Well he gets half of the procedure right but misses the point entirely. Deconstruction is a mode of critical reading where you identify a (common sense) 'binary opposition' in which one term is 'privileged' (for example in Of Grammatology the binary opposition is Speech/Writing; for something more relevant here perhaps Hero/Villain), then invert it to show that the privileged term can only exist because of its opposite. By itself that doesn't accomplish anything particularly productive. The next step is to 'displace' the opposition and create a new perspective with new possibilities. The other point to remember is that Deconstruction is a recursive process: once you have inverted an opposition and displaced it, you create a new perspective - but one that is unavoidable and necessarily another binary opposition with a privileged term. (Derrida's argument is that this way of thinking is built in to the very framework of western language.) But that's ok, as long as we gain a productive new perspective. We just have to remember that each perspective is also contingent and not an ultimate truth.
Cssaarr deconstruction attempts to dismantle a text, because it assumes that language doesn’t work. But, by using the very tool that it is aiming to criticize, deconstruction invalidates it’s own assumptions that language does not work. Essentially, it deconstructs itself.
Thank you so much for this video! I am a graduate student in English studying to become an English Professor. I greatly enjoy literary criticism, but struggle with decon. I am going to go through and earn my PhD, so I have to understand it better. Your video simplified this subject and made it much easier to understand. Subscribed! Thank you so much!
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video. Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control. But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another. If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted. To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
+Mark Blasini You are very right, and I've oversimplified here--perhaps to the point to misrepresenting the approach. My goal was to give high school students a chance to dabble in theory, and I hope that it at least gives them a taste. The theory is more playful than fatalistic, and I may come across as vilifying the concept without really meaning to. At least that's what I've gleaned from some comments. Thanks for your astute clarification of the ideas! I appreciate the correction and especially your good-natured and polite presentation of it!
I just came across Derrida's deconstruction theory and what you explained seems to make more sense. Do you have any books or articles I can read to get a more in-depth view on this..Thanks :)
Thank you so much! You are so enthusiastic and you have great and clear explanations too! You helped me more on my project in just a few short minutes than reading an obscure and confusing booklet/package for a few hours!
Entertaining lecture and explanation. Thanks for that! Let's put deconstruction aside for a minute. Regarding the sign on the lift door, if you think about it it is pure genius to write sg like this. It does not matter if the blind person cannot read the sign as its purpose is to stop those who see to use the elevator with a dog.
I remember a text by Derrida from the quote "there is only text" is derived. By reading that letter you can figure out that Deconstruction exists in the first place to point out that we are social creatures with a brain that is wired to figure out associations, thus creating context. It is because of our social nature that we are given constructions that become the carriers of meaning. We are limited by our social environment to discover our individual personality, to find out our true essence as human beings. To deconstruct means to question the social structures we are raised in and to use it against itself in order to cause change. It's fun with these examples but really, it's more fun to consume art that relates to these concepts like David Lynch, Agnes Varda, Andy Warhol, Duchamp, surrealism.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) haha, it is totally a proposal! can you please do a video explaining what the heck does derrida( my sworn enemy) means by the cente being the center and not really a center?! :D
Ha! Yeah, I know the feeling. When I was in Literary Theory in grad school, I loathed the man, but I've softened up to him a bit more now. He actually died while I was in the class, and I wasn't absolutely certain that it wasn't my hatred floated across the ocean and killed him. Anyway, the center that he's talking about is a point of reference that is inherent to the text--the idea that everything has an absolute meaning that we're basing all of our understanding upon. But then, he points out that that "center" is really just a figment of our imaginations. There is no point of reference or absolute in language for us to hang meaning on. Therefore, meaning is really pretty wishy-washy wobbly. And we can push and prod any statement until it falls apart and means nothing if we want to.
Tim Nance thank you for replying! i have spend three days in undrestanding the theory of deconstruction and the center and all that blah blah, i almost gave up with a superficial understanding, especially that there is not enough materials to be able to study it more. PS: i will always loathe the guy. i can't forgive him, since he can't possibly apologize to all of us suffering undergraduate students.
I tried googling for deconstructionism and what it was, but I couldn't find any clear explanation. Then I came across this video. Thanks a lot, it's very clear now!
