Richards and Locke

Locke seems to describe ideas as innate given that any sound will accord to any given idea, this naturally supposes that any given idea exists before sound is given to it. This I can agree with. If you have ever thought in a different language and been unable to think of a word, you are faced with the bare idea of it, which is somewhere between an emotion and a picture depending on exactly how concrete the idea is.

Richards and Ogden describe symbols and their relation to “referents.” This is fundamentally, and subtly, different from Locke. Richards speaks of assigning symbols to objects or a set of perceptual information, “Whenever we ‘perceive’ what we name ‘a chair,’ we are interpreting a certain group of data…and treating them as signs of a referent” (Richards, 1280). What this means is essentially, that when an object is perceived by the senses, its various parts are put together and constructed into a symbol for what it is, “a chair.” This is similar to Locke who said, “because they are never referred to any other essence, but barely the perception they immediately signify” (Locke, 823). This suggests that Locke also concluded that, at least to an extent, perception was important in signification.

Another interesting difference, that is really more of a similarity, is that Richards and Ogden declare, “it is only when a thinker makes use of [symbols] that they stand for anything” (Richards, 1274). Locke presents similar ideas to this, but does not take the same approach. Locke seems to presuppose this to be true, “since sounds have no natural connection with our ideas, but have all their signification from the arbitrary imposition of men…” (Locke, 817). This sentence by Locke suggests that sound does not have to mean anything until man imposes “signification” upon it. Here you can see the subtle differences in approach.

Both papers find an issue with language. Richards and Ogden take this a step further and propose that symbols are subject to the same kinds of misrepresentation as well. This is a key jump that Locke does not make. When Richards and Ogden say, “any symbolic apparatus which is in general use is liable to incompleteness and defect” (Richards, 1278). This would make sense, especially when the PETA/United Way case study is examined. Their use of pictures is symbolic, attempting to elicit a certain reaction or thought process in the interpreter. This represents an inherent difficulty because presenters have few means of “controlling them as symbols” (Richards, 1278). This means that interpreters have near free reign.

One other similarity between the two articles is a point Richards and Ogden make: “It is not always new words that are needed, but a means of controlling them as symbols” (Richards, 1278). This resonates with, “all the artificial and figurative application of words eloquence hath invented, are for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas” (Locke, 827). Both of these authors, then have noted that words are subject to the wills of those who use them, and have few guidelines for control.