Explication Of Jacques Derridas Signature Event Context English Language Essay Example

the philosophical discourse assuming simplicity of origin, continuity of derivation, production, and analysis, and homogeneity of dimensions.

(Derrida 4) Derrida utilizes Condillac to demonstrate the classical theoretical perspective on composing, which considers authorship as the expression of an author's original thoughts, where all contributing factors such as "beginning, production, derivation, and analysis" hold equal importance and relevance in the formation and understanding of a text. According to Derrida, Condillac's view suggests that authorship unfolds in a direct, simple, and continuous line of development, unaffected by the act of writing itself, which has no impact on the structure or meaning of the ideas it conveys. Derrida further presents Condillac's analysis that if writing is considered a superior means of communication than spoken language, then the origins and progression of writing remain constant and incorruptible, implying that the written form possesses unchanging significance for the reader's comprehension.In his essay, Derrida criticizes the belief that written content holds absolute significance and instead proposes that the only absolute element in authorship is the concept of absence.

According to Condillac, writing involves a lack of physical presence in various ways. To begin with, the absence of the intended recipient is evident when writing is created. The purpose of writing is to convey information to individuals who are not physically present. Furthermore, there is also the absence of the reader during the writing process and the writer when their work is read. As a result, writing exists independently from both reader and writer; however, it paradoxically maintains a connection to a feeling of presence. The writer's intentions can be perceived in their writing as they express them through written words. Similarly, within the

act of writing, one can sense the reader's presence as the writer aims to communicate their thoughts through text.

The act of composing suggests that there is no reader or author present. The authorship stands alone even after the author has "abandoned" it, but still impacts the reader. This impact is not determined by the author's intentions, as understanding and interpretation depend on the reader. This leads to Derrida's second assertion in authorship: the lack of a definitive meaning. As Derrida states, representation often replaces presence as a constant and consistent alteration of presence in the representation.

(Derrida 5) Derrida claims that the author's presence can be observed in how the reader perceives and interprets the text. The reader's comprehension and interpretation are not based on the author's intended message, but rather on a practical system of understanding symbols. According to Derrida, writing rules rely on understanding written words, which are only comprehensible due to their familiarity with them. While symbols represent an idea that signifies a perceived object (Derrida 6), it is through familiarity that they become understandable.

Derrida argues (Derrida 7) that my communication must be quotable - iterable - even without a reader present. Writing that cannot be clearly structured and repeated after the recipient's death would not qualify as writing. Therefore, for Derrida, symbols (words) must be quotable and repeatable in different contexts to be perceived and understood in terms of their meaning, but more importantly, what they imply or connote.

The purpose of authorship is to express the thoughts of the author. Linguistic communication and words serve as something that can be quoted, regardless of who reads or writes them. Writing is a form

of communication that needs to have both the ability to be repeated and cited. All writing can be copied and should be open to repetition. According to Derrida, marks or signs made by authors are limitless in their repeatability, in all aspects – whether it's related to knowledge, grammar, or semiotics. This sets apart "written" from "unwritten" forms of communication. Additionally, Derrida discusses how writing also separates itself from its original context within the traditional idea of authorship. Furthermore, Derrida examines spoken language/signs through Husserl's perspective.

The significance of the iterability of spoken language is extremely important in understanding the intended meaning and facilitating communication between a speaker and listener. This comprehension is based on universal grammar rules, which encompass linguistic, logical, and epistemic aspects (Derrida 12). To fully comprehend words or spoken language, it is crucial to possess knowledge about other cultural, social, and epistemic references. Derrida expands his analysis of writing to include a wider exploration of language, communication, and cultural importance. From Derrida's perspective, the key lies in the fact that "understanding" is influenced by an inherent desire for knowledge within a specific context (Derrida 12).

Derrida explores the concept of truth in language through an analysis of the 'event'. He critiques Austin's ideas on speech communication, stating that speech acts only serve as forms of communication. Derrida argues that Austin's theory is limiting and excludes exceptional cases. According to Austin, the performative nature of language is evident in communication but he disregards quoted performative speech acts, which Derrida sees as fundamentally problematic.

This attack is focused on scrutinizing the perlocution and illocution of Austin's analysis of the performative. According to Derrida, this analysis divorces

itself from determining truth value, thus avoiding any conflict between true and false ( Derrida 13 ). If language or words have a performative dimension, it means that their vocalization exists within a context that goes beyond inherent truth significance and potential misinterpretation of intended meaning. For Derrida, the problem lies in the fact that word meanings are essentially subordinate to the actual act of speech as well as its surrounding context. Consequently, this leads to an 'event' in meaning perceived by the listener. Derrida's criticism also raises questions about how contextual factors encompass all aspects of communication and emphasizes the conscious presence of the speaker's intention throughout their entire speech act ( Derrida 14 ). In a speech act, the speaker's presence gives significance to their intention while placing lesser importance on the listener's comprehension. This performative nature of conveying meaning poses a philosophical problem for Derrida. Additionally, Austin discusses criteria for successful or failed speech acts which contradicts Derrida's openness and approach to literary theory.