TheDutchMaurits Glad I could help! This is a thumbnail sketch of the topic, and if you're interested, you should definitely dig deeper. You'll find a lot of extremely complicated texts on it, which are more irritating than helpful, but the one I'm using here--Text and Context by Steven Lynn--is excellent and user friendly. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to deconstruct any actual pieces of literature in this video. I often use music videos in my classroom as fun pieces for applying literary theory; we do Miranda Cosgrove's Dancing Crazy with decontruction because it basically deconstructs itself. Good luck with your continued exploration of the topic, and always feel free to ask me any questions!
How about this reformulation: "For all statements, truth value cannot be necessarily validated." There's no way to verify this statement as, similarly, there is no means to verify the totality of statements possible. All statements, then, are likely in a limbo, a proposition which itself is in a limbo because it cannot be verified.
I am a masters student of Danish literature and I have been reading many highly academic texts about "dekonstrktion" and I finally got it now. Thanks! I have an exam coming up where I hope to use it.... and after that exam I will leave it forever
I'm writing an essay involving deconstruction and Miley Cyrus, and this was the first video I clicked on. When Nance started singing wrecking ball I couldn't believe it and now you're getting quoted!
Wow, ang video na ito ay talagang nakakatulong sa akin! Matagal na akong interesado sa paksa na ito, at ang iyong paliwanag ay talagang nakatulong sa akin na mas maintindihan ito. Pinapahalagahan ko ang iyong kahusayan at pagkahilig sa paksa na ito. Ako rin ay isang content creator, at nag-eexplore rin ako ng mga katulad na tema sa aking channel. Gusto ko makipag-ugnayan at magpalitan ng mga ideya sa mga taong may parehong interes. Keep up the good work!
You discussed our full-semester course work in a very easy and comprehensive way. Thing which most of teachers won't do in formal class... hahahaaha! Your videos helped me soo much. Thank you.
So, I stole lots from this video without giving you any credit because I know my professor will never watch this video or anything, but at least I am letting you know. Thanks a lot! :) Subbed
I'm a college student at Green river College and my English teacher asks us to use literary criticism without ever explaining what it it or what each type are. You are saving my grade.
Thanks Tom ,ive been reading this topic for some time now and it really felt like i was reading a language from space, you explained it well in the shortest amount of time.
Thank you TIm Nance for the way you explained Decsonstruction. It was entertaining, fun, and helped me tremendously in gaining a greater understanding of this particularly difficult theory. I am going to give a lesson in a few weeks on deconstruction and may use part of your video to motivate the class. Love it. Great work. Thank you!
I am going to be giving a lesson to about 12 other seniors at my university and teach deconstruction as if they were really in 10th grade. Still thinking of some fun activities.
+Michele Patarino Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
this theory is the hardest one i think , im writing a paper about literary theories and writing about deconstrucion is taking all my time , but thank you very much for resuming it , it realy helps ^^
+Radhia Sky It can be tricky to get started with, but once you've gotten the hang of it, deconstruction can be very fun. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions!
As a non-native speaker of English, I think I can provide a different approach which you may not have thought of in the first place. Initially not having been being aware of the term "seeing eye dog" meaning "a leading dog for blind persons", I understood the sign in terms of its literal meaning, "only dogs with seeing eyes are allowed on the elevator" that is. This would, for whatever reason, mean that only sighted dogs are allowed on the elevator and blind dogs are not. Still, I agree with you with regard to the ambiguity expressed in the sense of 'we do not know if humans or anything else than this kind of dogs are allowed'. Anyway, as you can see, the signifier, in this case, is ambiguous in another way as well, even though you probably did not perceive it as what I am trying to explain at first glance. As far as I understand the idea of deconstruction, this can be seen as a perfect example for its application. The meaning you understand by reading these words is only based on a convention which English speaking persons have agreed upon. It, in some way, disguises the meaning which the constituent words as a whole carry for readers unaware of this convention and hides it from native speakers (who have reached a certain level of proficiency, at least). Thus, these groups might have a different understanding, which is solely due to their cultural (particularly linguistic) initial situations. Also, I disagree with what you said around 5:25 ("[...] who is this sign intended to be for? Presumably a blind person [...]"), which is not the case, in my opinion. The sign is rather addressed to sighted persons with dogs in order to keep their pets off the elevator (or the entire building, we cannot know that due to missing additional context). It is probably somewhat safe to assume that an indication for blind persons would not have been conveyed via the visual channel, but rather a different one like the acoustic or the tactile one. In the end, I do agree with what you're explaining in the video on the whole, but I partially interpret it differently. You are most welcome to let me know what you think about my response. Nice video and keep up the good work!
