I. A. Richards Ogden and Richards g 1893-1979 and things (some of this state of research in what ideas of Peirce, Ferdinand a behavioristic theory of J:vot- ;s Qt\, Ivor Armstrong Richards was born in England and educated at Magdalen College, Cambridge. He studied philosophy under G. E. Moore, whose powerful influence psychology- in which a CUv~o """- f\tlUW...~ extended as well to Bertrand Russell and many of the analytic philosophers of "reference" of a word (an Russell's generation. At Magdalen, Richards met fellow student C. K. Ogden, with Rhetoric; excerpted here). whom he would coauthor two books and, in later years, develop the "Basic English" meaning in popular, literai project, through which Richards hoped to improve international understanding. After by anthropologist Bronisl . completing his undergraduate degree in 1915, Richards pursued medical studies with Languages," that illustrate the intention of becoming a psychoanalyst. Tuberculosis kept him out of the First Richards. Meaning is rhet, World War, although it did not prevent him from becoming an avid mountain for the promotion of pur climber. After the war, Richards dropped his medical studies and passed up an op­ ences." 2 portunity to become a professional mountaineer in order to become a lecturer in En­ For Richards, as for K1 glish and moral philosophy at Magdalen, his old college. He soon became a leading language in that it providf figure in the development of modern literary criticism. No field of study seemed for­ pretation. The methods de eign to him, and his many books and articles are marked by his continuing enthusi­ gument goes) be applied t asm for psychology, linguistics, anthropology, information theory, and philosophy. ates a new kind of critici In The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936), Richards defines rhetoric in two ways: as Criticism ( 1924), is like o "how words work in discourse" and as "the study of misunderstanding and its reme­ kind of sign. Poems are c dies." These definitions summarize two distinctive features of Richards's work: dependent on context for r first, his theory that the meaning of words is a function of their interpretation in con­ environment, its structure, text and, second, his mission to promote better understanding by criticizing impedi­ In Practical Criticism ments to understanding and by creating tools for effective communication. asked students to interpret Richards's idea that meaning is a function of interpretation takes shape in The author's name and the di Meaning of Meaning (1923; excerpted here). In this wide-ranging and much­ sponses, searching for im admired book, Richards and coauthor C. K. Ogden explain that words are symbols classifies these impedimen or signs, and signs require interpretation: "Throughout almost all our life we are came the dominant critica treating things as signs. All experience, using the word in its widest possible sense, historicism and influence is either enjoyed or interpreted (i.e., treated as a sign) or both, and very little of it es­ limiting context to the imn .. '. capes some degree of interpretation."' Meaning does not reside in the words or experience of the poem i1 graphical knowledge. , ,, 3 j II signs themselves; to believe that it does is to fall victim to the "proper meaning su­ perstition," the belief that words have inherent meaning. Following a model derived But there is a difficult . from pioneering semiotician C. S. Peirce, Ogden and Richards propose that signs poems that he knows perf refer to a mental image (the reference) that itself stands for something in the world cumstances of compositior (the referent). The "reference" of a sign is by no means a unique thing. The inter­ access to another kind of c, preter understands the sign in context, which may be the surrounding verbal con­ may and may not be said a text, in the case of words; the experiences associated with the sign; or both. That "correct" context-name! these concepts are so familiar to us today may well owe something to Richards's Richards classifies as impe boldness in combining ideas from psychology, philosophy, linguistics, anthropol­ from experiences in othe1 ogy, and literary criticism in this early work. sions") or from misappreh, "stock responses"). Thus,

1 1. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden, The Meaning of Meaning (1923; 8th ed., New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1946), p. 50. •secp. 1277 in this book.

1270 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC Ogden and Richards go on to discuss the relationships among signs, thoughts, and things (some of this discussion is included in our excerpt). They review the state of research in what we now call semiotics, summarizing and comparing the ideas of Peirce, Ferdinand de Saussure, Edmund Husserl, and others. They set forth .ed at Magdalen College, a behavioristic theory of interpretation-in-context-an extension of association hose powerful influence psychology-in which a cluster of ideas rather than a single image serves as the malytic philosophers of "reference" of a word (an idea Richards repeats in Lecture II of The Philosophy of 1dent C. K. Ogden, with Rhetoric; excerpted here). In addition, they compare the many different meanings of elop the "Basic English" meaning in popular, literary, and philosophical usage, and they print a striking essay ,nal understanding. After by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowsky, "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive ued medical studies with Languages," that illustrates the usefulness of the theory put forward by Ogden and ...... ; tr4'5 Richards. Meaning is rhetorical, they conclude, because language is "an instrument ept him out of the First s.~c.t--{. ning an avid mountain for the promotion of purposes" and not simply "a means of symbolizing refer­ e., l~ .... 'f.,:..~~- es and passed up an op­ ences."2 become a lecturer in En­ For Richards, as for Kenneth Burke (p. 1295), literature is a privileged form of e soon became a leading language in that it provides cases of compressed meanings clearly in need of inter­ eld of study seemed for­ pretation. The methods developed in the laboratory of criticism can then (so the ar­ I his continuing enthusi­ gument goes) be applied to life. In applying his theories to literature, Richards cre­ heory, and philosophy. ates a new kind of criticism. Poetry, Richards says in The Principles of literary rhetoric in two ways: as Criticism (1924), is like other experiences and, like them, should be analyzed as a lerstanding and its reme­ kind of sign. Poems are complex verbal environments in which words are highly ·es of Richards' s work: dependent on context for meaning and effect. Criticism, then, is a description of this eir interpretation in con- environment, its structure, and its effects. 1g by criticizing impedi­ In Practical Criticism (1929), Richards reports on an experiment in which he ommunication. asked students to interpret poems stripped of all "external" information, such as the 1tion takes shape in The author's name and the date of composition. Richards analyzes the students' re­ ide-ranging and much­ sponses, searching for impediments to the understanding of the poems. He then that words are symbols classifies these impediments and proffers possible remedies. His approach soon be­ most all our life we are came the dominant critical method in England and the United States, challenging ts widest possible sense, historicism and influence mongering with a rigorous method of close reading. By h, and very little of it es- limiting context to the immediate verbal structure, Richards can focus on a reader's reside in the words or experience of the poem itself and diminish the importance of historical and bio­ the "proper meaning su­ graphical knowledge. llowing a model derived But there is a difficulty here. It is clear from Richards's own analyses of the 1ards propose that signs poems that he knows perfectly well the name of the author and the historical cir­ · something in the world cumstances of composition and, moreover, that he (unlike most of the students) has unique thing. The inter­ access to another kind of context as well: the expert's special knowledge about what surrounding verbal con- may and may not be said about a poem. The context of Richards' s experience is the 1 the sign; or both. That "correct" context-namely, the experience of reading and studying many poems. something to Richards's Richards classifies as impediments to understanding those associations which come {, linguistics, anthropol- from experiences in other realms ("mnemonic irrelevances" or "doctrinal adhe­ sions") or from misapprehensions about what poetry is ("critical preconceptions" or "stock responses"). Thus, his psychology is like Bacon's in that it searches for the

8th ed., New York: Harcourt, 2 See p. 1277 in this book.

I. A. RICHARDS 1271 idols that tum our thoughts into the "wrong" channels. Meaning may thus be depen­ duced, with Christine C dent on context, but some contexts, it seems, are more appropriate than others. only Basic English but The problem of defining context appears again in The Philosophy of Rhetoric. These projects, which c Richards lucidly explains the need for a contextual theory of meaning to combat the acceptance; indeed, tht "proper meaning superstition" -the belief that words have inherent meaning. The looked for his return to notion of context, which he equates with rhetoric's attention to the effects of dis­ course on the audience, will become the foundation of a new rhetoric. Richards then Selected Bibliography repeats the definition of context as the set of associations clinging to a word through experience. Finally, he moves on to the "literary" sense of context, which he calls Our source for The Meam "the interinanimation of words." Of the several definitions of context he has of­ from The Philosophy of Ri fered, this last is the one he seems to prefer. In communication generally, as in liter­ elude Principles of Litera, ature, meaning depends on the immediate verbal environment, not on dictionary de­ ment ( I 924), lnterpretatioi ,I. finitions of words. The paradigmatic case of the interinanimation of words, for The only full-scale bic ( 1989). Russo traces the de Richards, is metaphor. Richards, though less insistent than Nietzsche, offers "the biographical context. Rusi principle of metaphor" as a model of all language. The "tenor" and the "vehicle" - Richards: Essays in His J the two things compared in a metaphor-mutually limit the range of interpretation. ( I 973), which includes re In understanding a metaphor, we do not simply apply the characteristics of the ve­ with Richards himself. A hicle to the tenor, as might be supposed. Rather, we understand the one by the other: Schiller's/. A. Richards' T For example, with "My love is like a red, red rose," we take only certain character­ Ann E. Berthoff discusi istics of the vehicle (the beauty of the rose, not its thorns) because of the nature of "I. A. Richards," in Tradit1 the tenor (my love). All discourse, Richards argues, works this way. We understand and Robert Trapp summ, the meaning and connotations of a word or phrase by what surrounds it, while the Rhetoric (1985). Several e:: surroundings are modified by the word or phrase. and his impact on rhetoric, In his later work, Richards continues to refine the definition of context. In /11ter­ (Modem Philology 50 [Ni Richards and the 'New Rhc pretatio11in Teaching (1938), he separates literary context from experiential context both reprinted in Cmztemi and observes that both are essential to understanding. And in a 1953 essay, "Toward Daniel Fogarty's "I. A. Rici a Theory of Comprehending" (in Speculative Instruments), he proposes a seven-part Hyman gives a lucid accou analysis of context based on the Shannon-Weaver model of communication. "A the Methods of Modem Lite comprehending," says Richards, "is an instance of a nexus established through past occurrences of partially similar utterances in partially similar situations-utter­ ances and situations partially co-varying."3 Richards continued to work on this model of context for many years, never satisfied that it identified all the necessary elements or their interactions in producing meaning. I. A. Richar The essay on comprehending was inspired, Richards says, by thoughts about translating Chinese into English. Translating and teaching languages are expres­ sions of his attempts to apply his theories practically, to reduce misunderstanding in FromTheM. the world. This mission led him to create "Basic English," a vocabulary of 850 words (later supplemented by audiovisual aids) that could be used to teach English Throughout the West as a second language and to make difficult texts more accessible. Richards spent that people must meet ti three years at Harvard in the thirties working on this project, studied cartooning at not only agreeable to tall the Disney studios as part of his search for effective visual aids, and traveled to of common courtesy to sa China twice to study translation. He translated the Iliad into Basic English and pro- there is hardly anything 1 man," continues the late 1 1. A. Richards, Speculative !11stru111e11ts(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), pp. 23-24. whose Principles of the ,

