Can Meaning Exist Without Silence?
Discussing Derrida’s Perspective on Silence as an Active Presence in the formation of Meaning in Language
Dear Thinkers,
I recently had the pleasure of coming across some interesting material that discussed the perspective of the famous French philosopher Jacques Derrida on the concept of silence. Being a silence enthusiast myself, needless to say I was driven to reading it and I found an aspect within the discourse that I felt I may have missed, or at the very least, hadn’t properly covered, in the research article that I had published back in April of this year, titled, “The Paradox of Being Silent”. By the way, if you haven’t read it yet, I highly recommend you do. At the risk of self-publicity, I have to say, it is quite a unique take on silence. If you are interested in the philosophical and linguistic dimensions of silence, then you are the right audience for it.
But coming back to the topic at hand today, can a sentence truly convey its meaning without the presence of silence? This might seem like a peculiar question, but it's crucial to how we understand language. We often think of meaning as something born from words. But what if the true essence of meaning isn't just in the words themselves, but in the silence that surrounds them?
Without silence, our sentences would collapse into a formless rush of noise, devoid of the clarity and nuance that allow us to express complex ideas and emotions.
In my research on silence, I covered various facets of silence, i.e., its role as a form of listening, an act of kenosis, and even a way of life. However, I only briefly touched on one of silence’s most important aspects, i.e., its intrinsic role in the construction of meaning within language. So, in this essay, we will talk about that dimension.
As mentioned earlier, Derrida’s works are the primary source of inspiration for me in exploring this dimension, so we will be covering some of his insights in this matter. Particularly his concept of différance.
The Role of Silence in the Structure of Language
You don’t have to be a linguist to decipher this one. Just think about it. Without silence, the structure of communication would dissolve into a relentless stream of sound, leaving us unable to discern where one thought ends and another begins. The punctuation we use in writing i.e., commas, periods, ellipses, are not just decorative but functional representations of silence. These marks are the visual manifestation of the pauses we naturally incorporate into speech, each one introducing a moment of quiet that is essential for organising our thoughts.
Without punctuation, a sentence is just a breathless sequence of words that demands continuous attention without offering any respite. Such a sentence would be nearly incomprehensible, its meaning obscured by the lack of necessary pauses.
It's also worth mentioning that silence also operates on a more subtle level, shaping the rhythm and cadence of language. In spoken language, the way we modulate our voice, i.e., the rises and falls, the stresses and pauses, is crucial to how our message is received. Silence is what gives speech its musicality, its ability to convey not just information but emotion, intention, and nuance. It is the difference between a statement and a question, between irony and sincerity.
We can go a bit deeper here. The role of silence touches on something more fundamental than just the tone and comprehensibility of the language. It is the very possibility of differentiation within language itself. Silence is what allows words to stand apart, to be distinct from one another. Without silence, language would be a continuous blur, a single undifferentiated sound. One might go as far as to ask, could language itself exist without silence? A topic for another essay I suppose.
Derrida’s Différance and the Necessity of Silence
Now, let’s talk about Derrida’s concept of différance. And yes, Derrida has deliberately used the French variation for the word ‘difference’ here. He uses the French word différance to define his own concept that meaning is not a fixed entity, rather it is something that is continually deferred and differentiated within the play of language. This ongoing process, where words gain significance through their differences from other words, relies fundamentally on the presence of silence.
“La différance n'est pas un mot, et ne se laisse pas comprendre d'emblée comme un concept, c'est ce qui rend possible, en général, l'activité, le jeu, les différenciations d'oppositions, le jeu des différances conceptuelles ou non-conceptuelles." - Derrida, La différance (Essay).
Translation: “Différance is not a word, and it is not immediately comprehensible as a concept; it is that which makes possible the activity, the play, the differences of oppositions, the play of conceptual or non-conceptual differences.”
Différance is the idea that meaning is never fully present. It is always in motion, always shifting, as it depends on the relationship between words rather than on the words themselves. Silence plays a crucial role in this dynamic, functioning as the space within which these differences emerge. It is the silent interval that allows us to perceive the distinctions between words, phrases, and ideas, giving rise to meaning as a relational rather than an absolute phenomenon.
The idea that meaning is always deferred, never fully arrived at, because it is contingent on a chain of differences that are constantly in flux makes silence integral to this deferral. It marks the places where meaning is suspended, where the listener or reader must pause to consider, interpret, and eventually derive significance. These silences are the spaces where meaning is not yet determined, where it hovers in a state of potentiality, waiting to be realised through interpretation.
So, in a sense, silence is what makes différance possible. It allows for the play of differences that Derrida describes, creating the conditions under which language can signify. Without silence, this play would collapse, language would lose its dynamism, becoming a static and inert system (and a potentially impossible entity).
Silence is the Absence That Defines
If you’ve read my research article on silence, you’d know that I have contended quite a lot with the concept of ‘absence of silence’. Absence is just as significant as presence. Silence, in particular, operates as a defining absence, a space where meaning is both constrained and enriched by what is left unsaid. This absence is not a void but a potent force that shapes the contours of meaning by highlighting what is present and allowing it to resonate more deeply.
Silence within a sentence or conversation often carries as much weight as the words themselves. It is in the unsaid, the implied, that much of the richness of communication resides. For example, consider a conversation where someone pauses before answering a question. That pause, that moment of silence, is filled with potential meaning, it might indicate hesitation, contemplation, discomfort, or even a subtle form of resistance. The silence speaks, often more eloquently than words could.
