After reading Locke I expanded this "fictionality" thesis to include "every word as a fiction" (Barthes, 870). Locke's statements about the arbitrary meaning given to words (and thus the varied meanings among humans) made me realize that each word within a text can contribute to the whole subjectivity of textual significance. Because words are arbitrary signs, they can't possibly always possess a fixed meaning.
And then Derrida came along and pushed my thesis one step further, in a way I had only previously joked to myself about. But it makes sense; every letter is a fiction. There are so many words (especially in the English language) that mean very different things while only differing by one letter. For example, desert is a dry, hot, and sandy landscape (not the place you'd quite want to be), while dessert is a rich, wonderful treat. The extra s holds extreme difference and drastically changes the meaning of the word. (This brings up ideas that words have very little meaning by themselves. Only in context, supported by other words around them, do they really have meaning.)
Homonyms, when spoken are another great example of the "fiction" problems through spoken language. When relaying things like "to", "too", and "two" you physically can't tell the difference between the way the words sound. The same goes for Derrida's "difference" and "differance". Both words mean very different things and only because of one letter; "this graphic difference...is written or read but not heard" (Derrida, 280). If every word has arbitrary fictional significance, then every letter (especially in cases like Derrida's) is just as arbitrary, just as fictional. Every single letter of a text can drastically change the meaning or significance of the text as a whole.