Jacques Derrida’s "Signature Event Context" by Bryan D. Estabrooks
Jacques Derrida took a drastic new look at the interpretation of language when he stepped into a realm where he opposed the likes of Plato. Derrida challenged the sentiment that writing was a lesser form of language than speech. He dared to assert that written language is actually a stronger tradition than spoken language. The perception of perpetuity in language weaves it way in and out of Derrida’s deconstruction ideals of how language should be examined. His argument seems to continually revolve around breaking the language down to a minimal existence where the words and phrases are subject to interpretation independent of the "context." It was this notion that drove "Signature Event Context."
As Derrida opened his study with obscure references to the meaning of the word context, his attention to detail in the essay was foreshadowed. Rather than jump to his statement that "context is never determinable," Derrida provided a prime example of his coming argument through the semantics of a study of the word context. As tangents became a theme of his study, it was easy to become lost in his search to make his point. His examination of the history and reasoning behind written characters for language served to strengthen his argument for the endurance of the written language, and returned focus to the subject at hand.
Derrida’s analysis of the strength of characters of language points to a style that favors interpretation away from the sender or receiver of the message. For Derrida, the true measure of the written message is its ability to be interpreted long after the "author" is removed from the piece. If the character are unable to stand on their own and provide a sense of interpretation of meaning, then they have in a sense, failed.
For a writing to be a writing it must continue to "act" and to be readable even when what is called the author of the writing no longer answers for what he has written, for what he seems to have signed, be it because of a temporary absence, because he is dead, or, more generally, because he has not employed his absolutely actual and present intention or attention, the plentitude of his desire to say what he means, in order to sustain what seems to be written "in his name."
After establishing the strengths of written language characters, Derrida turned his attention to the spoken language and applied several of his arguments to speech. One of the most important facets of Derrida’s study of speech occurred when he exposed that unlike many written statements, several arguments presented in an oral tradition were less open to interpretation. This lack of interpretation could be directly linked to the notion that speeches were given to specific audiences, and were often not open for general understanding from those removed from the situation in which the speech would have been delivered. This aspect was expanded upon as Derrida approached performative utterances.
The unique situations surrounding these ritual speeches that Derrida referred to as "performative utterances" play perfectly into his idea of spoken words bearing less critical meaning as written characters. The tailored nature of language for special occasions (Derrida provided examples of launching a ship or marriage) hindered their ability to maintain their individual strength, because they were bound to certain standards of accepted rhetoric.
Derrida broke language down into its smallest possible denominators and practiced the art of examining the structure of words, and the words themselves for interpretation. This novel concept of taking language to its very roots and forcing the words to stand on their own as testaments to intent has become a very common practice among literary critics. The popularity of Derrida’s deconstuctionist ideals and their continued growth are chronicles of how the cornerstone of the written character is still vital to the growth of language. Despite Plato’s belief that written language would hinder expression and understanding, Derrida has shown that perhaps it is a single written word that can contain more powerful meanings for a greater mass of individuals.