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ·aning may thus be depen - duced, with Christine Gibson, a series of texts and workbooks designed to teach not 1ropriate than others. only Basic English but also Basic French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, and Hebrew. '! Philosophy of Rhetoric. These projects, which dominated the last decades of Richards's life, met with little L.,,:.~'o~ of meaning to combat the acceptance; indeed, they were viewed with dismay by those literary critics who ~ut: .....~.,.. ve inherent meaning. The looked for his return to the field in which he had had such tremendous influence. tion to the effects of dis­ .P~1.'ic...o..44.... !W rhetoric. Richards then Selected Bibliography [.'1 l...h \..i, '°'1J"'"I :tinging to a word through ~ ,~{~s Jf context, which he calls Our source for The Meaning of Meaning (1923) is the 1946 New York edition. The excerpt )ns of context he has of­ from The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) is from the 1965 reprint. Richards's other works in­ ation generally, as in liter- clude Principles of literary Criticism ( 1924), Practical Critidsm : A St11dyof literary J11dg- 1ent, not on dictionary de­ 111ent( I 924), Interpretation in Teaching ( 1938), and Spec11lative lnstrnment .1·( I 955). The only full-scale biography is John Paul Russo's /. A. Richards: His Life and Work nanimation of words, for (1989). Russo traces the development of Richards's theories and places them in historical and ian Nietzsche, offers "the biographical context. Russo's annotated bibliography of Richards's works appears in /. A. !nor" and the "vehicle" - Richards: Essays in His Honor, ed. Reuben Brower, John Hollander, and Helen Vendler he range of interpretation. (1973), which includes reminiscences by Richards's students and an interesting interview : characteristics of the ve­ with Richards himself. A good bibliography of criticism of Richards is in Jerome P. stand the one by the other: Schiller' s/ . A. Riclumls' Theo,:v of Literat11re (1969). tke only certain character­ Ann E. Berthoff discusses Richards's ideas with teachers of rhetoric in mind, in her essay ) because of the nature of "I. A. Richards," in Traditions of Inquiry, ed. John Brereton (1985) . Sonja Foss, Karen Foss, , this way. We under stand and Robert Trapp summarize Richards's work in their Contemporary Perspective s 011 1at surrounds it, while the Rhetoric ( 1985). Several earlier articles assess Richards' s influence at the height of his career and his impact on rhetorical theory: Manuel Bilsky's "I. A. Richards' Theory of Metaphor" (Modem Philology 50 [November 1952]: 130-37) and Marie Hochmuth Nichols's "I. A. 1ition of context. In Inter­ Richards and the 'New Rhetoric ' " (Quarterly Joumal of Speech 44 [February 1958]: 1-16), . from experiential context both reprinted in Comemporary Theories of Rhetoric, ed. R. L. Johannesen (1971), and in a r953 essay, "Toward Daniel Fogarty's "I. A. Richards' Theory" in Roots for a New Rhetoric (1959). Stanley Edgar 1, he proposes a seven-part Hyman gives a lucid account of Richards's critical method in The Armed Vision: A Study in el of communication. "A the Methods of Modem Literwy Criticism ( I 948). s established through past similar situations - utter­ .., ... Jntinued to work on this dentified all the necessary I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden ; says, by thoughts about ng languages are expres­ .,,.•.·. :duce misunderstanding in From The Meaning of Meaning r...... ' sh," a vocabulary of 850 .~ j be used to teach English Throughout the Western world it is agreed owe this observation, "feels, or ought to feel, this ··~I .. 1ccessible. Richards spent that people must meet frequently, and that it is duty; it is the universal accomplishment which ject, studied cartooning at not only agreeable to talk, but that it is a matter all must practise"; those who fail are punished by sual aids, and traveled to of common courtesy to say something even when the dislike or neglect of society. llo Basic English and pro- there is hardly anything to say. "Every civilized There is no doubt an Art in saying something man," continues the late Professor Mahaffy, to when there is nothing to be said, but it is equally 1cago Press, 1955), pp. 23- 24. whose Principles of the Art of Conversation we certain that there is an Art no less important of

RICHARDS AND OGDEN I THE MEANING OF MEANING 1273 saying clearly what one wishes to say when there flective, intellectual use of language should be THOUGHT OR is an abundance of material; and conversation will paramount, words have other functions which seldom attain even the level of an intellectual pas­ may be grouped together as emotive. These can time if adequate methods of Interpretation are not best be examined when the framework of the also available. problem of strict statement and intellectual com­ Symbolism is the study of the part played in munication has been set up. The importance of human affairs by language and symbols of all the emotive aspects of language is not thereby kinds, and especially of their influence on minimized, and anyone chiefly concerned with Though\. It singles out for special inquiry the popular or primitive speech might well be led to ways in which symbols help us and hinder us in reverse this order of approach. Many difficulties, reflecting on things. indeed, arising through the behaviour of words in Symbols direct and organize, record and com­ discussion, even amongst scientists, force us at municate. In stating what they direct and orga­ an early stage to take into account these "non­ nize, record and communicate we have to distin­ symbolic" influences. But for the analysis of the SYMBOL Standi guish as always between Thoughts and Things.' senses of "meaning" with which we are here (an imputed It is Thought (or, as we shall usually say, refer­ chiefly concerned, it is desirable to begin with TRU ence) which is directed and organized, and it is the relations of thoughts, words, and things as also Thought which is recorded and communi­ they are found in cases of reflective speech un­ chain of sign situations intc cated. But just as we say that the gardener mows complicated by emotional, diplomatic, or other and its referent: word - hi the lawn when we know that it is the lawn­ disturbances; and with regard to these, the indi­ record-eyewitness - rel mower which actually does the cutting, so, rectness of the relations between words and Between the symbol a though we know that the direct relation of sym­ things is the feature which first deserves atten­ no relevant relation othe 1 bols is with thought, we also say that symbols tion. which consists in its bei1 record events and communicate facts. This may be simply illustrated by a diagram, stand for a referent. Symt By leaving out essential elements in the lan­ in which the three factors involved whenever any to say, arc not connected guage situation we easily raise problems and dif­ statement is made, or understood, arc placed al grammatical reasons, we ficulties which vanish when the whole transac­ the corners of the triangle, the relations which will merely be an impute tion is considered in greater detail. Words, as hold between them being represented by the relation) but only indirec every one now knows, "mean" nothing by them­ sides. The point just made can be restated by say­ of the triangle. 2 selves, although the belief that they did, as we ing that in this respect the base of the triangle is shall see in the next chapter, was once equally quite different in composition from either of the ' An exceptional case occu, universal. It is only when a thinker makes use of other sides. more or less directly like the rel them that they stand for anything, or, in one Between a thought and a symbol causal rela­ for in~tance, it m:iy he when ii is '10...... image, or a gesture, or a drawin ~ sense, have "meaning." They are instruments. tions hold. When we speak, the symbolism we completed; it~ base is supplied, k-w ~r..JBut besides this referential use which for all re- employ is caused partly by the reference we are the problem involved appears tu (!)00 making and partly by social and psychological attempts have been made to redc a,,-..&,w1 'The word "thing" is unsuitable for the analysis here un­ factors-the purpose for which we are making ation to this possibly more prin dertaken, because in popular usage it is restricted to material the reference, the proposed effect of our symbols pleteness docs no doubt accounl +­ substances - a fact which has led philosophers to favour the in efficiency of gesture langua; l;lw...1111 on other persons, and our own attitude. When we terms "entity," "ens" or "object" as the general name for field, to other languages not SL OV\.b~ whatever is. It has seemed desirable, therefore, to introduce a hear what is said, the symbols both cause u~ to their fields. Hence we know far eo~u( technical term to stand for whatever we may be thinking of or perform an act of reference and to assume an atti­ curred if a scene is well recnac referring to. "Object," though this is its original use, has had tude which will, according to circumstances, be scribed. But in the normal situati ~ an unfortunate history. The word "referent," therefore, has more or less similar to the act and the attitude of our triangle is without its base, ti been adopted, though tis etymological form is open to ques­ ercnt no direct relation holds; m tion when considered in relation to other participial deriva­ the speaker. this lack that most of the probler tives, such as agent or reagent. But even in Latin the present Between the Thought and the Referent there is live and nonsimulative language participle occasionally (e.g., vehens in equo) admitted of vari­ also a relation; more or less direct (as when we ciple. Standing for and represen1 ation in use; and in English an analogy with substantives, think about or attend to a coloured surface we see), is, however, convenient lo spe; such as "reagent," "extent," and "incident" may be urged. were some direct relation holdin Thus the fact that "referent" in what follows stands for a thing or indirect (as when we "think of' or "refer to" ercnt. We then say, on the ,main and not an active pcr,on, should cause no confusion. [Au.] Napoleon), in which case there may be a very long Symbol refers to a Referent. Pro

