史欽納(Quentin Skinner)在政治思想史的研究方法上，素以其語境論(contextualism)聞名。而其語境論主要是受到日常語言哲學(ordinary language philosophy)-特別是奧斯汀(John L. Austin)的語言－行動理論(speech-act theory)所啟發。然而德希達(Jean-Jacques Derrida)卻對語言－行動理論提出了相當強烈的質疑，並因此與另一位語言－行動理論家瑟爾(John Searle)展開了理論上的爭辯。德希達認為意義是無法由作者意圖與其語境所決定，因為對於文本而言，作者語境並不比讀者語境更具決定文本意義的力量。事實上在奧斯汀與瑟爾的語言分類中，那些所謂不標準的語言使用方式，恰好隱含了意義獨立於作者意圖與語境以外的可能性。如果史欽納的理論基礎是語言－行動理論，那麼德希達的看法是否會影響到其理論的有效性？本文嘗試從知識脈絡論(epistemic contextualism)的角度，說明在運用實踐理性(practical reason)從事實際決定(practical decision)時，文本的意義將被限定在作者的知識脈絡中，其結果是作者與讀者對於如何閱讀文本(texts)必須採取相同的態度。因此即便德希達的說法是正確的，仍舊無法完全撼動史欽納理論的有效性。
Inspired by the speech-act theory which is initiated by John L. Austin and later elaborated by John Searle, Quentin Skinner has developed a contextual analysis about the study of the history of political thought. Skinner claims that texts should not only be interpreted literally rather than be in accordance with the author's intention and the engaged context. Jacques Derrida, however, denounced speech act theory as overestimating the importance of author's context since every context is on a par in interpretation. Derrida's claim will jeopardize Skinner's theory since the importance of author's context is dismissed. From an epistemic point of view, it is possible to see how far Derrida's critism or Skinner's theory is plausible. According to a viewpoint from epistemic contextualism, when applying practical reason to encounter practical decision, the meaning of a proposition should be determined to the agent's context. It is in this sense that Skinner's theory stands Derrida's challenge since for Skinner author is acting for some practical problem.