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Thank you. I have been wrestling with Derrida's Differance for 8 weeks. I had almost given up hope, then I found this. THANK YOU FOR SAVING THIS MENTALLY CHALLENGED AUSTRALIAN POST-GRAD FILM STUDENT! My kids have hope of having a normal parent again soon-ish! I'd love to know if this is your real name and how to find any published works so I can cite you and this enlightening explanation correctly! NO PLAGIARISM HERE!!!! Seriously, thank you. This is truly awesome!
+Sherrina Marshall Warner Lol! Glad I could help! Derrida actually died while I was in the middle of my literary theory class in grad school. It felt kinda symbolic... Timothy Nance is my real name, and I don't have any published writing that will be of any use to you (unless you want my cheesy YA novel and some poetry!), but you can cite this UA-cam video. Or I also suggest getting your hands on Text and Context, which I reference in the video. It's a bit pricey, being a textbook, but it's excellent and much more thorough than I am.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
I have a report about this thing and Ive been researching about deconstructionist criticism in google for hours and I'm still clueless. But thankfully I found this video, I definitely get it now thankyou so much!
I see the insanity now in the deconstruction theory. I've seen so many people that live and breathe this theory and the insanity was explained not even a full 3 minutes into the video. Its valid to say that the meaning of something is not always understood but to blatantly go out of ones way to tear down an already confusing text is insane.
Thanks a lot for this video!! So very helpful. I so wish you were my teacher!! Your students are exceptionally lucky to have such a wonderful teacher as you. Your channel, I’m sure, is helping tons of us out here! Thank you for sharing 😊😊🤗
The issue with the seeing eye dog example is that there are multiple cultural cases that are given. Elevators as human transport, and those which may allow dogs. If the mechanism and interface of an elevator is quite implicitly oriented to humans (symbology, licensing, inspection, language), then the 'case' transitions into being a human oriented model of communication, regardless of if dogs or anything else are ever allowed on it. If you extend the 'case' to ask if its for blind people, we immediately resolve that it cannot be (unless there's braile). The 'case' then transitions to being for a seeing human, and is ultimately a negation. The meaning reduces to "No Dogs" and and presents itself with an exception for 1) dogs that wouldnt be able to read the sign and 2) humans that wouldnt be able to read the sign. Implications can resolve to explicit meaning if the model of communication is limited.
After hours of reading summaries of what Deconstruction means I still had no clue of the concept... but you explained it very well! Thanks!!!
Glad to help!
same here ! thank you it was fun .
and i thought i was the only one jostling....i wish they taught like this in the school/ college....thankyou so much...
Well he gets half of the procedure right but misses the point entirely.
Deconstruction is a mode of critical reading where you identify a (common sense) 'binary opposition' in which one term is 'privileged' (for example in Of Grammatology the binary opposition is Speech/Writing; for something more relevant here perhaps Hero/Villain), then invert it to show that the privileged term can only exist because of its opposite. By itself that doesn't accomplish anything particularly productive. The next step is to 'displace' the opposition and create a new perspective with new possibilities.
The other point to remember is that Deconstruction is a recursive process: once you have inverted an opposition and displaced it, you create a new perspective - but one that is unavoidable and necessarily another binary opposition with a privileged term. (Derrida's argument is that this way of thinking is built in to the very framework of western language.) But that's ok, as long as we gain a productive new perspective. We just have to remember that each perspective is also contingent and not an ultimate truth.
But that's simply repeating Hegel's dialectic - nothing new here, it seems.
I don't what I expected, but for a late night crash course this had me in tears when he came out with the hammer. Thank you.
You're welcome!
😊
😊
One of the best explanations on literary deconstruction.
Deconstruction really needs to be deconstructed !
charly kyoryu agreed
There is no deconstruction without meta-deconstruction, considering it knows its application can't work appropriately unless it is then again applied.
@@jkws0 please, elaborate for a newbie
Cssaarr deconstruction attempts to dismantle a text, because it assumes that language doesn’t work. But, by using the very tool that it is aiming to criticize, deconstruction invalidates it’s own assumptions that language does not work. Essentially, it deconstructs itself.
