legacy. Derrida had no time for philosophy which was easily boiled down to thesis statements, the innumerable slideshow presentations shown about him would no doubt sicken him immensely. This is a masterful little book, as is to be expected of this clearly great author.
The basic task of this book, from what I can discern, is to look at in an almost phenomenological key the way that one's 'home' or 'maternal' or 'native' language and how that structures a part of our subjectivity. Especially complex when it is brought from the abstract to Derrida's case: in which even 'his' language is not his. As a Maghrébine and Algerian Jew his "native" language should have been Arabic, Berber, or maybe even Hebrew as that is the language of his heritage. But this is not the language he spoke at home, not the language he spoke at school, not the one he writes in. This language rather is French: notably not a language of Jewish origin. So in the vague process of the formation of his personal subjectivity and identity there is that vital gap between himself and his language. His maternal language is someone else's, he does not even have access to his own language. This dilemma, the bastard child of colonialism and the confusion inherent to Western Europe, is the subject of critique and analysis of the book.
It is also a work very much conscious of its political messaging. We must, for the good of those who will come after us (praying there is such a thing) continue to note and emphasize the political content of Derrida's concerns throughout his work. I believe a certain amount of the confusion about Derrida in the Anglo-American world is a certain lack of knowledge of the politics surrounding French language. The French language is a topic of considerable political debate there, of course including the (state-funded) academie Francaise which is devoted to "defending" the French language. This book is very much in communication with such debates, ultimately in a very him way ending with a lack of approval for any viewpoint. But, interestingly, he counts himself as being among the defenders of the French language; although a knowingly unorthodox one. He is as devout a defender of the French language as Hegel was a Lutheran. Consideration of his identity as one of the victims of the French and their tyrannical language is then very important. He is an Algerian Jew, possibly the two groups most resented by the French other than Muslims; and so his brilliant experimentations with the French language of which he is so known for take on a subversive tone. He is also in communication with the seemingly English critics of his thought as representing Derrida as being too totalizing about the history of Western metaphysics. He deals with them much like his forefather Heidegger did: mocking dismissals but always in a genius and suggestive way. On these debates Derrida no doubt arises correct.
There are also long passages of this work which are truly just breathtaking in their literary genius. This is particularly present in the truly awe-inspiring epilogue such as:
"...everything that has interested me for a long time... the deconstruction of... "the" Western metaphysics (which I have never identified, regardless of whatever has been repeated by it ad nauseum, as a single homogenous thing watched over by its definite article"
Or his account of being in the Parisian school Louis-le-Grand where he learned
"...the history of France; understanding by that what was taught in school under the name of the "History of France": an incredible discipline, a fable and bible, yet a doctrine of indoctrination for children of my generation."
To summarize the points and arguments made by this book and outline precisely how this contributes to the development of philosophy and continental philosophy of language in particular is to dishonor Derrida's legacy. Derrida had no time for philosophy which was easily boiled down to thesis statements, the innumerable slideshow presentations shown about him would no doubt sicken him immensely. This is a masterful little book, as is to be expected of this clearly great author.
September 7, 2025
أحس أني لم أفهم كثيرًا، فهذا كأنه كان مني دخولاً مفاجئًا في قلب فينومينولوجيا اللغة عند جاك دريدا! إلا أني لم استطع إلا أن ألاحظ أنه ينطبق في هذا الكتاب الصغير المثل القائل، «وافق شنّ طبقة»، فجاك دريدا، الذائع الصيت، فرنسي من أصل جزائري، وُلد في الجزائر وتعلّم فيها، وهو صاحب هذا الكتاب الصغير، الذي هو محاضرة في الأصل، وهي في هذا الكتاب مع الهوامش لا تتعدي مئة صفحة، وأما الثاني الذي وافقه فهو إبراهيم محمود، وهو ليس بالمترجم، ولكن حضر في هذا الكتاب لكتابته ملاحق تماثل حجم الكتاب الصغير، أي مئة صفحة أخرى، ويتوافق مع دريدا في أنه يتحدث بلغة مفروضة عليه وعلى هويّته، فدريدا من يهود الجزائر الذين تلقّوا تعليمًا فرنسيًا صرفًا في بيئة متفرنسة، قبل أن ينتقل إلى فرنسا منذ مراهقته، وإبراهيم محمود، كردي سوري، تلقى تعليمًا بالعربية في بيئة عربية، وكلاهما يستخدم ""لغة أم" ليست هي "لغته الأم" فعلاً! كلاهما أُجبر على استخدام "لغة الآخر" - بتعبير دريدا، ولفتني ما قاله دريدا عن نفسه من إنه كان محظورًا عليه في سنوات تعليمه استخدام أي من اللغات الأخرى في بيئته الطبيعية، غير اللغة الفرنسية، أي اللغة العربية الدارجة والأدبية، واللغة الأمازيغية، وفي نفس الوقت كانت اللغة الفرنسية ذاتها محظورة عليه أيضًا "بطريقة ملتوية وشريرة" - كما وصفها - فاللغة الفرنسية كانت تقدّم نفسها إليه كلغة استعلائية استعمارية، لا لغة هويّة، فما أعطاه هذا الوضع الشاذ إحساس امتلاك هوية مستقلة، والتي اللغة من أكبر مكوّناتها، ولا أعطاه الإحساس أنه يمتلك لغته الأم، لأنها دائمًا وأبدًا كانت هي "لغة الآخر" بالنسبة إليه.
