I sometimes wonder if some of the excesses and obfuscations promoted by some ot these new-fangled philosophical/critical academic movements might not be traceable to a linguistic component. Although originating in France and Italy, the most outrageous extrapolations of the Post-Modernist, Semiotic textual deconstructions do seem to be based on the ability of English to make any proposition sound logically correct if it is elegantly articulated. I only speak one other language, and I take no credit for that accomplishment because I learned it as a very young child, but let me use it as an example.

After the terrorist attack resulting in the destruction of an airliner in Scotland, I heard the following two statements repeated within minutes of each other on two separate TV networks (I paraphrase, of course).

1) "There is absolutely no evidence at ths time that this incident is the result of a terrorist attack."

2) "At this point, it cannot be ruled out that this crash was caused by terrorist action."

A quick review of these two apparently contradictory sentences should quickly convince you that what each speaker is saying is really

"I don't have a clue as to what caused this plane crash."

But the phrasing of 1) and 2) certainly communicate, if not a bias, a hidden "subtext" which is certainly not supported by the facts known at the time. Furthermore, not only do these statements presuppose a conclusion, they are both phrased in a legalistic and logical tone which is designed to give that subtext a legitimacy supposedly due to careful and unbiased reasoning.

Both of these statements can be precisely and unambiguously translated into Spanish, but the effect on the listener is very different.
Instead of being distracted and misled by the tone of the jurist or logician, the first reaction for the Spanish speaker would be

"Why isn't this guy giving me a straight answer? He has no way of knowing what caused that crash."

In other words, to the Spanish listener, the fact that both the sentences are elegantly composed, true and grammatically correct does not give them any particular logical legitimacy or persuasive power. Of course, I'm not saying you can't lie in Spanish or tell the truth in English, but that it's a just a little bit harder to bullshit in Castilian.

I'm sorry I can't read the works of Derrida and Eco in their original tongues. I think it is precisely this kind of mistake that this new philosophy was developed to study, but that it has become inbred and, like many of the social/behavioral sciences, devolved into a mix of the obvious and the unprovable. Maybe that's why Francis Bacon, who addressed this same issue when he wrote almost four centuries ago about the Idols of the Marketplace, chose to write in Latin.