1274 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHE10RIC S"'4-Uoh-ol...t. I?:>4.-a.~ 11\11..--t\- a.~k. ,rI~ ~l~.""'~(I-v..h.A. ti.... ,:A:,.¾,..,(.-'114.h ,.f­ ¼;s I; 4'-I ~"'-'f-.\-, "l. °t~ ~

of language should be THOUGHT OR REFERENCE It may appear unnecessary to insist that there other functions which is no direct connection between say "dog," the · as emotive. These can word, and certain common objects in our streets, the framework of the and that the only connection which holds is that nt and intellectual com ­ which consists in our using the word when we up. The importance of refer to the animal. We shall find, however, that anguage is not thereby the kind of simplification typified by this once chiefly concerned with universal theory of direct meaning relations be­ :ch might well be led to tween words and things is the source of almost oach. Many difficulties, all the difficulties which thought encounters. As 1e behaviour of words in will appear at a later stage, the power to confuse :t scientists, force us at and obstruct, which such simplifications possess, 1to account these "non ­ is largely due to the conditions of communica­ ,t for the analysis of the SYMIIOL Standsfor REFERENT tion. Language if it is to be used must be a ready (an imputed relation) ith which we are here instrument. The handiness and ease of a phrase is desirable to begin with TRUE ? l W"'11\- 11'11,u\(t always more important in deciding whether it • :Il'\.~•lo\ f..41"\i*' ;, words, and things as .\-1...,\ {j."1.a I,"(, will be extensively used than its accuracy. Thus of reflective speech un­ chain of sign situations intervening between the act such shorthand as the word "means" is constantly al, diplomatic, or other and its referent: word - historian - contemporary used so as to imply a direct simple relation be­ !gard to these, the indi- record- eyewitness - referent (Napoleon). tween words and things, phrases and situations. 1s between words and Between the symbol and the referent there is lf such relations could be admitted then there ich first deserves atten- no relevant relation other than the indirect one, would of course be no problem as to the nature of which com,ists in it~ being used by someone to Meaning, and the vast majority of those who llustrated by a diagram, ~land for a referent. Symbol and Referent, that is have been concerned with it would have been , involved whenever any to say, are not connected directly (and when, for right in their refusal to discuss it. But too many 1derstood, are placed at grammatical reasons, we imply such a relation, it interesting developments have been occurring in ~le, the relations which will merely be an imputed, as opposed to a real, the sciences, through the rejection of everyday ng represented by the relation) but only indirectly round the two sides symbolizations and the endeavour to replace e can be restated by say- of the triangle. 1 them by more accurate accounts, for any naive 1e base of the triangle is theory that "meaning" is just "meaning" to be ,ition from either of the 2 An exceptional case occurs when the symhol used is popular at the moment. As a rule new facts in more or Jess directly like the rderent for which it is used, as startling disagreement with accepted explana­ 1d a symbol causal rela­ for 111,tancc,it may he when it is an onomatopreic word, or an tions of other facts are required before such criti­ image, m a gesture, or a drawing. In this case the triangle is eak, the symbolism we completed; its base is supplied, and a great simplification of cal analyses of what are generally regarded as by the reference we are the problem involved appears to result. For this reason many simple satisfactory notions are undertaken. This ocial and psychological auempts have been made to reduce the nurmal language situ­ has been the case with the recent revolutions in r which we are making ation to this possibly more primitive form. Its greater com­ physics. But in addition great reluctance to postu­ ed effect of our symbols pleteness does no doubt account for the immense superiority in efficiency of gesture languages, within their appropriate late anything sui generis and of necessity unde­ · own attitude. When we field. to other languages not supportable by gesture within tectable3 was needed before the simple natural ·mbols both cause us to their fields. Hence we know far more perfectly what has oc­ notion of simultaneity, for instance, as a two­ ce and to assume an atti­ curred if a scene is well reenacted than if it be merely de­ termed relation came to be questioned. Yet to ng to circumstances, be scribed. But in the normal situation we have to recognize that such questionings the theory of Relativity was our triangle is without its base, that hetween Symbol and Ref­ te act and the attitude of erent no direct relation holds; and, further, that it is through this lack that most of the problems of language arise. Simula­ and the Referent there is tive and nonsimulative languages an: entirely distinct in prin­ ture of the phrase is not forgotten, confusion need not arise. Jess direct (as when we ciple. Standing for and representing are different relations. It In Supplement I., Part V. i11Ji·a,Dr. Malinowski gives a valu­ able account of the development of the speech situation in re­ ;oloured surface we see), is, however, convenient to speak at limes as though there were some direct relation holding between Symbol and Ref­ lation to the above diagram. [Au.] "think of' or "refer to" erent. We then say, on the analogy of the lawnmower, that a JPlaces and instants are very typical entities of verbal ori­ there may be a very long Symbol refers to a Referent. Provided that the telescopic na- gin. [Au.]

RICHARDS AND OGDEN I THE MEANING OF MEANING 1275 '.

due. The same two motives, new discrepant facts, may be the services, other than conservative and a gesture language th and distaste for the use of obscure kinds of enti­ retentive, of symbolization, all experience shows otherwise is to neglec ties in eking out explanations, have led to distur­ that there are also disservices. The grosser forms guages, whose accun bances in psychology, though here the required of verbal confusion have long been recognized; provinces is far high restatements have not yet been provided. No but Jess attention has been paid to those that arc any system of spoke Copernican revolution has yet occurred, although more subtle and more frequent. In the following the exception of the several are due if psychology is to be brought chapters many examples of these will be given, case of mathematical into line with its fellow sciences. chosen in great part from philosophical fields, for tations. Words, whe It is noteworthy, however, that recent stirrings it is here that such confusions become, with the ally themselves wit] in psychology have been mainly if not altogether passage of time, most apparent. The root of the upon gestures, are a concerned with feeling and volition. The popular trouble will be traced to the superstition that means of communica1 success of Psychoanalysis has tended to divert at­ words are in some way parts of things or alway~ ing thought is often 1 tention from the older problem of thinking. Yet imply things corresponding to them, historical in­ held back by the treac in so far as progress here has consequences for stances of this still potent instinctive belief being ism; and for conversa all the other sciences and for the whole technique given from many sources. The fundamental and acquired constantly sl of investigation in psychology itself, this central most prolific; faJ.lacy is, in other words, that the make any serious atte1 problem of knowing or of "meaning" is perhaps base of the triangle given above is filled in. We have not here better worth scrutiny and more likely to promote The completeness of any reference varies; it is ways in which words fresh orientations than any other that can be sug­ more or less close and clear, it "grasps" its object a later chapter, when gested. As the Behaviorists have also very prop­ in greater or Jes~ degree. Such symbolization as an instrument for th erly pointed out, this question is closely con­ accompanies it- images of all sorts, words, sen­ rather than as a mean: nected with the use of words. tences whole and in pieces-is in no very close is fully discussed, we But the approach to Meaning, far more than observable connection with the variation in the of the speaker may cc the approach to such problems as those of perfection of the reference. Since, then, in any the honnete homme r physics, requires a thorough-going investigation discussion we cannot immediately settle from the lengths to which verb, of language. Every great advance in physics has nature of a person's remarks what his opinion is, At all times these p, been at the expense of some generally accepted we need some technique to keep the parties to an plaited to the full by piece of metaphysical explanation which had en­ argument in contact and to clear up misunder­ who desire to enjoy shrined itself in a convenient, universally prac­ standings-or, in other words, a Theory of Defi­ Here, for example, is , tised, symbolic shorthand. But the confusion and nition. Such a technique can only be provided by of the late Dr. Lymar obstruction due to such shorthand expressions a theory of knowing, or of reference, which will and editor, which, th and to the naive theories they protect and keep avoid, as current theories do not, the attribution Upton Sinclair, has n alive, is greater in psychology, and especially in to the knower of powers which it may be pleasant Christianity condemn the theory of knowledge, than elsewhere; be­ for him to suppm,e himself to possess, but which century finance? Dout cause no problem is so infected with so-called are not open to the only kind of investigation ward words in the Go1 metaphysical difficulties-due here, as always, hitherto profitably pursued, the kind generally tation" is all that is nee to an approach to a question through symbols known as scientific investigation. without an initial investigation of their functions. Nonnally, whenever we hear anything ~aid we Jesus did not say "La We have now to consider more closely what spring spontaneously to an immediate conclu­ sures upon earth." He the causes and effects of symbols are.4 Whatever sion, namely, that the speaker is referring to what selves treasures upon we should be referring to were we speaking the doth corrupt and wlze words ourselves. In some cases this interpretation steal." And no sensib •Whether symbols in some form or other arc necessary to may be correct; this will prove lo be what he has rust do not get at Mr. thought itself is a difficult problem, and is discussed in The thieves do not often b Meaning of Psychology (Chapter XIII.) as well as in Chap­ referred to. But in most discussions which at­ way. What Jesus cond, ter X . of the present work. But certainly the recording and the tempt greater subtleties than could be handled in communication of thought (telepathy apart) require symbols. It seems that thought, so far as it is transitive and not in the Each investment, th, form of an internal dialogue. can dispense with symbols. and quisition, according to that they only appear when thought takes on this monologue vc1y closely bound up with the symbolization which accom­ of the New World, ma form. In the normal case the actual development of thought is panies it. [Au.I There is no hard and I

