Derrida + Locke: Language as Part & Whole

In Derrida's essay, he does not just break down language into its parts so that we may better understand the whole. Derrida goes even further with his method of 'deconstruction', which really is the best word for what this method accomplishes. Locke in his essay discusses the ways in which we use language and how most of time language manages to fall short for us. Locke begins by 'deconstructing' the concept of signs and symbols that represent words, and how words represent ideas. Derrida begins by discussing the letter 'a' of our alphabet, which shows from the beginning his thoroughness in discussing language in all of its parts.
Derrida says of the letter 'a': "The a of differance, therefore, is not heard; it remains silent, secret, and discreet, like a tomb(Derrida, 280)". I think this is essential to understanding Derrida's idea of 'differance': while an entity can be not the same as another entity, or 'different', differance looks at the nuances of ideas in that sameness or not sameness. Because the letter a depends upon the idea of being written, it is silent and separate from the a that is spoken. Written a is silent and dormant on a a page.
Derrida also makes the point that there is no phonetic writing. Derrida uses this topic to also discuss "signs", as Locke does through most of his essay. She says that signs in writing are nonphonetic, and the difference here "draws out an invisible connection, the mark of an inapparent relation between two spectacles(Derrida, 281)". I think Locke would agree with this in relation to 'signs'; for Locke, signs are symbols that fall short for language, and for Derrida, signs represent the invisible connection between language and phonetic symbols like letters, at least as I understand it.
Derrida's essay much like his method of deconstruction is extremely complicated. However, comparing this essay to Locke has at least helped in contrasting their views on language and contextualizing those individual views in and of themselves.
Derrida's essay, to me, succeeds more than Locke because it takes the idea of language further. Derrida states that differance is "neither a word nor a concept(Derrida, 283)". He states that differance compensates for difference's inability to refer to a concept as a whole. This seems to represent the main dichotomy between Locke's essay and Derrida's; Locke does not look at language as a whole, but rather the short-fallings of its individual parts. Derrida's deconstruction method is able to look at all the parts, as well as the whole.