To start, what I notice as a major difference between Richards's texts and those of the ancients is that Richards focuses on micro-level aspects of rhetoric such as sentences and even more specific, words. The ancients discuss rhetoric on a more macro-level, by discussing how rhetors can persuade audiences about truth or probable truth in terms of method without paying attention to the instruments of rhetoric, words. The ancients either oversimplified or did not acknowledge the notion that words do not carry inherent meaning. In his blog, Bruce asked the question, "Is Richards closer on a theoretical continuum to the ancients and his contemporaries or does his thinking more or less reflect (and perhaps possibly inspired) the postmodern thinkers that came after him?" I think Richards creates a speed bump on the ancients' theoretical continuum by paying close attention to the complex nature of words, which in the past seemed to have been overlooked. I would also say that his work does reflect the postmodern thinkers who came after him. Derrida in particular comes to mind with his theories on différance, or the “lag” in meaning in any signifying act. The lag refers to the idea that words differ and defer; words differ in the sense that they never actually have a sole meaning, but can only be defined by other words, which they differ from. Because of this lag in signification, the true essence of a word, or its ultimate meaning, is unobtainable. Although not exactly similar, Richards moves rhetorical theory in the path of deconstructing the accepted norms in language by paying attention to the nuances in language that are oftentimes overlooked.
Additionally, where the ancients focus on the work of the rhetor, Richards pays attention to audiences and the way they receive and process words. Richards dissolves the illusion that words can convey inherent meaning, which can be understood through his symbol/referent triangle. In the diagram, Richards makes the claim that symbol and referent are not directly connected. Words mean nothing by themselves, according to Richards, and "it is only when a thinker makes use of them that they stand for anything, or, in one sense, have 'meaning'" (1274). Every time listeners or readers interpret words, they bring with them a whole set of contexts or a set of associations that are inseparable from the words. The symbolism words carry, according to Richards, "is caused partly by the reference we are making and partly by social and psychological factors" (1274). When audience members interpret words, they must perform an act of referencing wherein sets of associations intervene in the connection between the symbol and its referent. Therefore, communities play a big role in shaping one's understanding of a word. When Astell and Ramus discuss the use of words, they favor simple, vernacular language in order to come across clearly and explicitly to audiences. Astell particularly urges rhetors to use little stylistic ornamentation because the truth is better grasped when easily understood. Astell explains, "expressing our Thoughts in such a way, as more readily, and with the greatest Clearness and Life, excites in others the very same Idea that was in us" (855). It seems for Astell, if a rhetor uses "clear" language, there would be no need for interpretation because the audience would easily understand the rhetor's purpose. However, Richards would find fault with this as he states, "when we mean the simplest-seeming concrete object, its concreteness comes to it from the way in which we are bringing it simultaneously into a number of sorts. The sorts grow together in it to form that meaning (1285). In this sense, rhetoric invites interpretation no matter how clear and explicit the word choice appears because of the context inextricably tied to words.
In terms of truth, as some of the other theorists focus on how rhetors can convey truth through rhetoric (with Plato and Astell discussing the transcendental or virtuous traits the rhetor must possess in order to convey truth to audiences, and Aristotle setting up methods rhetors must use to arrive at probable truths), it seems truth would be unobtainable for Richards. If all discourse has a multiplicity of meanings which are conditioned by the audience members' experiences with the sign, how can rhetors convey truths when the instruments used to convey truth, (words) do not hold inherent meanings themselves? Yet, Richards does seem to say that meaning can be found in textual discourse since the contexts determining the meaning of a word in a text are the words that it is surrounded by. Readers can perform a correct reading of a poem by focusing on the text of the poem itself and not the reader's feelings. However, how does a person distance themselves from their own interpretations of words? And why would the interpretation of textual discourse differ from the interpretation of oral discourse?
No comments:
Post a Comment