Right away, I thought it was interesting that Richard&Ogden point out the relation of symbol and referent by saying that there is "no relevant relation other than the indirect one, which consists in its being used by someone to stand for a referent (Richard&Ogden 1275). They go on to say that symbol and referent are "not connected directly" (Richard&Ogden 1275). While this seemed like a crazy concept for me, I looked back on Locke's piece and I think that there may be some truth to this. Locke also stated (far more extensively than R&O) about the doubtfulness of words and language. To him, the signification of words, particularly mixed modes, was uncertain. For just one example, he states that "where the ideas they stand for have no certain connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing (Locke 818). I think the problem for both sets of authors is that to claim a symbol and referent have a connection is too narrow a definition; that in order to truly find the referent, all possibilities must be considered since every different setting will produce a new connection to nature and the surroundings. Locke internalizes the classification of words and the symbols, which Richard&Ogden make it a very external problem--saying that it's not necessarily the individual which creates this lack of direct connection, but rather, the innate nature of words and symbols.
Knowing that Locke wrote his piece first, I find that Richard&Ogden's argument is a continuation of this....scratch that, a tweaking of that idea. I generally see the idea that all feel there is something about symbols/words that prevents an instantaneous direct relation to the referent, but as aforementioned, think that Locke focuses more on the individual relationship than Richard&Ogden do. Locke writes about writings, mentioning that "but those that contain either truths we are required to believe, or laws we are to obey, and draw inconveniences on us when we mistake or transgress..." (Locke 820). In other words, the individual has the ability to take "truths" and find their "inconveniences" when mistakes are made--having words affecting us on a very personal level. I think this accounts for the creation of loop-holes. People do not want to take literal meanings to words...actually....to what they symbolize, so they are often able to create new situations by creating new meanings to the words. Loop-holes take the individualistic nature Locke writes about and puts Richard&Ogden's ideas to practice. There is no direct connection between symbol and referent, and depending on ones socialization, there can be multiple meanings the affect the individual positively. After all, most of us think of words as how they benefit us.
2 comments:
I completely agree with the sentiments you established in this blog post. I felt that Rogers and Ogden didn't take into account the subjective individual interpretation of language. They seemed to be trying to posit a scientific conceptualization of words. Their theories seem to hold up until you take into account Locke's problems with words, which I don't think they solve.
I think Locke's empiricism is the groundwork for the Richards&Ogden article. The goal is to show the reader that even the 'literal' meanings to words are not the same to all readers. When you observe words and peoples responses to them, you can see that the words do not create the same "reference" for all who perceive them. While the link between symbol and reference can be shaped by context, their is no way to guarantee that the meaning that is conveyed will be the same for all readers.
The Loop-holes you mention are interesting to think about when reading Richards and Ogden. Referring to the lies of the Catholic Church,they state, "A play upon words in which one sense is taken by the speaker and another sense intended by him for the hearer was permitted"(1277) This 'abuse of language' was perceived as a Loop-hole in Christianity. The Loop-hole is that a Christian could say something that he or she intended to be misinterpreted (a lie), while having a correct interpretation in his or her own mind. By simultaneously knowing how he or she would be interpreted, and knowing how he or she could be excused from the lie by claiming the alternative meaning that was not intended, the speaker can thus lie without technically lieing.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.