Bluffing?

A thought coalesced while I was looking back over the last few posts: Derrida introduces philosophical concepts like "transcendental signified" or "trace" that he clearly intends to be extensions of or rebuttals to more familiar concepts like "referent" or "structural distinction". J.D.'s new terms bear a family resemblance to the ones they supplant and so partake of those terms' long-established significance. But because J.D. keeps his definitions murky, it's not clear where his contribution lies. It's like he says, "You know that old idea of 'referent', well I've got this thing called 'transcendental signified' which is like referent, except better!" And then he's off on a tear and never gets around to telling you why it's better. The uncharitable reading of this technique is that he's bluffing.