Semiology and Rhetoric by Paul de Man

As a deconstructionist, Paul de Man's version of deconstruction is based on two related principles

1. The incompatibility of language and nature
2. The incompatiblity of garammatical and rhetorical structure

The fist incompatibility comes out of the doubt we have about language. Nature is expressible in language; language has no correspondence to nature. Secondarily, it is the incompatibility of grammatical and rhetorical structures that creates unresolvable contradiction in any text. If we value one, we ignore other. To happen simultaneously is not possible. If one gives primacy on rhetoric, the result will be indeterminacy of meaning. On the other hand, if one gives the primacy to grammatical structure, the discovery will be a false pretense to identity. According to him, a literary text simultaneously asserts and denies the authority of its own rhetorical mode.

In his view, it is the rhetorical or figural components of language that makes language unreliable medium for stating truths. Here, de Man denies this possibility of a directly literal or referential use of language. With these figures of speech, writers say one thing but mean something different. One sign can be substituted for another. Therefore, every reading is always misreading. Paul de Man stands against Russian formalism that divides the language in to literary and non literary. Then he talks about rhetoric and semiology. Rhetoric is the study of metaphor and metonymy whereas semiology is the study of whole linguistic system. Because of these rhetoric or figurative quality, every text has at least two possible meanings that create contradiction and confusion. So, text creates indeterminacy, that is called ' aporia' stage.

De Man views that ' every reading is misreading’, which can be proved by two ways. First, language is so tricky that goes out of author's control. Language contradicts with author's intention. We are, in this sense, in prison house of language. Authors want to reveal something but text does something other. It is due to the rhetoric use of words, which have no fixed meanings. Secondly, in a text, both grammar and rhetoric are present. There is always possibility of grammaticality up on the rhetoric and rhetoricizing the grammar and we have to choose only one at a time. Since there is no possibility of synthesizing them, there is no way out of misreading because we have to suppress either rhetoric or grammar. So, there is possibility of multiplicity of meaning. In this sense, he is deconstructionist (in Derrida’s term).

For instance, “How can we know the dancer from the dace?" Rhetorically, it is statement. Here, we can't know the dancer from dance. Grammatically, it is question which means: what is the process of knowing the dancer from the dance? So, it has double meanings. But we have to take it either as a statement, or as a question but not both at the same time so it creates misreading. If we give importance to grammar, it turns out to be a false pretense. Likewise, if we give primacy to rhetoric only, we don't care for the rules and, therefore, we create a heap of meanings. And the result becomes indeterminacy of meaning, which makes confusion because of multi- meanings.

De Man opines that semiologians believe in singular meaning whereas rhetoricians believe in open mindedness of meaning. Giving an example of Archie Bunker, he tries to prove the rhetorical nature of language.

To sum up, text has both- grammar and rhetoric. When we read it grammatically, it gives one meaning and if we read rhetorically it results another meaning. Again, rhetoric has double meanings- one surface and another deep. So, every text has multiple meanings.