وهذا محور المحاضرة، أو ما أحس أني فهمته منها! وأسلوبه جدّ غير مريح، فهو كثير الإحالات الثقافية واللغوية وسريع الرتم جدًا كأن أحدًا يجري وراءه! فمن هذه الناحية لا يصلح هذا الكتاب الصغيرة أن يكون مدخلاً إلى فلسفته اللغوية.
وأما إبراهيم محمود، فكان جدّ غير مريح أيضًا، فمن الصعب استشفاف علاقته باللغة العربية وبالدين عمومًا، فعناوين كتبه الأخرى غير مريحة، "الجنس في القرآن"، "الجنس في الجنة"، "الشبق المحرم"، "الشذوذ الجنسي في تاريخ العرب"!!، ولم اقرأ له من قبل، ولكن أحسب أنه لم ينجح قط في فصل اللغة العربية عن الدين، فمما يأخذه عليها ف هذا الكتيب قوله إنها لغة تفاضلية في نظر أهلها، لأن أهلها ينظرون إلى لغتهم على أنها فوق كل لغات العالم، وأنها لغة أهل الجنة نفسها، اللغة الوحيدة، فيقول:
إن العرب، جلّهم أو معظمهم، لا يمتلكون قابلية الإصغاء إلى اللغات الأخرى دون استثناء، بوصفها لغات ندّية، لها علاماتها الفارقة بالتناظر، بل لا يقدّرون لغتهم كما تستحق التقدير، وكما تتطلّب العلاقة الإنسية، وذلك من لدن مثقفيهم قبل عامتهم (فهؤلاء محكومون بهوى اللغة في تجذّرها الميتافيزيقي)، عقدة اللغة (وأشدّد على هذه المفردة) مصدرها ذلك الاعتقاد المؤلّف والمعاش دينيًا، بخصوص اللغة في إسلاميتها قبل كل شيء، انطلاقًا من اعتبار سبق تاريخيًا وأنثروبولوجيًا، وهو أن العربية لغة أهل الجنة وهي أفضل اللغات بوصفها لغة القرآن، هذا التفضيل المعتقدي تم تقعيده، ومارس كل ما من شأنه تسوير اللغة بالذات.
وهذا ينطبق على الشافعي ومن جاء بعده منذ أكثر من عشر قرون، فصار الاهتمام باللغة من الخارج، وقوننتها ليعرَّف في سياق المأثور الديني المقدس على أكثر من صعيد، وبدت كل لغة أخرى دونها مكانة وأداء تعبير ومهام تفكير، بل أمسى كل من حاول التفكير في إصلاح وضعها أو نقدها، خروجاً على الجماعة بوصفها المتن المطارد أبداً للهامش.
العرب في هذه الحالة لا يعيشون التاريخ منذ أكثر من عشرة قرون فعلياً. فاللغة بوصفها كائناً إنسياً اجتماعياً ثقافياً تمت طوطمتها بامتياز.
ولا أعرف الكثير حقًا حول طبيعة مجتمع هذا الكاتب وصراعاته الخاصة من أجل الهويّة، مع اليقين بوجود الاختلافات الفردية في النظر إلى هذه الصراعات نفسها داخل نفس المجتمع، ولكنْ ما كتبه هذا هنا يعدّ، كما ترون، بغضًا لا نقدًا.
