Jacques Derrida came to prominence in the late 960s and early 970s with the publication of Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference and Margins of Philosophy. Derridas name is inextricably linked with the term deconstruction. Largely because of this, or rather because of some interpretations of what deconstruction is, he must be counted as one of the most controversial of contemporary European thinkers. The controversy surrounding Derrida can be traced back at least as far as the late 970s, when he was engaged in a dispute with the American analytic philosopher, John Searle. The dispute concerned one of Derridas essays, Signature Event Context. In this essay Derrida offered a reading of the English philosopher J.L. Austins theory of speech acts. According to Derrida, Austin makes great play upon the role that intentions and literal meaning have in securing meaning. But, Derrida points out, neither intentionality nor literal language alone are sufficient conditions for the generation of meaning. What also needs to be attended to, Derrida argues, is the issue of iterability. Iterability is the possibility of repetition. A word can be repeated many times and must be susceptib
le to being repeated in order to be a word and hence be meaningful. However, this repetition is never the same in as far as all utterances of necessity occur in specific and ever changing contexts. Due to these contextual factors the possibility of repetition cannot be governed solely by a speakers intentions or by way of reference to literal language. In Reiterating the Differences Searle criticised this argument by seeking, among other things, to reaffirm the role of intention in meaning in a manner that he thought was true to the spirit of Austins work. Derridas response, sought to point out that Searle had not really grasped his argument. However, Derrida made this point by comprehensively citing and at one and the same time (at least as far as Searle was concerned) distorting the arguments in Searles text by situating them in a different context. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Derridas and Searles positions, one effect of the dispute was to contribute to the already marked divisions that characterise the relationship between continental and analytic philosophy. At its worst, this has led some analytical philosophers to deny Derrida the title ofphilosopher at all.