Multiple Meanings

In Derrida's Differance, Derrida discusses the subtle contrasts between "Difference with an E" and "Differance with an A"(281). With stating that Differance is neither can deal with the term "to differ," much like when one is set apart from everything, Derrida shows that language is limited in English due to people having one word for one, specific idea. In Burke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Burke says that words can "have a double reference in there ordinary use" (820). Both of these claims are true when it comes to dissecting the English language, but I believe that it is easier to have a separate word for everything.

When Derrida changes the letter "E" to an "A," Derrida is antagonizing the idea that the English language is very subjective. In order for one to understand the word that Derrida is creating, the word itself must be changed. But even with this most subtle change in the word, this reading is actually a speech. Derrida, since this is a speech, must now clarify by stating whether he is saying "difference with an E" or "differance with an A." Why? Because orally, both words sound the same, unless one truly emphasizes each syllable. He goes on to discuss that he is, indeed, limited by the text in front of him. This limitation by "graphic differences" (281) hinders the words during a speech because Derrida's the only one reading the script. He is the only person that can see the specific arraignment of letters and sentences on the page. Because of this, he must now clarify what form of a word he is saying at the time.

In Burke's essay, Burke argues that words can have "double reference" (820) today. This is true for many words in English. For instance, the verb "running" can be used to describe the action of someone jogging or an appliance that is working. This is the case for many other words in English. The words set, card, pitch, and round all have multiple meanings. The problem with these words though, is that in speaking the words, we must use context clues in order to figure out what form of the term one is using. For instance, the term "pitch." If one were to say "That guy has some great pitch," how do we know if they are referring to pitch as in throwing a baseball or pitch as in matching a musical sound? This is why I think separate words are better than one word that means many things.

Burke actually references a group that does this in one of the earlier essays that we read this year. In Equipment for Living, Burke states that, "Eskimos have special names for many different kinds of snow" (293). He states that the reason for these different names is that they imply different hunting conditions for the Eskimos. If someone were to just say "It's snowing hard," what is the definition of hard?

This can all related back to how truth is relative to people. Some words can be hard to gauge depending on how they are used. For instance, if someone were to say, "It's cold outside," this is relative due to the person. To someone from Alaska in Florida, a fifty degree day would most likely feel like a walk in the park rather than a day to bundle up.

The point behind all of this is the enforcement of an idea. Derrida and Burke would both agree that the use of so many words for every single thing that is different is next to useless because they imply ideas. Take a word like pants for example. Pants implies the idea of a form of clothing that is designed to cover the parts of the body from the waist and down. This is a very non descriptive term, due to the fact that we have given a name to every form of pants that are made.

To me, it is all based on the idea that one has created through the reading or hearing of a word. Humans love to visualize. People want to see what exactly it is that someone is talking about, this way, there is no misunderstanding. Burke and Derrida have a point that language has many unnecessary words, but this is due to people wanting a concrete picture in their minds about what is being presented to them. This is because each word signifies not only a picture in their minds, but also a form of being.