Furthermore, synecdoche and asyndeton explain that the running of a thousand shoes might impact the urban walkspace, but without linkages. But is this fragmented theory of representation the fundamental center of Walking in the City, or, for that matter, walking in the city? No. This is because these two phenomenons are in opposition, thinning and thickening simultaneously. Therefore they cannot form a coherent thesis together.
Therefore I posit that Certau suggests that opposing signifiers turn the city into a desert which is simultaneously disorienting and spelling out significations. The walkers follow these, even though in the end they are devoid of meaning. This is because functionalist totalitarianism attacks superstitions, exterminating any special places. Walking is the substitute for these legends (read as a widely distributed untruth, not a signifier).
In the end, the salvageable comprehension of the literary conflation of word and page is only the representation of a system of walking that comprises a (spatial) system for the city. The panoramic overview is an illusion. It is the trace of walking that becomes the imprint on the map. However, it is and is not permanent. On the one hand to be forgotten on the other leaving an indelible memory, much like the relationship of speech to conversation, where no trace but memory remains. This process can make or break a space based on a decision, but the palimpsest always remains.