Are you trying to divide by zero or something
Thank you so much for this video! I am a graduate student in English studying to become an English Professor. I greatly enjoy literary criticism, but struggle with decon. I am going to go through and earn my PhD, so I have to understand it better. Your video simplified this subject and made it much easier to understand. Subscribed! Thank you so much!
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video.
Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control.
But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another.
If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted.
To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
+Mark Blasini You are very right, and I've oversimplified here--perhaps to the point to misrepresenting the approach. My goal was to give high school students a chance to dabble in theory, and I hope that it at least gives them a taste. The theory is more playful than fatalistic, and I may come across as vilifying the concept without really meaning to. At least that's what I've gleaned from some comments. Thanks for your astute clarification of the ideas! I appreciate the correction and especially your good-natured and polite presentation of it!
Very similar to New Historicism.
To that, I really do agree. One cannot clearly understand deconstruction without studying Frankfurt School's Critical Theory first.
I just came across Derrida's deconstruction theory and what you explained seems to make more sense. Do you have any books or articles I can read to get a more in-depth view on this..Thanks :)
Thanks Mark. That was a very concise yet clear explanation.
Thank you so much! You are so enthusiastic and you have great and clear explanations too! You helped me more on my project in just a few short minutes than reading an obscure and confusing booklet/package for a few hours!
+Jason Jia Glad to help!
Thanks, Tim. You're such an enthusiastic teacher.
+Chijioke Azuawusiefe Thank you! I do enjoy my job!
Entertaining lecture and explanation. Thanks for that!
Let's put deconstruction aside for a minute.
Regarding the sign on the lift door, if you think about it it is pure genius to write sg like this.
It does not matter if the blind person cannot read the sign as its purpose is to stop those who see to use the elevator with a dog.
Finally I found somebody who explain deconstruction in a way I can actually understand. Thank You!
Explained in the easiest way I have ever come across. Thanks.
I remember a text by Derrida from the quote "there is only text" is derived. By reading that letter you can figure out that Deconstruction exists in the first place to point out that we are social creatures with a brain that is wired to figure out associations, thus creating context. It is because of our social nature that we are given constructions that become the carriers of meaning. We are limited by our social environment to discover our individual personality, to find out our true essence as human beings. To deconstruct means to question the social structures we are raised in and to use it against itself in order to cause change.
It's fun with these examples but really, it's more fun to consume art that relates to these concepts like David Lynch, Agnes Varda, Andy Warhol, Duchamp, surrealism.
If I got you at the initial stage of my graduation, I could make my CGPA bigger than what I obtained.Thank you so much for the way you explained.
deconstruction made me lose my sanity, that i'am thinking of marrying every person or every text that could explain it better.
+Aki Sakura Is this a proposal? 'Cause I'm taken.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) haha, it is totally a proposal! can you please do a video explaining what the heck does derrida( my sworn enemy) means by the cente being the center and not really a center?! :D
Ha! Yeah, I know the feeling. When I was in Literary Theory in grad school, I loathed the man, but I've softened up to him a bit more now. He actually died while I was in the class, and I wasn't absolutely certain that it wasn't my hatred floated across the ocean and killed him. Anyway, the center that he's talking about is a point of reference that is inherent to the text--the idea that everything has an absolute meaning that we're basing all of our understanding upon. But then, he points out that that "center" is really just a figment of our imaginations. There is no point of reference or absolute in language for us to hang meaning on. Therefore, meaning is really pretty wishy-washy wobbly. And we can push and prod any statement until it falls apart and means nothing if we want to.
Tim Nance thank you for replying! i have spend three days in undrestanding the theory of deconstruction and the center and all that blah blah, i almost gave up with a superficial understanding, especially that there is not enough materials to be able to study it more. PS: i will always loathe the guy. i can't forgive him, since he can't possibly apologize to all of us suffering undergraduate students.
Aki Sakura Well, best of luck! Here's to surviving!
Thanks Mr Nance!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Helped a great deal!!!!! Keep doing what you do!!!!!
After watching 100 of videos and wasting my time you are first one who explaining in easy and great way ...
Loved it sir.
You summarized Derrida in 15 seconds. I salute you!
Such a helpful, dynamic video on what's involved in a decon reading!