This idea can be seen in various linguistic phenomena. Think of ellipses in writing, a deliberate omission of words that make the reader fill in the gaps. The ellipsis is a form of textual silence, a space where the reader’s imagination must engage with the text to complete the thought. This interaction between what is said and what is left unsaid is the space where meaning is co-constructed by the author and the reader.
In speech, silence functions similarly. It creates emphasis, draws attention, and suggests layers of meaning beyond the literal. A pause before a statement can heighten its impact, allowing the listener to anticipate, reflect, or prepare for what is to come. Derrida's critique of logocentrism, i.e., the privileging of speech over writing, inadvertently speaks to the function of silence in speech.
In logocentric thinking, speech is seen as the direct expression of thought, supposedly more immediate and authentic than writing. Yet, Derrida argues that even in speech, meaning is not fully present. It is mediated by the same structures of absence and deferral that characterise writing. Silence disrupts the illusion of immediacy in speech, which goes to say that meaning is always, to some extent, constructed and deferred.
Silence serves as a boundary, a necessary absence that frames and defines the presence of language. It is within these boundaries that language finds its depth, its capacity to suggest, imply, and resonate beyond the surface of words.
Silence is a Temporal Cognitive Process
Silence is not only spatial but also temporal, i.e., it unfolds in time, shaping the way we process and understand language. In the flow of conversation or the rhythm of reading, silence functions as a crucial interval that allows for reflection, interpretation, and comprehension.
The act of reading, writing, speaking, and listening, are inherently sequential, and the mind requires brief moments of silence to digest and integrate the information being presented, thus pointing towards an aspect of silence that plays directly into something resonating with a cognitive requirement for humans.
The Ethics of Silence
This section might seem a bit off topic, and in all honesty, it probably is. We have been approaching silence from a very technical perspective in this essay, so there is no cause for us to venture into the ethics of silence. However, given how passionately (dare say ‘obsessively’)Derrida explored ethics towards the end of his life, I feel compelled, out of respect for him, to explore silence in an ethical framework. I promise to keep it brief, but feel free to skip this section all the same, if it doesn’t interest you.
The ethical implications of silence arise in the spaces between speech, those moments where we choose to pause, to listen, or to withhold our words. Silence, in this sense, becomes an act of respect, of recognising the presence and voice of the other, and of creating a space where genuine dialogue can occur.
To remain silent when another speaks is to acknowledge their right to express themselves, to offer them the floor without interruption. This silence is not empty. It is filled with the intention to listen, to understand, and to respond thoughtfully. Derrida’s notion of hospitality, the idea of welcoming the other, can be applied here. Silence is a gesture of openness, a way of making room for the other’s voice, and thus, it is an ethical framework for communication.
Silence is also a brilliant aesthetic force. Consider the use of silence in poetry or music, where the absence of sound or words can evoke emotions that are otherwise inexpressible. A poem, for instance, might use line breaks, caesuras, or the space around the text to create a sense of pause, inviting the reader to dwell on the unsaid, to feel the weight of what lingers in the silence. I highly recommend reading Emily Dickinson to get a hands on demonstration of this.
The rests between notes, the pauses in a melody, are what give music its rhythm, its dynamic tension, and its emotional depth. The silence after a powerful chord, the pause before a crescendo, these moments of quiet are charged with anticipation, with emotion, with meaning.
In visual art, the use of negative space i.e., the silence of the canvas, can be as impactful as the elements that are present. This silence allows for contrast, focus, and a sense of balance within the composition. It invites the viewer to engage with what is absent as much as with what is present. In the artwork that I used for this article, “fuzai ni okeru sonzai (不在における存在)”, I have effectively used negative space to convey the message of silence using an abstract illustration of the vast emptiness of nature. It is not just the trees, the rivers, and the mountains that give nature its beauty, but also the vast emptiness (read silence), that accompanies it.
That’s all I have to say about the ethics/aesthetics of silence for now. Let’s return back to the essay.
Presence in Absence
To wrap up this discourse, I will attempt to link this aspect of silence with the broader topic of my previous research, The Paradox of Being Silent. In my previous exploration of silence, I delved into its multifaceted nature, how it serves as a form of listening, an act of kenosis, and even a way of life. In this essay, I covered silence as a presence in absence in further detail. This paradox is a fundamental truth that permeates our understanding of language and meaning. A truth that has surfaced repeatedly in my research and finds resonance in Derrida’s concept of différance.
Différance, I feel, is a good framework for understanding why silence plays such an essential role in the construction of meaning. In my research, I argued that silence is more than just the absence of sound, it is a presence that carries significant ontological weight, shaping the way language functions and meaning emerges. Derrida’s différance provides the philosophical backbone for this argument, suggesting that meaning is never fully present but always in the process of becoming, mediated by differences that silence makes possible.
My exploration of silence across languages revealed that while every culture recognises silence, its interpretation varies widely. However, the common thread remains, i.e., silence is a presence that transcends the spoken word, an absence that defines meaning. This universality of silence, as both presence and absence, resonates with Derrida’s critique of logocentrism, i.e., the idea that speech is somehow more immediate or authentic than writing. My research suggests that whether in speech or writing, silence plays a crucial role in the deferral and differentiation of meaning, challenging the notion that language can ever be fully present or complete.
By integrating Derrida’s concept of différance into this exploration, the role of silence in language is not only confirmed but also philosophically grounded. Différance provides the conceptual framework that explains why silence is indispensable to the process of meaning-making. It connects my empirical observations with a broader theoretical discourse.