According to Derrida, the success of the 'event' is inherently connected to the potential for "infelicities" within it, which may not actually differ from a successful 'event'. In Derrida's perspective, the 'failure' of the event, whether intentional or accidental, serves a greater purpose. Derrida argues that the presence or potential of failure is what actually defines the event as 'ideal'. The possibility for mistakes and the negative impact they have on the event may destroy the idealistic approach, but it ultimately serves the contradictory purpose of making the event ideal by introducing an element of risk. Therefore, a perfect or ideal event would inherently involve a degree of danger

that is avoided. While Austin uses theatrical events, poetry recitations, or literature to exemplify felicitous address events, Derrida emphasizes that there is still room for errors or mistakes in verbal expression.

Derrida concludes his discussion on the "Event" by opposing Austin's position, similar to his resistance against Condillac's views, and addressing the general stability of the mark. Derrida emphasizes that vocalizations or events have inherent limitations. Austin's belief in the "pureness" of performatives must be understood not as resistance to citationality or iterability, but as resistance to other types of loops within general iterability that challenge the supposed purity of every discourse event or address act. Derrida argues that each vocalization or address act must be considered within its specific context, as there is a background to its iterability or potential repetition. This has significant implications for how words are understood and their meanings apprehended.

Contrary to Austin's emphasis on understanding "the thing and the impression" (Derrida 18), Derrida argues that we must also consider the motivations, indestructible necessity, and systematic effects that can be analyzed (Derrida 18). Context is crucial in relation to the event and shares the same "metaphysical beginnings" as Austin's interpretation (Derrida 18). Derrida suggests that to comprehend context, it is necessary to define the conscious intentions of the speaker (and receiver). However, consciousness is indefinite and open to discussion. Therefore, while utterances may be specific, their specificity allows for the possibility of having an opposing or "contrary" effect on the listener, opening up further metaphysical debate about the event.

Derrida concludes his essay by exploring the idea of "Signature" as a symbol that indicates the author's presence. The signature serves as evidence that

the text originates from the writer or that certain words are spoken or written by them. Derrida shows that repetition and iterability are crucial aspects of the signature, which were previously discussed in relation to marks and language. Therefore, the signature is inherently repeatable and must be reiterated for it to be acknowledged as a distinct mark belonging to the author.

According to Derrida, a signature is significant to the writer, but paradoxically, it also indicates a plurality in its creation. It is a repeated symbol that represents the author's presence. Derrida refers back to his previous statements, stating that a written signature implies the absence of the signer. The signature signifies the absence of the author while also representing the signer's presence in the past. It can be seen as a substitute for their physical presence and implies the reader's presence in the future or present. In a playful manner, Derrida adds his own signature at the end of the essay to illustrate an event. As readers, we are aware that Derrida must have physically signed the paper at some point. However, the printed copy of the signature in front of us is not the original or authentic mark made by Derrida. It is a repeated printed copy of the same signature. This action emphasizes key elements of Derrida's statements regarding iterability, repetition, absence, and context.

The preceding essay by Derrida conveys a sense of authenticity and sincerity through his signature at the end and his mark of 'authenticity' throughout. Derrida believes that language is not just a means of communication but also encompasses elements like presence, knowledge, representation, and truth. In order for a text

to be fully understood or communicated, these elements must be incorporated. Derrida's writing style is evident in the essay's title, structure, use of questions, and paradoxes. Interestingly, the essay follows the opposite order of the title "Signature Event Context," starting with the discussion of "Context," then Austin's arguments on the "Event," and ending with Derrida's thoughts on "Signature." This playful approach to writing is characteristic of Derrida's style.

[ 6 ]

The language and style used in the text are sometimes similar to spoken words or a speech. This style is also reflective of the form of the text, which was originally spoken. The form and structure of the essay reinforce Derrida's ideas and statements. The essay is organized in a fairly easy-to-read but formal manner, with Derrida occasionally breaking down statements or thoughts into lists or numbered sections. While the complexity of the ideas and concepts presented may be more intricate than the stylistic form of the written language.

Derrida uses repetition and alteration of specific points and statements to make his theories more accessible to the reader. He believes that by repeating these statements, the reader can better understand their true importance. This technique applies not only to words but also to the underlying concepts and ideas conveyed in the essay. Thus, as readers, we can comprehend Derrida's statements by considering them within the context of the essay's structure and as part of a broader cultural conversation.