July 13, 2022
28)
أحادية الآخر اللغوية/ جاك دريدا/ ترجمة عمر مهيبل/ الدار العربية للعلوم ناشرون/ بيروت/ 2008
كتاب فلسفي، ماتعٌ وتخصصي... سجلتُ هنا بعض ما ورد فيه:
- جاك دريدا مفكر فرنسي من أصل جزائري. وهو أول من استخدم مصطلح التفكيك في الفلسفة من أجل فهم مكانة الإنسان في العالم أجمع.
- في العام 1974، أعلن دريدا عن نهاية البنيوية وبداية ما بعد البنيوية.
- التفكيكية هي نسق من التحليل واستراتيجية للتفكير تسعى لمعرفة الغامض في النصوص ومعرفة العلاقات بين المُكوِّنات.
- ما هي القراءة التفكيكية؟ هي الحفر في المقولات الخفية التي بُني النص عليها، وإجراء حوار بين النص والقارئ، ويتطلب وعيًّا خاصًا لإدراك ما بين السطور.
- ظهرت التفكيكية كرد فعل على البنيوية (فوكو وشتراوس) التي تعتمد على البنية المعرفية.
- آليات التفكيك عند دريدا:
1) الدلالة مستمرة ولا تتوقف
2) للحضور في النص أثر، وللغياب كذلك.
3) لا توجد مركزية للنص وإنما تتوزع معانيه في كل أرجائه.
- ليس من مهام اللغة التعبير عن الحقيقة؛ لأنه ليس لها ثباتٌ في المعاني وتحتوي على نسبٍ كبيرة من الدلالات غير المستقرة.
- اقتحمت الفلسفة اللغة وأدَّت إلى تغييرها.
- اللغة لا تعني الهوية، الهويات أقرب إلى الشعور بالمواطنة.
- لا توجد معاني خارج السياق اللغوي، ولكن توجد معاني خارج اللغة ولذلك لا يمكن أن يتحدث كل الفرنسيين لغة واحدة لأن نسق اللغة ومضمراتها متغيرات.
- الكتابة ثابتة وسلبية وأما ال��لام فمتغير وإيجابي، وهو ما يعني أسبقية الكلام على الكتابة.
1. أنا لا أملك إلا لغة واحدة، وهي ليست لغتي.
2. لا يمكننا أن نتكلم إلا لغة واحدة/ لا يمكننا أن نتكلم إلا لغة واحدة فقط
- اللغة/ اللهجة/ اللسان
- يميل الذين يتحدثون بلغات عدَّة إلى التحدث بلغة واحدة فقط.
- لا يمكن التحدث عن الممنوع إلا بلغة المضمر.
- إن مناقشة الأحادية اللغوية هي كتابة تفكيكية.
رسول درويش
13/7/2022
أحادية الآخر اللغوية/ جاك دريدا/ ترجمة عمر مهيبل/ الدار العربية للعلوم ناشرون/ بيروت/ 2008
كتاب فلسفي، ماتعٌ وتخصصي... سجلتُ هنا بعض ما ورد فيه:
- جاك دريدا مفكر فرنسي من أصل جزائري. وهو أول من استخدم مصطلح التفكيك في الفلسفة من أجل فهم مكانة الإنسان في العالم أجمع.
- في العام 1974، أعلن دريدا عن نهاية البنيوية وبداية ما بعد البنيوية.
- التفكيكية هي نسق من التحليل واستراتيجية للتفكير تسعى لمعرفة الغامض في النصوص ومعرفة العلاقات بين المُكوِّنات.
- ما هي القراءة التفكيكية؟ هي الحفر في المقولات الخفية التي بُني النص عليها، وإجراء حوار بين النص والقارئ، ويتطلب وعيًّا خاصًا لإدراك ما بين السطور.
- ظهرت التفكيكية كرد فعل على البنيوية (فوكو وشتراوس) التي تعتمد على البنية المعرفية.
- آليات التفكيك عند دريدا:
1) الدلالة مستمرة ولا تتوقف
2) للحضور في النص أثر، وللغياب كذلك.
3) لا توجد مركزية للنص وإنما تتوزع معانيه في كل أرجائه.
