After today’s class, write at least 250 words summarizing the reading and class lecture on Jacques Derrida’s “Signature Event Context.” Consider why this reading is important to the work that we do as technical communicators.
Also, remember that William Hart-Davidson’s “On Writing, Technical Communication, and Information Technology” is in dialog with Derrida’s speech. When you read Hart-Davidson’s essay, reflect on how discourse is formed and taking place through these and our past readings.
Jacques Derridaâs âSignature Event Contextâ
In Jacques Derridaâs Signature, Event, Context, Derrida challenges John L. Austin illocutionary acts or three parts of speech acts. The first act, called locution, refers to what is said. The illocution is meant by what has not happened as a result. The perlocutionary act is what happened as a result- that is, what is said and what is meant. For Derrida, The concept of absence is very important. Derrida examines the meaning of context, and then the significance of context in relation to other factors surrounding a text, such as events, discourses and signature. He argues that these issues all factor into the meaning of the text as it is produced by the writer or speaker, and then understood by the listener or reader.
It is a property of writing, says Derrida, that the reader is absent from the written sign when it is being written and that the written word is communicated in the absence of the writer. In this sense the written sign is subject to repeatability in the absence of the writer. Every sign, signifier implies what it is not. For example, the sign for black implies everything that black is not. Another concept examined was itierability or repeatability. Signs have meaning because they are repeatable. Derrida, in this sense, is repeating other things Austin is saying, just as students invoke writers in their academic writings. Itierability is a sign that is repeated, whether in speaking or writing, and forms a chain next to the meaning of our speaking or writing. It also gets added to what is not said. The act of writing denotes an absence of the writer, absent at the time of reading, and the absence of the reader, which means that the writing exists independently of both reader and writer and is yet paradoxically linked to the writerâs presence. The writer is present in the writing at the time of reading because his or her intentions are made in the words that are written; the reader is present at the time of writing because the writer is intending to communicate an idea in his or her writing through the act of writing. Derrida wants us to think critically about the way communicate with one another. In addition, Derrida want us to better understand the way language and writing works where the listen is intimately involved in deciphering or understanding from our speech acts or writings. As technical communicators, we need to be diligent in the way we construct our conveyance of language to our readers.
In âSignature, Event, Contextâ by Jacques Derrida, Derrida picks a fight with J.L Austin. J.L Austin casts a very long shadow on linguistics and was interested in illocutionary acts. He observed that thereâs certain things that we say which have meaning. For example saying things like âI swearâ or âI promiseâ, although just words carry great meaning. Those words do things in the physical world. Austin says that there are three parts to the speech act, those are:
1. Locution â Whatâs said
2. Illocution â What is meant by what is said
3. Perlocution â What happened as a result, result of what was said and meant
For example, âIs there any salt?â The illocutionary act is âplease give me some salt (this is what is meant) and the perlocutionary act is someone offers to pass the salt. Austin sees this as a power in language. Derrida seeâs Austinâs idea but it is not on the belief that people always understand what is meant. Derrida considers that all communication is reserved for writing, while Austin privileges speech over writing. There are three traits by Derrida and those are:
1. Subsists without the subject who inscribe it. When you write something thereâs a permanence to it and you donât have to be there for it to be written.
2. Meaning of the text is never constrained by its context. You are not there when someone reads the writing that is done. Writing exists wholly on its own once itâs written.
3. Thereâs a rupture between the writing and its meaning thatâs brought about by your absence, by lack of context, and most importantly the spacing between the words.
By signature Derrida refers to the fact that our signature can be imitated. Even though we look at it as authentic it can be counterfeit. Every time you sign your name youâre not the same person as you were since the last time you signed. Signatures donât really mean anything. By context Derrida says that context should limit meaning, it should just help us understand whatâs going on. Reading a book now vs. the past youâre ideas are different because you are different. According to Austin it shouldnât change the original context of what youâre reading and this is where Derrida disagrees. What Derrida wants to get through all this, is that everyoneâs context is a construct and it changes. We have to be very diligent in the way we construct our documents as technical communicators.
