I think that I understand Locke. The idea that words can have an essence that's never fully conveyed because of a deficiency in language to describe that essence (819), or that mixed modes make it extremely difficult to ever fully understand (818). It's an interesting proposition he makes, but it makes perfect sense to me. However, I am not too sure I completely grasp and absorb what Richards and Ogden are trying to say. It seems like what they're saying is that thoughts or references, can only be "correctly" conveyed through symbols (1275). I just want to know...if language is failing us so much, then how is it I am supposed to even grasp the "correct" notion Richards and Ogden are trying to convey in "The Meaning of Meaning?" How do I even really know what they mean by "meaning?" I guess my point is that I think they're taking a good foundation (Locke) and taking it too far into the obscure realm, where nothing anyone says is sufficiently understood and so we must resort to symbols...? They provide an example about Jesus' admonition in the Gospels to store treasures, not on earth, but in heaven. Apparently the underlying/intended message has been slightly distorted. I would say, however, that is not because we simply didn't comprehend the meaning behind the meaning, but it is because some things get lost in translation. The "symbols" the Greeks used are quite different from the letters, or "symbols" we use, and therefore oftentimes it is difficult to produce a pure, direct translation. But this is from language to language...some words have cultural identity and don't relate to such an ancient culture. In the same sense, we have so many words borrowed from, say the French.
I don't think "language" has failed us to the extreme Richards and Ogden are talking, to the extreme where we need to resort to symbols to convey the "true meaning." Language is a powerful tool and it has a purpose other than a substitution for a more "advanced" form of communication. Symbols will never be as representative as words. I honestly am not sure I even see what symbols will solve. A symbol can still only convey 1 thing...what about words with essence? How is a symbol supposed to create an essence?
3 comments:
I think that the idea of correctness is only really applicable to the triangle diagram, specifically the connection between the thought or reference and the symbol chosen to represent it. This correctness thus means that it is correct based on causal (environmental) relations to the originator of the thought or referent who is trying to communicate something.
These authors are saying that language is made up of symbols. Words are symbols that carry no inherent meaning; only the thinkers carry meaning. If anyone has or can carry an essence, it's the thinker.
I personally like the idea that Ogden, Richards, and Locke present about words being symbolic. It is not as if words have an innate function independent from interpretation. But I do see where you're coming from, Rachel, with the idea that it is difficult for a word to carry an essence. Even the word essence bears a relatively strong connotation. But I would also agree with Peter with the idea that the responsibility for producing essence in a word resides with the thinker.
But I think it would be fair to say that the thinker can fail at this production of essence. Just like the thinker can fail at achieving a proper interpretation of a word. So the failure can go a few different ways.
Thanks for this: "I just want to know...if language is failing us so much, then how is it I am supposed to even grasp the "correct" notion Richards and Ogden are trying to convey in "The Meaning of Meaning?" How do I even really know what they mean by "meaning?
That's humorously profound. The authors of such texts about how words are symbols and can be misinterpreted and such should be most careful about making sure that their messages are clear, and yet we still have trouble. It's funny that this text seeks to offer remedies for situations in which meaning is misunderstood or lost, but the reader still has problems understanding the text itself. For the most part, the way I made sense of Richards and Ogden piece was by comparing their ideas to those presented by Locke. It seems you did the same (as you said that they're using Locke as a foundation). You ask, "How is a symbol supposed to create an essence?" From what I understood, Richards and Ogden discussed the importance of words and their context in order to be understood. "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. Words, as every one knows, 'mean' nothing by themselves, although the belief that they did... was once equally universal" (1274). The introduction explains Richards's idea by saying, "In communication generally, as in literature, meaning depends on the immediate verbal environment, not on dictionary definitions of words" (1272). Like Sarah said in class, dictionaries will not suffice in bringing out the essence of a word. Context (perhaps through the use of anecdotes) will be much more successful because as Richards and Ogden stress, words do not carry inherent meaning. They are needed to be put in context.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.