language in derrida & deleuze

Citations:

1. "No sense of possibility or potentiality exists in the realm of statements. Everything in them is real and all reality is manifestly present. . . . A statement always represents a transmission of particular elements distributed in a corresponding space." (Deleuze, 3)

2. "What counts is the regularity of the statement: it is not the average, but rather the whole statistical curve" (Deleuze, 4) 

3. "What seems accidental from the viewpoint of words, phrases, and propositions becomes the rule from the viewpoint of statements" (Deleuze, 9)

4. "This citationality, this duplication or duplicity, this iterability of the mark is neither an accident nor an anomaly, it is that (normal/abnormal) without which a mark could not even have a function called 'normal'" (Derrida, 12)

5. "Given that structure of iteration, the intention animating the utterance will never be through and through present to itself and to its content. The iteration structure a priori introduces it into a dehiscence and a cleft [brisure] which are essential" (Derrida, 18)

Presence

In his explication of the statement in Foucault, Deleuze seems to claim a role for statements that opposes Derrida's notion of writing in general. Deleuze speaks of manifest presence and transmission (1), terms that Derrida questions with recourse to the fundamental iterability of language. I don't claim to be able to reconcile this difference or to privilege one theorist over the other. Rather, I would like to pose some questions:

If the statement is not a phrase or a proposition, can it be considered a linguistic phenomenon? How might we think about the "statement" non-linguistically? Does it introduce a problem viewed in light of Derrida's deconstruction of the signified? Does Derrida's essay enable us to point out the limit(s) of describing a statement in language/writing?

Regularity

Deleuze's "statement" and Derrida's "writing" seem to share one fundamental aspect: a constitutive internal deviation, drift; an apparent "accident" that is actually a rule (this recalls the statistical "taming of chance," which I discussed in an earlier post). Yet given that the statement and writing seem to have different relationships to presence,  I wonder if the statement would contain or transmit this deviation in the plenitude of the "whole statistical curve", while the dehiscence of writing leads only a possibility of reading engendered by the determined absence of intention or fixed meaning. While I'm not sure how accurate this hypothesis is, I think that it does beg some interesting quesitons:

Are Deleuze and Derrida writing about the "same" regularity? What are the stakes of claiming that language / the statement always work even when they seem prone to accidents? Might Derrida's text problematize Deleuze's notion of a totalizable statistical curve? Or does Deleuze's concept of the statement point to an overlooked category or function of language in Derrida's writing in general? 

I think that part of the challenge of reading Derrida and Deleuze side by side was that while they use much of the same language, their essays seem to talk past each other. I hope that these questions might provide some possible points of contact between these texts in order to draw out how each conceptualizes discourse.