Originally delivered as a speech this one is the written version published in journals and eventually a collective book, in the article Signature Event Context by Jacques Derrida he is locked in battle with J.L. Austin (whom at the time had long been deceased) and yet Austin casted a very long shadow on linguistics from the work he had done previously. Among the many things of interest to him were these things called Elocutionary acts. Some may question what’s the big deal about these acts and why was Austin appealed to them? It became a big deal in linguistics and the idea behind them was that Austin observed that there are certain things we say that have meaning and make people do things or that represent something in the real world when they’re being said. Examples include “I swear”, “I promise”, “I pronounce you man and wife” – these are certain words, but they do things in the visible world. its not like reading a story, Austin thought these elocutionary acts were a really significant part about what language is and what language does.
To get an idea of where he’s going with Elocutionary act he states there are three parts
Locution – What is said
Illocution – What is meant by what is said
Perlocution – What happened as a result
A common household example many are familiar lies at the dinner table during Thanksgiving. “Is there any salt?” Immediately one can see this a question (?) inquiring the presence of salt in the vicinity somewhere in the house. The illocutionary act (meaning of what is meant) is “please give me some salt” even there is no more passing from one person to another. The perlocutionary act (what results from) is some offers to pass the salt.
In the article Jacques Derridaâs âSignature Event Contextâ starts off with a fist or a challenge. Derrida himself talks about John L Austin on the three parts of a speech act. The acts are locution, illocution and perlocutionary act. Locution is when it refers to what is told, Illocution means the result of what has not happened yet, and lastly perlocutionary is the result. Derrida tells us about how reader themselves is absent and he states how absences itself is the most important thing. Things like signs are very important for example the color of a hazard sign tells you that itâs dangerous. These can be compared to idioms on how itâs raining cats and dogs when you run this through the three definitions you can see that it means its raining and the result of it is it is actually raining. Derrida explains to us on how signatures on papers we sign is completely different. The next day we are not the same person as the last time we signed that paper. Reading books that you enjoyed in the past and then reading them when youâre a lot older may give you a different type of feeling. That is what he is trying to get with those definitions. Derrida himself wants us to better ourselves and to look towards our own context and structure of ourselves and it constantly changes. Derrida wants us to change by understand the way language works along with writing and listen in into specific details. Being able to be diligent is crucial to be a good technical communicator.
In this article âSignature Event Contextâ by Jacques Derrida talks about his opposition towards J. L. Austin who believed that the things that we say do have an effect on people and place a certain meaning onto others. Derrida disagrees with Austin and once again tries to proves that speech should not be privileged over writing. Austin believes in illocutionary Acts which is composed of three parts. The first part is locution which is what’s being said, and the second part is illocution which is whatâs meant by what’s being said. The third part is what action occurred to the result of what was being said. Austin believes in the power of speech but Derrida begins to deconstruct his work. Derrida says that writing is permanent and thatâs writing exist once itâs written. Derrida uses the term rupture which is which is the meaning that someone takes away from your writing. You donât know the way someone will interpret your writing in your absence. If you arenât in the presence of the person that is reading your work who knows what meaning they will take away from it could right or wrong. Derrida came up with terms of this own the first one is absence which explains that the signifier signals the reader what something is not. For example, a shirt implies everything that isnât a shirt. The second term is iterability which is repeatability. Repeatability leading to a chain of meanings to show whatâs being used and what isnât.
In the speech âSignature Event Contextâ Jacques Derrida shares his views of J Austinâs illocutionary acts. Illocutionary refers to the belief that certain things we say have meaning in the physical world. For example, the phrases I promise and I swear, have a symbolic meaning, and indicates that the person who is saying it is serious about their actions or position. There are three parts to this speech act; locution, illocution, and perlocution. Locution refers to what is actually said. This allows us to privilege speech over writing. Illocution is what is meant by whatâs said. Perlocution is what happens as a result of what was meant. For example, the phrase âis it hot in here?â is the locution. The illocution would be, that the person who asked the question is feeling hot. The perlocution would be that someone opens a window, or turns on a fan. Austin believes that meaning should be left upon the individual to decipher. However, Derrida disagrees with Austin. Derrida believes that this provides people with the opportunity to have a miscommunication. Austin subjects speech to hold more power over writing, while Derrida believes the complete opposite. Derrida has a strong belief for writing, and that writing should only be considered as a form of communication, because it is permanent. In his speech, Derrida defines the word rupture to mean, what someone understands from your writing, when you arenât there. You arenât in control of what the person takes away from your writing, especially if youâre not present.