- ليس من مهام اللغة التعبير عن الحقيقة؛ لأنه ليس لها ثباتٌ في المعاني وتحتوي على نسبٍ كبيرة من الدلالات غير المستقرة.
- اقتحمت الفلسفة اللغة وأدَّت إلى تغييرها.
- اللغة لا تعني الهوية، الهويات أقرب إلى الشعور بالمواطنة.
- لا توجد معاني خارج السياق اللغوي، ولكن توجد معاني خارج اللغة ولذلك لا يمكن أن يتحدث كل الفرنسيين لغة واحدة لأن نسق اللغة ومضمراتها متغيرات.
- الكتابة ثابتة وسلبية وأما ال��لام فمتغير وإيجابي، وهو ما يعني أسبقية الكلام على الكتابة.
1. أنا لا أملك إلا لغة واحدة، وهي ليست لغتي.
2. لا يمكننا أن نتكلم إلا لغة واحدة/ لا يمكننا أن نتكلم إلا لغة واحدة فقط
- اللغة/ اللهجة/ اللسان
- يميل الذين يتحدثون بلغات عدَّة إلى التحدث بلغة واحدة فقط.
- لا يمكن التحدث عن الممنوع إلا بلغة المضمر.
- إن مناقشة الأحادية اللغوية هي كتابة تفكيكية.
رسول درويش
13/7/2022
February 14, 2021
I think anyone who wants to read Derrida needs to let go of a few preconceived ideas : 1 - that you won't understand what his point is, 2 - that his style is an obstacle to his point, 3 - and other various judgments on the author. That's what I tried to do and I think this particular book is the perfect choice in order to let go of one's prejudices. I loved this book and read it in one go, with a thirst that only great books can provoke and relieve at the same time.
It is a more accessible book since it explores Derrida's complex relation with the French language, given the even more complicated history between France and Algeria. It explores the idea that one's intimacy with language can, also and at the same time, be the product of violence and pain. There's no black and white thinking, Derrida shows that one cannot understand this relation to language without knowing intimately what it feels like to belong to no place and, at the same time, find a connection with a language, fall in love with it, be able to pray, cry, laugh in said language, without it being however one's "mother tongue" per se. This book shows the paradox and complexities of one's identity and how it affects one's use of language.
It's a book I'll probably read again and again, because the memory of said book had wonderful echoes in my own life and my reflections. Highly recommend it.
It is a more accessible book since it explores Derrida's complex relation with the French language, given the even more complicated history between France and Algeria. It explores the idea that one's intimacy with language can, also and at the same time, be the product of violence and pain. There's no black and white thinking, Derrida shows that one cannot understand this relation to language without knowing intimately what it feels like to belong to no place and, at the same time, find a connection with a language, fall in love with it, be able to pray, cry, laugh in said language, without it being however one's "mother tongue" per se. This book shows the paradox and complexities of one's identity and how it affects one's use of language.
It's a book I'll probably read again and again, because the memory of said book had wonderful echoes in my own life and my reflections. Highly recommend it.
August 31, 2019
Albert me ha dejado este breve libro, que es el primero que leo de Derrida. Me ha sorprendido mucho la implicación biográfica y emocional de Derrida en un libro teórico, es mucho más carnal de lo que lo suponía. "Solo hablamos una lengua, y esa lengua no es nuestra". "No podemos hablar más que una lengua, y necesariamente hablamos más de una". Es una reflexión súper interesante y bastante fácil de seguir. Congenio mucho con la postura que tiene sobre la escritura como medio para enfrentarse a la lengua, esa realidad dolorosa, esa promesa amenazadora. La escritura para plantarnos cara, aunque eso implique irremediablemente fijar más el problema en nosotros. En fin.
August 25, 2024
We've seen Derrida (and Cixous, etc.) on these themes many a time, which renders this particular text less crucial in the context of the entire corpus. Yet, I find this set of problematics engaging enough (Derrida's status as a Sephardic Jewish Algerian, in the context of Vichy Colonial France, and reflections on "mother tongue"s from this perspective, his relationship to the French language, etc.)
January 7, 2020
I appreciate what this man is trying to say, but does he have to say it in such a complicated way? It is not even that he uses difficult vocabulary, it is mostly his writing style that prevents me from fully emerging myself in this book (which is why I didn't finish it and probably never will). Nevertheless, interesting subject.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews