Locke's work on the imperfection of words, which seems moreover to be an explanation of the imperfections of communication, provided enough of a foundation for me to understand where his theory intersects and disconnects with Richards and Ogden's. But because of the indirectness of Ogden and Richards' language, I am having a hard time understanding the terms of their argument.
They seem to agree with the principle that words themselves hold no natural signification (Locke 818) and so we must depend on "Symbols [to] direct and organize, record and communicate" (Richards 1274). All that is fine and clear in my brain, but I can't seem to wrap my head around Richards and Ogden's separation in the relationship between symbol and referent. Locke basis his argument that difficulties in communication arise because the speaker and listener have differences of opinion when it comes to signification, for example murder as a concept has a different signification for each person involved (Locke 818). But Ogden and Richards' disregard this completely and state "By leaving out essential elements in the language situation we easily raise problems and difficulties which vanish when the whole transaction is considered in greater detail" (Richards 1274). So where Locke sees the problem in communication as residing in the essence of symbols (or words) Richards and Ogden sight the problem happening in our misunderstanding of the transactions between thought, referent, and symbol? Is that right? My brain hurts.
5 comments:
This really confused the crap out of me too, and it took me awhile to wrap my head around it, but I'll see if what I figured out helps you at all.
In the little triangle picture that resides in Ogden and Richards' text, a connection is shown between the symbol (which I have taken to mean as the word itself) and the referent (which I figured is what the word is trying to describe). And of course the thought/reference is what the speaker is holding in his/her mind based on something (the referent) when they are trying to describe it with the symbol.
For instance, if you are trying to describe a dog, the actual animal is the referent. The thought or reference is the recollection or thought (mental image maybe?) of the animal that you have in your head when your thinking of what you want to describe, and the symbol is the word "dog" that you use to describe the object (the referent).
Richards and Ogden's complaint when it comes to people filling in the dotted line between "symbol" and "referent" refers the the idea that people want to combine the word to the object it describes as one and the same thing. Which would mean that the symbol "dog" would be one and the same with the actual referent. They want us to understand that while a symbol can, well, symbolize the referent the referent and the symbol are not one and the same. The symbol is just that, a symbol.
It's hard to describe, and I'm hoping that I have this right. I hope that helped?
I also found Richards and Ogden very confusing (which I find incredibly ironic). I think some of the confusion in comparing them with Locke comes from Locke's more comprehensive breakdown and consideration of all the contexts in which language operates. Richards and Ogden seem to be arguing more specifically than that. So I think Richard and Ogden's whole argument only falls under Locke's analysis of complex modes but I'm not really all that sure about that
Ogden and Richards seem to be saying something very similar to Locke, just perhaps in a more sophisticated way. Their argument about the relationship between symbol and its referent hinges on the idea of causal relations. If you look at the triangle diagram, each side of the dark-lined sides have causal relations in parenthesis. These causal relations seem to be both what make language fall short and what make language work.
I'm having a lot of trouble with Richards and Ogden myself. I agree with your reading of the texts, however. Locke seems to be concerned over man's lack of "omniscience" (quoting my PE here). Men can collect all their common perceptions under a word, write a definition, put that definition in a dictionary, and force everyone to use it, but they will still never be able know the actuality of what that word references. Richards and Ogden do address this. They talk about how a "dog" is not really a dog (1275), but it seems to me that they think it's a problem that can be overlooked. It reminds me of Campbell's definition of agency in regards to community. Agency has to come out of an individual being subverted by the community. Language is a device created to constantly struggle against that lack of omniscience. We keep trying to define reality when we can't even understand it fully. It's similar to Campbell in that it's a necessary evil. We can't get around it. We have to lose individualism to gain agency; we search for omniscience through language even though the fact that language even exists proves we can never be omniscient.
In other words, Richards and Ogden appear to be addressing the perfection of language that can be solved. They downplay the bigger problems.
My brain hurts too.
Ogden and Richard's view on the issues in the transference of information through words and language, is a lot like the telephone game. At each step along the way, a portion of the meaning is "lost" due to the conversion of energy states and/or misinterpretation. Communication through symbols or almost all forms of communication "fail" in the exact transference of information in this regard. In a way, communication can be viewed as an infinite spiral of deterioration of original meaning. Whether or not, the language is sufficient is up to the individuals involved.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.