Formulation of the claim
A purely linguistic presentation is not enough if it ends up strengthening traditional theological oppositions rather than deconstructing them.
Explanation
Arkoun rejects the idea that linguistic analysis can be an end in itself when it remains trapped within the very structure it describes. For him, value does not lie in cataloguing inherited oppositions, but in exposing their mechanisms and weakening their epistemic authority.
Nor can recourse to this presentation remain sufficient if it merely rearranges the data within language itself. Its effectiveness, then, depends on its ability to open a critical distance between inherited discourse and the self-evidence it claims.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom belongs to a broader critical trajectory that distinguishes between the tools of analysis and their results. The book does not reject linguistics as a tool; rather, it objects to its use when it helps fix theological binaries instead of interrogating them, which is consistent with Arkoun’s arguments for moving beyond descriptive reading toward a critical historical reading.
Limits of the claim
This claim does not mean rejecting linguistic analysis itself, nor denying its usefulness in revealing semantic structures. The point is only to warn against relying on it when it reproduces what it is supposed to explain.