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC her than conservative and a gesture language this will not be so. To suppose rust have been eliminated by science the Christ­ ion, all experience shows otherwise is to neglect our subsidiary gesture lan­ ian investor will presumably have no problem, rvices. The grosser forms guages, whose accuracy within their own limited but in the meantime it would seem that Camphor­ ve Jong been recognized; provinces is far higher than that yet reached by ated Oil fulfils most nearly the synoptic require­ een paid to those that are any system of spoken or written symbols, with ments. Burglars are not partial to it; it is anath­ ·requent. In the following the exception of the quite special and peculiar ema to moth; and the risk of rust is completely ·s of these will be given, case of mathematical, scientific, and musical no­ obviated. n philosophical fields, for tations. Words, whenever they cannot directly Another variety of verbal ingenuity closely al­ fusions become, with the ally themselves with and support themselves lied to this, is the deliberate use of symbols to tpparent. The root of the upon gestures, are at present a very imperfect misdirect the listener. Apologies for such a prac­ to the superstition that means of communication. Even for private think­ tice in the case of the madman from whom we parts of things or always ing thought is often ready to advance, and only desire to conceal the whereabouts of his razor are ing to them, historical in- held back by the treachery of its natural symbol­ well known, but a wider justification has also 1t instinctive belief being ism; and for conversational purposes the latitude been attempted. In the Christian era we hear of !S. The fundamental and I/ acquired constantly shows itself to all those who "falsifications of documents, inventions of leg­ in other words, that the make any serious attempts to compare opinions. ends, and forgeries of every description which 1 above is filled in. We have not here in view the more familiar made the Catholic Church a veritable seat of my reference varies; it is ways in which words may be used to deceive. In Jying."s A play upon words in which one sense is ear, it "grasps" its object a later chapter, when the function of language as taken by the speaker and another sense intended . Such symbolization as an instrument for the promotion of purposes by him for the hearer was permitted. 6 Indeed, , of all sorts, words, sen­ rather than as a means of !iymbolizing references three sorts of equivocations were distinguished ·es- is in no very close is fully discussed, we shall see how the intention by Alfonso de Liguori, who was beatified in the 1ith the variation in the of the speaker may complicate the situation. But nineteenth century, which might be used with ice. Since, then, in any the lwnnete homme may be unprepared for the good reason;? a good reason being "any honest nediately settle from the lengths to which verbal ingenuity can be carried. object, such as keeping our goods, spiritual or irks what his opinion is, At all times these possibilities have been ex­ temporal." 8 In the twentieth century the intensifi­ to keep the parties to an ploited to the full by interpreters of Holy Writ cation of militant nationalism has added further to clear up misunder­ who desire to enjoy the best of both worlds. "good reason"; for the military code includes all vords, a Theory of Defi­ Here, for example, is a specimen of the exegetic transactions with hostile nations or individuals as :an only be provided by of the late Dr. Lyman Abbott, pastor, publicist, part of the process of keeping spiritual and tem­ Jf reference, which will and editor, which, through the efforts of Mr. poral goods. In wartime words become a normal ; do not, the attribution Upton Sinclair, has now become classic. Does part of the mechanism of deceit, and the ethics of vhich it may be pleasant Christianity condemn the methods of twentieth­ the situation have been aptly summed up by Lord If to possess, but which century finance? Doubtless there are some awk­ Wolseley: "We will keep hammering along with I kind of investigation ward words in the Gospels, but a little "interpre­ the conviction that 'honesty is the best policy,' ed, the kind generally tation" is all that is necessary. and that truth always wins in the long run. These igation. pretty sentences do well for a child's copybook, e hear anything said we Jesus did not say "Lay not up for yourselves trea­ but the man who acts upon them in war had bet­ an immediate conclu­ sures upon earth." He said "Lay not up for your­ ter sheathe his sword for ever."9 tker is referring to what selves treasures upon earth where moth and rust were we speaking the doth corrupt and where thieves break through and :ases this interpretation steal. " And no sensible American does. Moth and swestennarck, The Origin and Development of Moral irove to be what he has rust do not get at Mr. Rockefeller's oil wells, and Ideas, Vol. II., p. 100. [Au.] 6 discussions which at­ thieves do not often break through and steal a rail­ Alagona, Compendium Ma11ualis D. Navarri XII., 88, way. What Jesus condemned was hoarding wealth. p. 94. [Au.] an could be handled in ?Alfonso di Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Ill., 151, Vol. I., Each investment, therefore, every worldly ac- p. 249. [Au.] 8 Meyrick, Moral and Devotional Theology of the Church quisition, according to one of the leading divines of Rome, Vol. I., p. 3. Cf. further Westermarck, /oc. cit. ymbolization which accom- of the New World, may be judged on its merits. [Au.] There is no hard and fast rule. When moth and 9Soldier's Pocket Bookfor Field Service, p. 69. [Au.]

RICHARDS AND OGDEN I THE MEANING OF MEANING 1277 The Greeks, as we shall see, were in many it is today the naive interpreter is likely on many that special and dece ways not far from the attitude of primitive man occasions to be seriously misled if the existence That this is the practi, towards words. And it is not surprising to read of this unpleasing trait-equally prevalent hardly be pointed out. that after the Peloponnesian war the verbal ma­ amongst the classes and the masses without dis­ stricken by disease di chinery of peace had got completely out of gear, tinction of race, creed, sex, or colour - is over­ tive diagnosis and call: and, says Thucydides, could not be brought back looked. There are, indeed into use - "The meaning of words had no longer Throughout this work, however, we are treat­ happening in ourscl~e the same relation to things, but was changed by ing of bona fide communication only, except in den from us, and we i men as they thought proper." The Greeks were so far as we shall find it necessary in Chapter IX. of what other people , powerless to cope with such a situation. We in to discuss that derivate use of Meaning to which are doing ourselves. B our wisdom seem to have created institutions misdirection gives rise . For the rest, the verbal into other people's he which render us more powerless still. w treachery with which we are concerned is only lieved that an entity On a less gigantic scale the technique of delib­ that involved by the use of symbols as such . As therein, just as childre erate misdirection can profitably be studied with we proceed to examine the conditions of commu ­ there is a little man insi a view to corrective measures. In accounting for nication we shall see why any symbolic appara ­ at the eyes, the windm Newman's Grammar of Assent Dr. E. A. Abbott tus which is in general use is liable to incom­ at the ears. The child h had occasion to describe the process of "lubrica­ pleteness and defect. tive evidence for thi: tion," the art of greasing the descent from the But if our linguistic outfit is treacherous, it s~alpels and microscop premises to the conclusion, which his namesake nevertheless is indispensable, nor would another disturb. The tacitly so cited above so aptly employs. In order to lubri­ complete outfit necessarily improve matters, this naive approach is i1 cate well, various qualifications are necessary: even if it were ten times as complete . Jt is not al­ method disqualifies the ways new words that arc needed, but a means of First a nice discrimination of words, enabling you and psychological disc controlling them as symbols, a means of readily to form, easily and naturally, a great number of If we restrict the subjec finely graduated propositions, shading away, as it discovering to what in the world on any occasion "ideas" and words, i.e., were, from the assertion "X is white" to the asser­ they are used to refer, and this is what an ade­ angle, and omit all franl tion "X is black." Secondly an inward and absolute quate theory of definition should provide. outside us, we inevitabl contempt for logic and for words .. .. And what are But a theory of Definition must follow, not such subjects as know!( words but toys and sweetmeats for grown-up ba­ precede, a theory of Signs, and it is little realized cation, and Meaning itsc bies who call themselves men?'' how large a place is taken both in abstract If we stand in the n But even where the actual referents are not in thought and in practical affairs by sign-situations. road and observe a pe doubt, it is perhaps hardly realized how wide- But if an account of sign-situations is to be scien­ notice To Grantchester tific it must take its observations from the most "'-•w' I.S spread is the habit of using the power of words commonly distinguish t " not only for bona fide communications, but also suitable instances, and must not derive its general the situation. There is principles from an exceptional case. The person 'ol>I\D1 as a method of misdirection; and in the world as which (2) refers to a Pi, .(;6,a,'' actually interpreting a sign is not well placed for preted by a person. All observing what is happening. We should develop are considered are simil. 4~1.,.b\i~hA,l~ '" As the late C. E. Montague (Dise11chant111e111,p. 101) our theory of signs from observations of other well put it, "the only new thing about deception in war is that his patient has a ter modern man's more perfect means for its practice . The thing people, and only admit evidence drawn from in­ said to diagnose his dii has become, in his hand, a trumpet more efficacious than trospection when we know how to appraise it. talk like this we do not Gideon's own. , .. To match the Lewis gun with which he The adoption of the other method, on the ground are here also involved. now fires his solids. he has to his hand the newspaper Press, that all our knowledge of others is inferred from symptoms we often de to let fly at the enemy's head the thing which is not." But this knowledge of our own states, can only lead to the was a temporary use of the modem technique of misdirection, closely related to other g and with the return of peace the habit is lost? Not so. says Mr. impasse of solipsism from which modern specu­ Montague. "Any weapon you use in a war leaves some bill to lation has yet to recoil. Those who allow beyond 12 This tendency is particu be seuled in peace, and the Propaganda arm has its cost like question that there arc people like themselves a~ Baldwin's elaborate treati another." The return of the exploiters of the verbal machine to also interpreting signs and open to study should ~here a psychological apparat1 their civil posts is a return in triumph. and its effects will be not find it difficult to admit that their observation 1s hard to reconcile with the su l felt for many year, in all countries where the power of the munication. The twist given to word amongst the mas~es remains paramount. [Au.] of the behaviour of others may provide at least a totle's similar neglect of Refer "Philom yt/111.1. p. 214. [Au.] framework within which their own introspection, A. JAu.J

