The Discourse of the Human Sciences

"Structure, signs and games in discourse of humanities" (Derrida, 1978: 278-293) can be understood as a document of events. "It is the function of structure - or structuralism - that is thought to be reduced or suspected" (278). I deduce that this is not a temporal pattern occupied by genetic content and objective content in historical change, but to emphasize simultaneous analysis of systems and internal relations in structuralism discourse.

Derrida made a speech at the Johns Hopkins University (1966) in 1966, "Structure, Sign and theater in Human Sciences Discourse" (Subsequent writing and differences). The conference presented in this article relates to structuralism and then to the highest level influence in France but it is just beginning to attract attention in the United States and it differs from other participants in the lack of structuralism . Not only praised the accomplishment of structuralism but also kept reservations about its internal limits, American scholars led to mark their ideas as forms of post-structuralism.

Structures, symbols, and games in the discourse of human science produced the way Derrida followed. He ... uses the word event as the concept of structure. It is easy to say that the structure of the word is as old as Western science and its roots are deep inside the soil of ordinary language. The structure, more precisely the utility of the structure always contains or reduces the process that centers on it. The function of this center is not just a principle of organizational structure that restricts free play we might call structure. For example, when the center of free play is closed