+Caroline Cacahuète Glad you found it useful!
I tried googling for deconstructionism and what it was, but I couldn't find any clear explanation. Then I came across this video. Thanks a lot, it's very clear now!
TheDutchMaurits Glad I could help! This is a thumbnail sketch of the topic, and if you're interested, you should definitely dig deeper. You'll find a lot of extremely complicated texts on it, which are more irritating than helpful, but the one I'm using here--Text and Context by Steven Lynn--is excellent and user friendly. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to deconstruct any actual pieces of literature in this video. I often use music videos in my classroom as fun pieces for applying literary theory; we do Miranda Cosgrove's Dancing Crazy with decontruction because it basically deconstructs itself. Good luck with your continued exploration of the topic, and always feel free to ask me any questions!
I love the way you teaching... This is sooo amazing
You make it look so simple! Thank you so much; I was really lost.
Deconstructionist: “All statements are devoid of meaning (except mine here, but please don’t notice that.”)
How about this reformulation: "For all statements, truth value cannot be necessarily validated." There's no way to verify this statement as, similarly, there is no means to verify the totality of statements possible. All statements, then, are likely in a limbo, a proposition which itself is in a limbo because it cannot be verified.
@@draw4everyone Christ! So we cant know whether anything is true? wtaf
‘A person who says all truth is relative is asking you not to believe him, so don’t’
Deconstructionists arent relativist
@@soi4685 Really?
I am a masters student of Danish literature and I have been reading many highly academic texts about "dekonstrktion" and I finally got it now. Thanks! I have an exam coming up where I hope to use it.... and after that exam I will leave it forever
Good luck on the exam!
By the way, a Masters in Danish lit sounds fantastic! What are some of the works you study?
these 6 minutes were much better than 45 minute Lecture👌❤
I'm writing an essay involving deconstruction and Miley Cyrus, and this was the first video I clicked on. When Nance started singing wrecking ball I couldn't believe it and now you're getting quoted!
+Asha Jane Ha ha! Love it! My class usually deconstructs Miranda Cosgrove.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) How does that usually turn out?
A little nudge and the whole thing falls apart.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) My essay is going that way! However you explained it very well thank you!
Wow, ang video na ito ay talagang nakakatulong sa akin! Matagal na akong interesado sa paksa na ito, at ang iyong paliwanag ay talagang nakatulong sa akin na mas maintindihan ito. Pinapahalagahan ko ang iyong kahusayan at pagkahilig sa paksa na ito. Ako rin ay isang content creator, at nag-eexplore rin ako ng mga katulad na tema sa aking channel. Gusto ko makipag-ugnayan at magpalitan ng mga ideya sa mga taong may parehong interes. Keep up the good work!
You're the only one on the Internet that made it understandable for me
You discussed our full-semester course work in a very easy and comprehensive way. Thing which most of teachers won't do in formal class... hahahaaha! Your videos helped me soo much. Thank you.
THANK YOU!!! I finally understood deconstruction.
boy! you rock! that explanation was awesome! thank you
+Ruth Allio Oudri Thanks! Glad it helps!
So, I stole lots from this video without giving you any credit because I know my professor will never watch this video or anything, but at least I am letting you know. Thanks a lot! :) Subbed
+GamelutioN Lol. Thanks. Steal on.
Borrowed*
You know you can cite videos right? Totally legit method of research as long as Mr. Nance is a credible source.
Same @GamelutioN same.
Came to watch the explanation for my exam and end up watching this guy singing wracking ball 😂
I'm a college student at Green river College and my English teacher asks us to use literary criticism without ever explaining what it it or what each type are. You are saving my grade.
this actually helped me more than my professors explanation of deconstruction. now to apply it to my final essay. . .
Taking a class on Contemporary Literary Theory right now and these videos are saving my life. Thank you for your talent and knowledge!! Subscribed :)
Thanks a lot for clearing out my doubts and helping me sort out my head 😀You truly are a valuable asset to literature lovers.
+Riya Pundir Glad to help! You're very kind.
You are just brilliant - thank you!!!
+Nico Kos You're very kind!
you are so funny. our doctors need alot of your way in demonstrating, especially the deconstruction theory 😂. big like
Thank you!
You saved my life with your videos, thank you
Thanks Tom ,ive been reading this topic for some time now and it really felt like i was reading a language from space, you explained it well in the shortest amount of time.
