I will forever be a fan of Locke due to this line: "the greatest part of disputes were more about the signification of words than a real difference in the conception of things" (822). That is to say, the basis of most arguments can be found the differing opinions of connotations and denotations (and essence?) that a word carries. As for Locke's liquor example, rather than the scientists arguing about "whether any liquor passed through the filaments of the nerves" (822), they were really arguing about the meaning of liquor, what it signified.
Now I've confused myself. Does 'meaning' and 'signification' mean the same thing? I just used the two words as if they did, but I have a feeling that's wrong. I know the signified is the mental image. I guess I don't know what meaning means anymore. I turned to Richards and Ogden for this answer and only became further confused. "[F]or the analysis of the senses of 'meaning'...it is desirable to begin with the relations of thoughts, words, and things...and with regard to these, the indirectness of the relations between words and things" (1274). Well, the relations mentioned are put into a seemingly handy-dandy diagram. The lack of examples using the diagram has left me still confused.
The first side of the triangle is between a thought and a symbol. Richards and Ogden claim that "[w]hen we speak, the symbolism we employ is caused partly by the reference we are making and partly by social and psychological factors" (1274). In other words, speaking conveys both references and attitudes. How does this causal relation work in literature? Is there still an attitude? It is mentioned on 1279, that this side of the triangle represents "ideas". Why is that labeled "correct" on the triangle?
The second side of the triangle is between a thought and a referent. My understanding is that 'reference' is the mental image of something and 'referent' is that actual thing (1270). All that is said about this relation is that is it direct or indirect. His examples are a colored surface and Napoleon. They helped me distinguish indirect from direct, but I still don't know the rules for this side of the triangle.
The last side of the triangle contains the symbol and referent. This relation is called "indirect" and "imputed" (1275). This is a relationship I'm used to. This is how I perceive most language to function. This has to do with ascribing meaning to words. How does this side interact with the other sides of the triangle?
1 comment:
Ironically, you have cleared up some of my understanding of Richards and Ogden's infamous triangle. I think it helps to first say that "meaning" is, I believe, used by Richards and Ogden to mean what Locke refers to as the "essence" of something. That is, "meaning" is what something is.
The first side of the triangle is all about denotation and connotation. He is saying that any given word used carries its dictionary definition and also social connotations that lend it further meaning.
The second side of the triangle is, I think, all about the conception and perception of an object. Essentially, how an object becomes a thought. If I understand correctly, that's all there is to that side that you have not already said.
The third side is the relationship of any given symbol (say a word) to its referent. I think this side may be what tells you how exact a word is, but this is not entirely clear.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.