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ~ +.-a,.,\L ru... (5"""ho~ o-~ ~

I.A,-...-, ..L t> ..,_,.t.-s~c:Lv .._$

interpreter is likely on many that special and deceptive case, may be fitted. say that the doctor interprets the temperature, >Usly misled if the existence That this is the practice of all the sciences need etc., as a Sign of influenza, we are at any rate on : trait - equally prevalent hardly be pointed out. Any sensible doctor when the way to an inquiry as to whether there is any­ and the masses without dis­ ~tricken by disease distrusts his own introspec­ thing in common between the manner in which ~d, sex, or colour - is over- tive diagnosis and calls in a colleague. the pedestrian treated the object at the cross road There are, indeed, good reasons why what is and that in which the doctor treated his ther­ Nork, however, we are treat­ happening in ourselves should be partially hid­ mometer and the flushed countenance. nmunication only, except in den from us, and we are generally better judges On close examination it will be found that 11 d it necessary in Chapter IX. of what other people are doing than of what we very many situations which we do not ordinarily *: ate use of Meaning to which are doing ourselves. Before we looked carefully regard as Sign situations are essentially of the ·ise. For the rest, the verbal into other people's heads it was commonly be­ same nature. The chemist dips litmus paper in his h we are concerned is only lieved that an entity called the soul resided test-tube, and interprets the sign red or the sign use of symbols as such. As therein, just as children commonly believe that blue as meaning acid or base. A Hebrew prophet ne the conditions of commu­ there is a little man inside the skull who looks out notes a small black cloud, and remarks "We shall e why any symbolic appara- at the eyes, the windows of the soul, and listens have rain." Lessing scrutinizes the Laocoon, and 1eral use is liable to incom- at the ears. The child has the strongest introspec­ concludes that the features of Laocoon pere are tive evidence for this belief, which, but for in repose. A New Zealand schoolgirl looks at tsttc outfit is treacherous, it scalpels and microscopes, it would be difficult to certain letters on a page in her Historical Manual .pensable, nor would another disturb. The tacitly solipsistic presumption that for the use of Lower Grades and knows that ·cessarily improve matters, this naive approach is in some way a necessity of Queen Anne is dead. mes as complete. It is not al­ method disqualifies the majority of philosophical The method which recognizes the common tt are needed, but a means of and psychological discussions of Interpretation. feature of sign interpretation '3 has its dangers, symbols, a means of readily If we restrict the subject-matter of the inquiry to but opens the way to a fresh treatment of many in the world on any occasion "ideas" and words, i.e., to the left side of our tri­ widely different topics. Fer, and this is what an ade- angle, and omit all frank recognition of the world As an instance of an occasion in which the 1ition should provide. outside us, we inevitably introduce confusion on theory of signs is of special use, the subject dealt Definition must follow, not such subjects as knowledge in perception, verifi­ · Signs, and it is little realized cation, and Meaning itself. 12 : is taken both in abstract If we stand in the neighbourhood of a cross ' 3 1n all these cases a sign has been interpreted rightly or wrongly, i.e., something has been not only experienced or en­ ical affairs by sign-situations. road and observe a pedestrian confronted by a joyed, but understood as referring to something else. Any­ sign-situations is to be scien­ notice To Grantchester displayed on a post, we thing which can be experienced can also be thus understood, ; observations from the most commonly distinguish three important factors in i.e., can also be a sign; and it is important to remember that nd must not derive its general the situation. There is, we are sure, (I) a Sign interpretation, or what happens to (or in the mind of) an Inter­ preter is quite distinct both from the sign and from that for exceptional case. The person which (2) refers to a Place and (3) is being inter­ which the sign stands or to which it refers. If then we speak of i a sign is not well placed for preted by a person. All situations in which Signs the meaning of a sign we must not, as philosophers, psychol­ appening. We should develop are considered are similar to this. A doctor noting ogists and logicians are wont to do, confuse the (imputed) re­ ; from observations of other that his patient has a temperature and so forth is lation between a sign and that to which it refers, either with lmit evidence drawn from in­ said to diagnose his disease as influenza. If we the referent (what is referred to) or with the process of inter­ pretation (the "goings on" in the mind of the interpreter). It is ve know how to appraise it. talk like this we do not make it clear that signs this sort of confusion which has made so much previous work : other method, on the ground are here also involved . Even when we speak of on the subject of signs and their meaning unfruitful. In partic­ jge of others is inferred from symptoms we often do not think of these as ular, by using the same term "meaning" both for the ''Goings wn states, can only lead to the closely related to other groups of signs. But if we on" inside their heads (the images, associations, etc., which enabled them to interpret ~ign~) and for the Referents (the m from which modern specu­ things to which the signs refer) philosophers have been forced :oil. Those who allow beyond 12 This tendency is particularly noticeable in such works to locate Grantchester, Influenza, Queen Anne, and indeed the : are people like themselves as Baldwin's elaborate treatise on Tlwughts and Things, whole Universe equally inside their heads - or, if alarmed ~ns and open to study should where a psychological apparatus of "controls" and "contents" by the prospect of cerebral congestion, at least "in their to admit that their observation is hard to reconcile with the subsequent claim to discuss com­ minds" in such wise that all these objects become conve­ munication. The twist given to grammatical analysis by Aris­ niently "mental." Great care, therefore, is required in the use · others may provide at least a totle's similar neglect of Reference is dealt with in Appendix of the term "meaning," since its associations are dangerous. Nhich their own introspection, A.[Au.] [Au.]

RICHARDS AND OGDEN I THE MEANING OF MEANING 1279 with in our fourth chapter may be cited. If we re­ Behaviorism will have much to say concerning alize that ib all perception, as distinguished from the chaotic attempts at symbolic interpretation I. A. RicJ mere awareness, sign-situations are involved, we and construction by which Psychoanalysts dis­ shall have a new method of approaching prob­ credit their valuable labours. lems where a verbal deadlock seems to have The problems which arise in connection with From Tht arisen. Whenever we "perceive" what we name any "sign situation" are of the same general form. "a chair," we are interpreting a certain group of The relations between the elements concerned data (modifications of the sense organs), and are no doubt different, but they are of the same LECTURE II treating them as signs of a referent. Similarly, sort. A thorough classification of these problems THEAIMSOFD even before the interpretation of a word, there is in one field, such as the field of symbols, may AND TYPES OF the almost automatic interpretation of a group of be expected, therefore, to throw light upon ana­ In my introductor) successive noises or letters as a word. And in ad­ logous problems in fields at first sight of a very room for a persiste1 dition to the external world we can also explore different order. into how words W< with a new technique the sign situations involved When we consider the various kinds of Sign the discredited sub by mental events, the "goings on" or processes of situations instanced above, we find that those of Rhetoric. I went interpretation themselves. We need neither con­ signs which men use to communicate one with must be philosoph fine ourselves to arbitrary generalizations from another and as instruments of thought, occupy a that word, I do myE introspection after the manner of classical psy­ peculiar place. It is convenient to group these of the criticism of chology, nor deny the existence of images and under a distinctive name; and for words, arrange­ accept them, more other "mental" occurrences to their signs with the ments of words, images, gestures, and such I from other studies. 4 extreme Behaviorists. ' The double language representations as drawings or mimetic sounds we question to which w hypothesis, which is suggested by the theory of use the term symbols. The influence of Symbols )1 either as an inherita signs and supported by linguistic analysis, would upon human life and thought in numberless unex- curious growth, or , absolve Dr. Watson and his followers from the pected ways has never been fully recognized, and another science, t logical necessity of affecting general amesthesia. to this chapter of history we now proceed. other sciences use Images, etc., are often most useful signs of our least delusively whe present and future behaviour-notably in the these questions. Tl modern interpretation of dreams.'5 An improved for purposes of communication. But in the literature of p,y­ Rhetoric, or study , choanalysis there is much valuable insistence on the need of misunderstanding, n ••That the mind-body problem is due to a duplication of wider forms of interpretation, especially in relation to emo­ symbolic machinery is maintained in Chapter IV. Cf. also Tire tional overcharge. Cf., e.g ., the I.Uc Dr. Jelliffe' s "The Sym­ inquiry into the mod Meaning of Psychology, by C. K. Ogden (1926), Chapter II., bol as an Energy Condenser" (.lm1mal,lf Ne111m1s and Mental with the old Rhetor where this view is supported with reference to contemporary Diseases, December 1919), though the metaphor, like many discussing the effec authorities who hold it. [Au.] other psychoanalytic locutions. must not be stretched too far large parts of a disc 1 •5In the terminology of the present work, many of the an­ in view of what ha., been said above and of what is to follow. alyst's "symbols" are, of course, signs only; they are not used [Au.] scopic scale by usin ture of the fundan meaning and the cor 1'"<-~-,..._ and their interconnec In the old Rhetor 5'1 ""'\..~l ~ cA.,,. that a new Rhetoric J sides which may b changes his nature d tricks, bullies, and' ca totle's notes on the dence elicited under without their utility s parts of the world. Among the genera there is one which is