+Surprise Worship Know what you mean! I spent plenty of hours struggling through its space language in college! It gets easier with practice though!
Great. And I liked the way you wrote Deconstruction. I'm going to copy/steal it.
I’m like a decade late but thanks for this, sums it up nicely
Absolutely great Sir...
i think i learned more about deconstructing here than any of criticism classes combined
Tim please can you do a video on Speech Act Theory?
Mind blowing teaching sir.......
Tyhuu! You explained deconstruction so well.
You saved my life. Paper focused and worthy of an A. Thank you!
thank you so much! this really helped me understand this theory after really struggling!
+Orochigirl17 Glad to help! Let me know if you have any questions!
A minute in the video and already subscribed bc of how beautifully u explain the complex phenomenas!
i’m writing a conclusion for our group project and i’m crying….I REALLY ENJOYED LEARNING FROM THIS
Yes! Thank you! I truly appreciate this video
Thank you so much for the explanation!
Thanks, I have often heard the term “deconstruction” .... but it never before occurred to me to find out exactly what it means.
Thank you so much! It really helps me to understand deconstructions means! 😊😆
Husband: You look beautiful tonight, dear.
Wife: Oh, so I'm not beautiful yesterday??
Thank you TIm Nance for the way you explained Decsonstruction. It was entertaining, fun, and helped me tremendously in gaining a greater understanding of this particularly difficult theory. I am going to give a lesson in a few weeks on deconstruction and may use part of your video to motivate the class. Love it. Great work. Thank you!
+Michele Patarino Glad I could help! Let me know if there's anything else I can do! What level do you teach?
I am going to be giving a lesson to about 12 other seniors at my university and teach deconstruction as if they were really in 10th grade. Still thinking of some fun activities.
Good luck! Let me know what works; I'm always looking for new tricks!
Absolutely. Will do!
+Michele Patarino Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
·
Very helpful video for me. Thanks for clearing my all doubt .
"Raising irritating, trivial objections."
The word for this is _cavil._
Thank you so much! This video made me finally understand
I can't thank you enough for this video. You have succeeded in making a talk about theory interesting :)
Yay! Glad you enjoyed it!
5:26 it is intended for a person who can see and is with a dog that is not a “seeing eye dog”.
Hi, Sir! Please continue creating videos like this!!! 🙏😊
Thank you Mr..
this theory is the hardest one i think , im writing a paper about literary theories and writing about deconstrucion is taking all my time , but thank you very much for resuming it , it realy helps ^^
+Radhia Sky It can be tricky to get started with, but once you've gotten the hang of it, deconstruction can be very fun. Good luck, and let me know if you have any questions!
Thank u for ur succinct & precise explanation.
As a non-native speaker of English, I think I can provide a different approach which you may not have thought of in the first place. Initially not having been being aware of the term "seeing eye dog" meaning "a leading dog for blind persons", I understood the sign in terms of its literal meaning, "only dogs with seeing eyes are allowed on the elevator" that is. This would, for whatever reason, mean that only sighted dogs are allowed on the elevator and blind dogs are not. Still, I agree with you with regard to the ambiguity expressed in the sense of 'we do not know if humans or anything else than this kind of dogs are allowed'. Anyway, as you can see, the signifier, in this case, is ambiguous in another way as well, even though you probably did not perceive it as what I am trying to explain at first glance. As far as I understand the idea of deconstruction, this can be seen as a perfect example for its application. The meaning you understand by reading these words is only based on a convention which English speaking persons have agreed upon. It, in some way, disguises the meaning which the constituent words as a whole carry for readers unaware of this convention and hides it from native speakers (who have reached a certain level of proficiency, at least). Thus, these groups might have a different understanding, which is solely due to their cultural (particularly linguistic) initial situations.
Also, I disagree with what you said around 5:25 ("[...] who is this sign intended to be for? Presumably a blind person [...]"), which is not the case, in my opinion. The sign is rather addressed to sighted persons with dogs in order to keep their pets off the elevator (or the entire building, we cannot know that due to missing additional context). It is probably somewhat safe to assume that an indication for blind persons would not have been conveyed via the visual channel, but rather a different one like the acoustic or the tactile one.
In the end, I do agree with what you're explaining in the video on the whole, but I partially interpret it differently.
