Why did Jacques Derrida think speech can be misunderstood even when the speaker is absent?

Jacques Derrida argued that speech can be misunderstood even in the speaker's presence because, contrary to traditional philosophical assumptions, speech functions as a system of linguistic signs only by being repeatable in different contexts and in the absence of the original speaker.12

Western philosophy has historically privileged speech over writing, falsely assuming that speech allows for the immediate "presence" of a speaker's intentions and ideas. Derrida challenged this by demonstrating that linguistic meaning is never fully present or fixed; instead, it is created through the "play" of differences between words—a process he termed différance—where meaning is endlessly deferred across an infinite chain of signifiers.12

Because words derive their meaning from these arbitrary contrasts rather than from an original, stable intention, speech inherently possesses the same characteristics traditionally attributed to writing, such as "absence" and the potential for misunderstanding. Thus, Derrida concluded that speech and writing are both forms of a generalized system of representation, and neither can claim the status of being a more authentic or transparent medium for truth.12