1280 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC much to say concerning it symbolic interpretation I. A. Richards 1hich Psychoanalysts dis­ ,ours. 1 arise in connection with From The Philosophy of Rhetoric of the same general form. the elements concerned but they are of the same LECTURE II inquiry. The old Rhetoric was an offspring of dis­ fication of these problems THE AIMS OF DISCOURSE pute; it developed as the rationale of pleadings he field of symbols, may AND TYPES OF CONTEXT and persuadings; it was the theory of the battle of words and has always been itself dominated by to throw light upon ana­ In my introductory lecture I urged t?at t_hcre_is the combative impulse. Perhaps what it has most \\* lds at first sight of a very room for a persistent, systematic, detailed inqmry (_11-swl to teach us is the narrowing and blinding influ­ into how words work that will take the place of ence of that preoccupation, that debaters' interest. l"'"'"""' the various kinds of Sign the discredited subject which goes by the name ~ Persuasion is only one among the aims of dis­ JOve, we find that those or Rhetoric. I went on to argue that this inquiry f~J course. It poaches on the others-especially on .:.~ .o communicate one with must be philosophic, or-if you hesitate with . that of exposition, which is concerned to state a ~(...,.', ents of thought, occupy a that word, I do myself-that it must take charge view, not to persuade people to agree or to do onvenient to group these of the criticism of its own assumptions and not anything more than examine it. The review an_d e; and for words, arrange­ accept them, more than it can help, rea~y-made correspondence columns of the learned and sci­ .ges, gestures, and such from other studies. How words mean, ts not a entific journals are the places in which to watch ings or mimetic sounds we question to which we can safely accept an answer this poaching at its liveliest. It is no bad prepara­ either as an inheritance from common sense, that The influence of Symbols )J tion for any attempt at exposition-above all of ought in numberless unex- curious growth, or as something vouched fo~ by such debatable and contentious matters as those been fully recognized, and another science, by psychology, say-since to which I am soon to tum-to realize how eas­ { we now proceed. other sciences use words themselves and not ily the combative impulse can put us in mental least delusively when they address themselves to blinkers and make us take another man's words these questions. The result is that a _revived in the ways in which we can down him with least ,on. But in the literature of psy- Rhetoric, or study of verbal understanding and trouble. 1luable insistence on the need of misunderstanding, must itself undertake its own I can point this moral-call it defensive if 1, especially in relation to emo­ inquiry into the modes of meaning-not_ only, as he late Dr. Jelliffe' ~ "The Sym­ with the old Rhetoric, on a macroscopic scale, you will-with a small speci~en fro~ one of (Joumal of Nen •ous and Me111a/ the many little books which m the Nineteenth discussing the effects of different disposals of 1hough the metaphor, like many Century attempted a reform of Rhetoric. It is 1s, must not be stretched too far large parts of a discourse-but also on a micro­ from Benjamin Humphrey Smart's Practical I above and of what is to follow. scopic scale by using theorems about the struc­ ture of the fundamental conjectural units of Logic, a little book written for an~ u~ed fo~ a f~w decades in the best young ladies semmanes meaning and the conditions through which they, through the middle of the Nineteenth Century and their interconnections, arise. and now as dead as any book well can be. Smart In the old Rhetoric, of course, there is much is discussing the conduct of exposition. He has that a new Rhetoric finds useful-and much be­ listed a number of faults commonly committed sides which may be advantageous until man and comes to the changes his nature, debates and disputes, incit~s, TENTHFAULT To BE AVOIDED,namely: For- tricks, bullies, and cajoles his fellows less. Ans­ totle' s notes on the forensic treatment of evi­ getting the Proposition. . . "Of this error," he writes, "the following in- dence elicited under torture are unhappily not stance may suffice: without their utility still in some very up-to-date parts of the world. Anger has been called a short madness; and pe~ple Among the general themes of the old Rhetoric of the weakest understanding are the most subject there is one which is especially pertinent to our to it. It is remarkable that when a disputant is in the

RICHARDS I THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC 1281 ;\t tt,,.;, et t'"'­

r,...k--( .. l 0 +- .SR.(;\. wrong, he tries to make up in violence what he put safely in more concrete terms, for it is not ways: What is th, wants in argument. This arises from his pride. He talking about this or that mode of meaning but and the world by will not own his error, and because he is deter­ about all meanings . And I cannot here start with other events in mined not to be convicted of it, he falls into a pas­ illustrations, because all things equally illustrate thought come to t sion . what I am saying ; and how they arc to be taken is thought of?" or ' Here (Smart comments), instead of going on just the problem. But, after this bout of abstrac ­ a thing and its m to show why Anger has been called a short mad­ tions, the applications I shall be making in the not seem to carry ; ness, the writer wanders into reflections which later Lectures will, I believe, clear up this dark all the same prob have no necessary connection with the particular patch . In brief , how we use this theorem best mulation in becaw proposition. He should have reasoned thus: shows us what the theorem is. ing, or rather a tn If, then , you seem in the next half hour at though they were Anger has been called a short madness. To be con­ times merely to be hearing words as sounds that been a main defec1 vinced that the appellation is just, let us look to the come and go, I must beg your indulgence, or buy are, you will see, effects of anger. It disturbs a man's judgment, so it with the promise that we shall come out again we shall not expe , that he inflicts an injury on his dearest friend, who, to practical problems in the everyday conduct of satisfactory . We n the next moment, he loads with caresses . It makes words. Meanwhile this very difficulty is an illus­ ,i,_ we get are to some him run headlong into dangers, which, if his mind tration of a chief practical problem. "Flother things in imp were clear, he would be the first to see and avoid . It What I am now going lo try to say is some­ is true that anger does not always disturb the mind I can start the thing which, if it is right, we all in a sense know to this degree, but that it always disturbs the mind that we are things extremely well already. "It is not sufficiently in a degree proportional to its violence, is certain ; I things. To develop and therefore it may be justly characterised as a considered," said Dr. Johnson, "that men more peculiarities of ou madness . frequently require to be reminded than in­ sponsive in all sorti formed." I shall be trying to remind you of some­ are relatively simJ What necessary connection with the proposi­ thing so simple that it is hard to think of. Some­ when we jump at tion, may we ask, has this sketch of some scenes thing as simple as possible, and, lo quote Hobbe s changes of temper from an early Victorian Novel? And whence again, "clear and perspicuous lo all men - save compare ourselves comes this certainty that anger always disturbs only to those who studying the hard writings of our responses are of the mind in a degree proportional to its violence? the metaphysicians, which they believe to be ity. A thermomete1 However, it is better perhaps to take its lesson to some egregious learning, think they understand thread of mercury heart and remember that anger is not the only not when they do." And it may be comforting to but only with the warping passion. Risibility and tedium, too, I recall that Lotze' began a course of lectures on the thermometer is think Smart would have said, can disturb the an allied subject by saying that "The simplest of pened to it in the p; judgment. the conceptions here employed, that of a thing merly recorded, a Warned now of the dangers both of forgetting and that of its being, however lucid they appear recorded them, all t the proposition and of the "short madness" that at first, on closer consideration grow always does not interfere , the combative and other passion s induce , let me more and more obscure ." For "always" I would changes of temperat, sketch, to use Hobbes's words, a theorem about say "for a time ." We return to lucidity. But now a thermometer that. meanings which may be useful in constructing to work . went up and down the most general problems of a new Rhetoric. I have two sets of problems in view: one set I that could only be e, I had better put in another warning, though, have ju st been talking about-the division of the things that happenec here. What follows is unavoidably abstract and various aim s of discourse, the purposes for which temperature went up general in the extreme. It may therefore rather il­ we speak or write; in brief, the functions of lan­ spondingly did son lustrate the difficulties of communicating with guage. The other set of problems goes deeper, temperature went d such highly abstract language than achieve as and, if we can set it rightly, the problems about imaginary thermome much communication as we would wish . If so the the language functions are best approached from showing characteristi fault will not lie, I hope and believe, either in my it. I can indicate these deeper problems in many systems , of the syst( stupidity or in our joint stupidity. It will lie in the mind. \, abstractness of the language. It has to be abstract 'Rudo! f Herman Lotze ( r 817- I 88 I ), German idealist ( Now consider our \\ here. What it is trying to say cannot, I think, be philo~opher. [Ed.I lions. Do we ever res

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC \\,) { V'-~· t, "' ~~,

t ~kt, v'\M<,{.[t., ~ h * t\...;t (;( l'.,,"nt °"""--~~ ~ t,...).<.-.ft..L 4-SS~c't-,:."'-" (e, • ..__•...... h• ..:..~

