Derrida’s Essay, “Sign and Play in the talk of the ‘Human Sciences” is a prologue to the hypothesis of Deconstruction, or a gander at language and significance rather than the item or thing language and importance is utilized to portray. Deconstruction appears to revolve around the possibility that language and significance are frequently deficient in attempting to pass on the message or thought a communicator is attempting to communicate. Since the disarray originates from the language and not the item then one should separate or deconstruct the language to check whether we can all the more likely comprehend where the disarray stems.
Derrida talks about his concept of “deciphering the understandings,” through the thoughts of an occasion, the structure of that occasion and the play of the components of that make up the structure. The essential thought of deconstruction works. To truly comprehend a thing, for this situation language, one would need to separate what language is, the way it works, why we hold fast to that structure as our methods for correspondences and so forth. The issue is that we use language to investigate language and I don’t figure you can do that.
To adequately use deconstruction hypothesis and apply it to language or the human sciences, one would need to make another dialect. Math has its own language, made of signs and images and numbers, deconstruction needs its own language. The conspicuous issue with that thought is that a deconstructionist would state, you would need to separate that language to check whether it is conveying adequately. Nonetheless, I consider that to be a decent spot to start.
Another issue is that a lot of Derrida’s essay is by all accounts round or opposing. The possibility of the middle being inside and outside of a structure is silly to me. Derrida doesn’t full clarify his thought that a structure has an inside yet the totality of that structure has its middle somewhere else (278) It is round rationale that doesn’t hold up. Additionally, Derrida spends a significant part of the essay talking on Levi-Strauss and his hypotheses just to spend the last 50% of the essay ruining or discovering logical inconsistency in a lot of what Levi-Strauss needed to state. The possibility of the bricoleur and the specialist as it applies to language and lit hypothesis specifically work for me.
Yet, after Derrida invests a lot of energy clarifying those thoughts he invests a lot of time clarifying why it doesn’t work, and why Levi-Strauss was misguided in depending on the possibility of the bricoleur and architect or observation maybe, as a way to analyze language and hypothesis. The inquiry at that point becomes, “What does Derrida accept,” and leave not completely having the appropriate response that to the inquiry and furthermore accepting that Derrida is uncertain of the response to that question himself.
by T.S. Johnson