Pre Class Derrida

Derrida’s piece was perhaps one of the hardest I have grappled with this semester, yet I feel as though his overall message was quite similar to De Saussure’s take on words, their context, and an understanding of language. It seems as if Derrida is suggesting an idea that parallels that of De Saussure, in which words can only be understand by what they are not, and it is this difference that stand as the word’s defining measure. In light of this, Derrida must be suggesting that a word can therefore never be fully understood in and of itself but should be considered in the context of a sign as the relationship that exists between the signifier and the signified. I think Derrida’s introduction of “differAnce” is employed as an example of the multi-dimensional dynamic of language in that it must be deconstructed and picked apart if ever to be fully understood. However, it seems as if every deconstruction of a word, at least from Derrida’s perspective, results in only more difference and more differentiation. The complexity of his analysis is a bit over my heard currently, so I look forward to other people’s take on Derrida’s theory.