You are most welcome to let me know what you think about my response.
Nice video and keep up the good work!
Great teacher. Thank youuu. You saved my life in exam
Such a wonderful informative video 🙌🏼🙏🏼
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. Thank you. I have been wrestling with Derrida's Differance for 8 weeks. I had almost given up hope, then I found this. THANK YOU FOR SAVING THIS MENTALLY CHALLENGED AUSTRALIAN POST-GRAD FILM STUDENT! My kids have hope of having a normal parent again soon-ish! I'd love to know if this is your real name and how to find any published works so I can cite you and this enlightening explanation correctly! NO PLAGIARISM HERE!!!! Seriously, thank you. This is truly awesome!
+Sherrina Marshall Warner Lol! Glad I could help! Derrida actually died while I was in the middle of my literary theory class in grad school. It felt kinda symbolic... Timothy Nance is my real name, and I don't have any published writing that will be of any use to you (unless you want my cheesy YA novel and some poetry!), but you can cite this UA-cam video. Or I also suggest getting your hands on Text and Context, which I reference in the video. It's a bit pricey, being a textbook, but it's excellent and much more thorough than I am.
+Tim Nance (NanceNotes and Narwhals) Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
Thanks for sharing your views
I have a report about this thing and Ive been researching about deconstructionist criticism in google for hours and I'm still clueless. But thankfully I found this video, I definitely get it now thankyou so much!
I see the insanity now in the deconstruction theory. I've seen so many people that live and breathe this theory and the insanity was explained not even a full 3 minutes into the video.
Its valid to say that the meaning of something is not always understood but to blatantly go out of ones way to tear down an already confusing text is insane.
The hammer part deconstructed deconstruction. I loved that.
wow, your explanation is much better than any book I ever read about decontstruction :))))
Great explanation! Thanks!
My god, thank you for breaking this down. No pun intended.
No pun taken.
Thanks a lot for this video!! So very helpful. I so wish you were my teacher!! Your students are exceptionally lucky to have such a wonderful teacher as you. Your channel, I’m sure, is helping tons of us out here! Thank you for sharing 😊😊🤗
Thank You!
Great job buddy, thanks!
Thanks alot ... totally understood everthing
You are so amazing sir. Thankyou so much
your a great teacher dude
Thanks a lot! You explained it in such a simple way! Thanks a ton for using great examples!
The issue with the seeing eye dog example is that there are multiple cultural cases that are given. Elevators as human transport, and those which may allow dogs. If the mechanism and interface of an elevator is quite implicitly oriented to humans (symbology, licensing, inspection, language), then the 'case' transitions into being a human oriented model of communication, regardless of if dogs or anything else are ever allowed on it. If you extend the 'case' to ask if its for blind people, we immediately resolve that it cannot be (unless there's braile). The 'case' then transitions to being for a seeing human, and is ultimately a negation. The meaning reduces to "No Dogs" and and presents itself with an exception for 1) dogs that wouldnt be able to read the sign and 2) humans that wouldnt be able to read the sign. Implications can resolve to explicit meaning if the model of communication is limited.
At last somebody came out to explain it..... thank god
I wish my profs sounded like you....humourous and attractive !! thank you
+windzip Lol. Thanks!
شكرا جزيلا على هذه المعلومات المفيدة جدا.
على الرحب و السعة!
I want to say that this was perfect.
This was a very confusing topic for me but your explanation is very clear and concise. Thanks!
Thank you🌷
Thank you so much for breaking this down to a commoners understanding!
Ohhhh my word, thank you for making my homework funny, I needed that tonight. XD *still giggling at you slamming your hammer against the picture*
+Riverfox237 Thanks for watching!
Thanks, I like your channel
Man, that was awesome! Thank You.
Rufus Mosis Glad you enjoyed it!
You taught this much better than my university professor.
THANK YOU!!!! You explained it so well. The textbook I'm using for my literary theory class is so dense and dry lol
Thank you so much sir. This video is the only thing that helped me to get the idea regarding Deconstruction properly. WIsh you all the best :)
I'm so happy and fuzzy 🤭 hahah.. you teach so simply and so well 🙌 we need more teachers like you, won't miss a single class 😅
Great video! Sums it all up for me. Thank you Tim :)
You’ve earned yourself another subscriber. Great explanation sir!