..\-- s R. ~ \-,1 u.u "V1--i-~~;""" J • - • ') :te terms, for it is not ways: What is the connection between the mind which is not influenced by the other things that mode of meaning but and the world by which events in the mind mean happened to us when more or less similar stimuli cannot here start with other events in the world? Or "How does a struck us in the past? Probably never. A new kind :1ings equally illustrate thought come to be 'of whatever it is that it is a of stimulus might perhaps give rise to a new kind , they are to be taken is thought of?" or "What is the relation between of sensation, a new kind of pain, say. But even so !r this bout of abstrac­ a thing and its name?" The last indication may we should probably recognize it as a pain of hall be making in the not seem to carry as far as the others; but they are some sort. Effects from more or Jess similar hap­ !Ve, clear up this dark all the same problem and I put the "name" for­ penings in the past would come in to give our re­ use this theorem best mulation in because an over-simple view of nam­ sponse its character and this as far as it went lis. ing, or rather a treatment of words in general as would be meaning. Meaning of a lowly kind, no the next half hour at though they were names (usually of ideas) has doubt, the kind of meaning that the least devel­ g words as sounds that been a main defect in the traditional study. These oped animals live by. It is important-and that is •our indulgence, or buy are, you will see, really deep problems. As such why I have started so far back with these elemen­ e shall come out again we shall not expect any answers which will be taries - to realize how far back into the past all ,. 1e everyday conduct of satisfactory. We must be content if the answers our meanings go, how they grow out of one an­ ry difficulty is an illus­ , we get are to some degree useful - useful among other much as an organism grows, and how in­ problem. ~ other things in improving themselves. *' separable they are from one another. to try to say is some­ l can start the theorem safely by remarking I can make the same point by denying that we we all in a sense know that we are things peculiarly responsive to other have any sensations. That sounds drastic but is WkA'-•t "It is not sufficiently J things. To develop this we have to consider the almost certainly true if rightly understood. A sen­ \>It mson, "that men more peculiarities of our responsiveness. We are re- sation would be something that just was so, on its flal\-(,v,t e reminded than in­ sponsive in all sorts of ways. Some of these ways own, a datum; as such we have none. Instead we to remind you of some­ are relatively simple, if cut short enough; as have perceptions, responses whose character ~St rnrd to think of. Some­ when we jump at a loud noise or respond to comes to them from the past as well as the pre­ ot4- !, and, to quote Hobbes changes of temperature. But even here, if we sent occasion. A perception is never just of an it; mus to all men - save compare ourselves to thermometers, we see that perception takes whatever it perceives as a thing 1g the hard writings of our responses are of a different order of complex­ of a certain sort. All thinking from the lowest to ;h they believe to be ity. A thermometer responds, the length of its the highest-whatever else it may be-is sort­ Lc-h,• .,..- think they understand thread of mercury varies with the temperature, ing. t may be comforting to but only with the present temperature - unless That is an important part of the theorem be­ 1 course of lectures on the thermometer is a bad one. What has hap­ cause it removes, if it is accepted, one of the g that "The simplest of pened to it in the past, what temperatures it for­ worst troubles which have distorted traditional ployed, that of a thing merly recorded, and the order in which it accounts of the meanings of words - the troubles ,ever lucid they appear recorded them, all that has no bearing upon and that gave rise to the Nominalist, Realist, Concep­ deration grow always does not interfere with its present response to tual controversies best known to us through the ~rt-\,~ For "always" I would changes of temperature. We can imagine, though, great British philosophical battle of the Eigh­ CVlit,,._,1 m to lucidity. But now a thermometer that, whenever the temperature teenth Century about whether we have and how -\-i..:s

went up and down like this, M, did something we come by abstract ideas and what they are.2 f\o<.\,t,....,_I >lems in view: one set I that could only be explained by bringing in other This theorem alleges that meanings, from the ~,s ,ut- the division of the things that happened to it in the past when the very beginning, have a primordial generality and +,ix,(, , the purposes for which temperature went up and down so, M. And corre­ abstractness; and it follows William James in o(A).»ti, !f, the functions of Ian­ spondingly did something else whenever the saying that the Jowliest organism-a polyp or an problems goes deeper, temperature went down and up, W. Such an amoeba-if it learns at all from its past, if it ex­ tly, the problems about imaginary thermometer would be on the way to claims in its acts, "Hallo! Thingembob again!" e best approached from showing characteristics of the behavior of living thereby shows itself to be a conceptual thinker. It eper problems in many systems, of the systems which, we say, have a mind. 2 Realisrn holds that general qualities do exist; Conceptu­ 817- 1881) , Gennan ideali~t Now consider our own minds' simplest opera­ alisrn holds that generalizations are mental concepts; Norni­ tions. Do we ever respond to a stimulus in a way nalisrn holds that only words are general. [Ed.]

\\..~( i,-.,J Sb V\tiIAl~ RICHARDS I THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC

( lt.. ,•.• .,J t..... I'. ~o,.,l~ .~ f ..a\ is behaving or·thinking with a concept-not, of The familiar sense of "context" can be ex­ ally it is a name for course, of one. Its act is abstractive and general; tended further to include the circumstances under I recur together-ir disregards in some respects the fonner situations which anything was written or said; wider still to tions as well as w 5~ and so is abstractive, and applies in some re­ include, for a word in Shakespeare, say, the other cause or effect. Bt spects not to one single thing but to any of a sort known uses of the word about that time, wider rence on which m and so is general. still finally to include anything whatever about ~hrough that delega The theorem settles the Eighteenth-Century the period, or about anything else which is rele­ mg about. In these problem by standing it on its head. That problem vant to our interpretation of it. The technical use a word- takes ove, was, How do we manage, from this particular I am going to make of this term "context" is none then be omitted fr concrete thing and that particular concrete thing of these-though it has something in common thus an abridgemeni and the other particular concrete thing, to arrive with them as having to do with the governing the behavior of Jiv at the general abstract anything? The theorem conditions of an interpretation. We can get to it sively and drastical holds that we begin with the general abstract any­ best, perhaps, by considering those recurrences abridgement happe 1 thing, split it, as the world makes us, into sorts in nature which statements of causal laws are the item with these and then arrive at concrete particulars by the about. the missing parts of overlapping or common membership of these Put very simply, a causal law may be taken as If we ask how th sorts. This bit of paper here now in my hand is a saying that, under certain conditions, of two a sign comes to st, concrete particular to us so far as we think of it as events if one happens the other does. We usually conditions, we con paperish, hereish, nowish, and in my hand; it is call the first the cause and the second the effect, knowledge at once. : the more concrete as we take it as of more sorts, but the two may happen together, as when I clap speculation has mad and the more specific as the sorts are narrower my hands and both palms tingle. If we are talking explaining that, the and more exclusive. about final causes we reverse them, and the lec­ been made this centL The next step in the theorem takes us on to ture you are going to hear was the cause of your ities of the conditi words and their meanings. If we sum up thus far coming hither. There is a good deal of arbitrari­ handing over, is left by saying that meaning is delegated efficacy, that ness at several points here which comes from the bly this "learning pre description applies above all to the meaning of different purposes for which we need causal the nature of life it~ words, whose virtue is to be substitutes exerting laws. We decide, to suit these purposes, how we like, that some sort~ the powers of what is not there. They do this as shall divide up events; we make the existence of behind from former other signs do it, though in more complex fash­ the earth one event and the tick of a clock an­ operate with the si ions, through their contexts. other, and so on. And we distribute the titles of sponse. To do so is tc I must explain now the rather special and "cause" and "effect" as we please. Thus we do the gross behavior, technical sense I am giving to this word "con­ not please to say that night causes day or day systems that are n text." This is the pivotal point of the whole theo­ night. We prefer to say that given the conditions gramaphone records rem. The word has a familiar sense in "a literary the rotation of the earth is the cause of their suc­ ingenious with thes1 context," as the other words before and after a cession. We are especially arbitrary in picking archives storing up i given word which determine how it is to be inter­ out the cause from among the whole group, or phone exchanges wi preted. This is easily extended to cover the rest of context, of conditions-of prior and subsequent how the archives get 1 the book. I recall the painful shock I suffered events which hang together. Thus the coroner de­ phone system A gets when I first came across, in a book by Dr. Bosan­ cides that the cause of a man's death was the act of to the whole alpha quet, what he called the Golden Rule of Scholar­ of a murderer and not the man's meeting with the main utterly mysterio ship, "Never to quote or comment on anything in murderer, or the stopping of his heart, or the fact Fortunately lingu a book which you have not read from cover to that he was not wearing a bullet-proof waistcoat. meaning need not w cover." As with other Golden Rules a strange That is because the coroner is interested in cer­ They can probably go peace would fall upon the world if that were ob­ tain kinds of causal laws but not in others. So yet imagined without served. I cannot honestly say I either practice the here, in sketching this causal theorem of mean­ Jt...I' It is enough for our ~ Rule or recommend it. There is a middle way ing, I am interested only in certain kinds of law 7r-- word means is the m, wiser for the Children of this World. However, as and am not necessarily saying anything about f from which it draws it I neither am nor hope to be a scholar, I have no others. lo~ 1. At this point I mus1 occasion to practise it. Now for the sense of "context." Most gener- a few minutes ago ab,

MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC "context" can be ex­ ally it is a name for a whole cluster of events that ity and abstractness of meaning and about how, e circumstances under recur together-including the required condi­ when we mean the simplest-seeming concrete 1 or said; wider still to tions as well as whatever we may pick out as object, its concreteness comes lo it from the way espeare, say, the other cause or effect. But the modes of causal recur­ in which we are bringing it simultaneously into a bout that time, wider rence on which meaning depends are peculiar number of sorts. The sorts grow together in it to thing whatever about through that delegated efficacy I have been talk­ form that meaning. Theory here, as so often, can ng else which is rele­ ing about. In these contexts one item-typically merely exploit the etymological hint given in the f it. The technical use a word - takes over the duties of parts which can word "concrete ." erm "context" is none then be omitted from the recurrence. There is If we forget this and suppose that we start )mething in common thus an abridgement of the context only shown in with discrete impressions of particulars ("fixities ~ with the governing the behavior of living things, and most exten­ and definites" as Coleridge called them) and then -1on. We can get to it sively and drastically shown by man. When this build these up into congeries, the theorem I am ing those recurrences abridgement happens, what the sign or word ­ recommending collapses at once into contradic­ s of causal laws are the item with these delegated powers - means is tions and absurdities. That was the fault of the the missing parts of the context. old Hartleian Associationism 1 complained of I law may be taken as ff we ask how this abridgement happens , how last time.3 It did not go back far enough, it took 1 conditions, of two a sign comes to stand for an absent cause and particular impressions as its initial terms. But the ,, ther does. We usually conditions, we come up against the limits of initial terms for this theorem are not impressions; the second the effect knowledge at once. No one knows. Physiological they are sortings, recognitions, laws of response, ~ether, as when I cla~ speculation has made very little progress towards recurrences of like behaviors . ngle. If we are talking explaining that, though enormous strides have A particular impression is already a product of ·se them, and the lec­ been made this century in analysing the complex ­ concrescence . Behind, or in it, there has been a Nas the cause of your ities of the condit ioned reflex. The shift, the coming together of sortings. When we take a ,ood deal of arbitrari ­ handing over, is left still as inexplicable. Proba­ number of particular impressions-of a number vhich comes from the bly this "learning problem" goes down as deep as of different white things, say-and abstract from ich we need causal the nature of life itself. We can suppose, if we them an idea of whiteness, we are explicitly re­ :se purposes, how we like, that some sorts of residual effects are left versing a process which has already been implic­ nake the existence of behind from former occurrences which later co­ itly at work in our perception of them as all e tick of a clock an­ operate with the sign in determining the re­ white. Our risk is to confuse the abstractness we iistribute the titles of sponse. To do so is to use a metaphor drawn from thus arrive at intellectually with the primordial : please. Thus we do the gross behavior, taken macroscopically, of abstractness out of which these impressions have 1t ~auses day or day systems that are not living-printed things, already grown-before ever any conscious ex­ given the conditions gramaphone records and such. We can be fairly plicit reflection took place. he cause of their sue­ ingenious with these metaphors, invent neural Things, in brief, are instances of laws. As arbitrary in picking archives storing up impressions, or neural tele­ Bradley 4 said, association marries only univer­ the whole group, or phone exchanges with fantastic properties . But sals, and out of these laws, these recurrent like­ prior and subsequent how the archives get consulted or how in the tele­ nesses of behavior, in our minds and in the Thus the coroner de­ phone system A gets on to the B it needs, instead world-not out of revived duplicates of individ­ n's death was the act of to the whole alphabet at once in a jumble, re­ ual past impressions-the fabric of our mean­ an' s meeting with the main utterly mysterious matters . ings, which is the world, is composed . · his heart, or the fact Fortunately linguistics and the theory of So much for the theorem. What are the prob­ ullet-proof waistcoat. meaning need not wait until this is remedied. lems we must use it to construct? · is interested in cer­ They can probably go much further than we have ,ut not in others. So yet imagined without any answer to this question . 3David Hartley ( 1705- 1757) synthe,ized the precepts of al theorem of mean­ It is enough for our purposes to say that what a association psychology, which holds that repeated sensations certain kinds of law f word means is the missing parts of the contexts leave images in the mind, after which the sensation immedi­ ately excites the associated image. The ~ame linkage exlends ying anything about from which it draws its delegated efficacy. I from images to word, . [Ed.] At this point I must remind you of what I said 4F. H. Bradley (1846-1924), English idealbt philosopher. ontext." Most gener- a few minutes ago about the primordial general- lEd.J

RICHARDS I THE PHILO~OPHY OF RHETORIC 1285 1t pro~; h~ f='I'"\>""'--4k

11 v """"-vt.ArS ...:.S ~t'"+#_r~ cJtr, ~~~~ ~ Since the whole business of Rhetoric comes sumption s in most parts of Rhetoric later. We so easily cleared up, a: down to comparisons between the meanings of had one simple instance with Lord Kames's pea­ "cause" and "argumen words, the first problem, I think, should be this. cock's feather, last time, where what was dis­ [ context theorem of me How, if the meaning of a word is, in this sense, couraged was a naive view of imagery as the ambiguity to the wides the missing parts of its contexts, how then should stuff of meaning. kinds nearly everywhe we compare the meanings of two words? There is We shall have others in discussing the claims it. But where the old F opportunity for a grand misunderstanding here. It of usage next week. Preeminently what the theo­ as a fault in language. is not proposed that we should try to make these rem would discourage, is our habit of behaving eliminate it, the new comparisons by a process of discovering, detail­ as though, if a passage means one thing it cannot evitable consequence < ing, and then comparing these missing parts. We at the same time mean another and an incompa­ and as the indispensat could not do it and, if we could, it would be tible thing. Freud taught us that a dream may most important utteran waste of time. The theorem does not pretend to mean a dozen different things; he has persuaded and Religion. And tha1 give us quite new ways of distinguishing be­ us that some symbols are, as he says, "overdeter­ later. tween meanings. It only bars out certain practices mined" and mean many different selections from Of course ambiguiti and assumptions which are common and mis­ among their causes. This theorem goes further, sition as, in spite of 1 leading. and regards all discourse-outside the technical- ? tainly been feeling. B The office of the theorem is much more nega­ ities of science-as overdetermined, as having very special limited u tive than positive; but is not the less useful for multiplicity of meaning. It can illustrate this view tively a late developm that. It will not perhaps tell us how to do much from almost any of the great controversies. And (outside some parts of that we cannot do without it already; but it will it offers us-by restraining the One and Only I it. This brings me to prevent us from doing stupid things which we are One True Meaning Superstition-a better hope, between contexts whi fond of doing. So a theory of evolution at least I believe, of profiting from the controversies. A I discourse. When the makes it more difficult to believe that The Dog controversy is normally an exploitation of a sys­ passion and others - i Fritz in the German account really did the chil­ tematic set of misunderstandings for war-like mation of an utterance dren's sums for them, or reminded them to salute purposes. This theorem suggests that the swords have examples of conl their "dear German flag." So even an elementary of dispute might be turned into plough shares; when the word "pape physics puts in its place among superstitions Mr. and a way found by which we may (to revert to from its contexts. The Gladstone's firm belief that snow has "a peculiar Hobbes) "make use to our benefit of effects for­ in when a sentence, in power of penetrating leather," a power not pos­ merly seen-for the commodity of human life." ment, is meant to be i1 sessed by water! For lack of that knowledge of The next problem concerns what happens interpreted so-we n physics in Mr. Gladstone, Lord Rayleigh found it when we put words together in sentences. At ing- is not so di ff ere quite impossible to persuade him it was not so. least that is a common way of stating it. The the­ we are apt to suppose The context theorem of meaning would pre­ orem recommends us rather to tum the problem missing part of its con vent our making hundreds of baseless and dis­ round and ask what happens when, out of the in­ them, so the insulting abling assumptions that we commonly make tegral utterance which is the sentence, we try to stitute for a kick,-tt about meanings, over-simplifications that create isolate the discrete meanings of the words of text. The same gener false problems interfering with closer compar­ which it is composed. That problem, the analysis modes of meaning. isons-and that is its main service. In this, it be­ of sentences and the interaction between words I began tonight by i longs with a number of other theorems which in the sentence, is my subject for next week. It is the other language fu may be called policeman doctrines-because there that the most deep-rooted, systematic, and pure exposition. Pure they are designed on the model of an ideal po­ persistent misunderstandings arise. passions no doubt-t lice-force, not to make any of us do anything but A third set of problems concerns rivalries be­ names . But they are to prevent other people from interfering unduly tween different types of context which supply the poachers and are easil -~i,, with our lawful activities. The organization of meaning for a single utterance. These start with been so necessary tc L£."\A!t'"-, impulses doctrine of values for literary criticism the plain equivoque-as when the word "rea­ physical basis of civili is in the same position. These policeman doc­ son" may mean either a cause or an argument. I care at least sometirr ·"'"'-~~ trines keep assumptions that are out of place am simplifying this here to make it a type of a re­ keep the poachers soi ~-%1,.1\'a.~4. from frustrating and misleading sagacity. I shall ally simple ambiguity. Actually in most occur­ exaggerated enormous f~~riv\ be illustrating the restraint of these bullying as- rences it would be much more complex and not sition. It is a relative ~IMl\7 ,..,\.' 1286 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ~...,\ .. ""-ti.,"""r~ Uft>YI.,+- c.~"'·cr ~.;~ &l- ~~. 1ost parts of Rhetoric later. We so easily cleared up, as the shifting meanings of the routine of train services and the tamer, more instan.ce with Lord Kames's pea. "cause" and "argument" themselves show. The settled parts of the sciences. We have exagger­ last time, where what was dis- context theorem of meaning will make us expect ated our success for strategic reasons-some of naive view of imagery as the ambiguity to the widest extent and of the subtlest them good, because encouraging, if we do not kinds nearly everywhere, and of course we find too much hoodwink ourselves. I have aimed at e others in discussing the claims it. But where the old Rhetoric treated ambiguity points tonight to be merely expository in my re­ !ek. Preeminently what the theo­ as a fault in language, and hoped to confine or marks, but I know better than to suppose I have Jurage, is our habit of behaving eliminate it, the new Rhetoric sees it as an in­ succeeded. We shall find, preeminently in the ~ssage means one thing it cannot evitable consequence of the powers of language subject of rhetoric, that interpretations and opin­ : mean another and an incompa- and as the indispensable means of most of our ions about interpretations that are not primarily 1d taught us that a dream may most important utterances-especially in Poetry steps of partisan policy are excessively hard to fferent things; he has persuaded and Religion. And that too I shall be illustrating arrive at. And thereby we rediscover that the 1bols are, as he says, "overdeter­ later. world-so far from being a solid matter of n many different selections from Of course ambiguities are a nuisance in expo­ fact-is rather a fabric of conventions, which for ses. This theorem goes further sition as, in spite of my efforts, you have cer­ obscure reasons it has suited us in the past to tr"~ iscourse-outside the technical~ ? tainly been feeling. But neutral exposition is a manufacture and support. And that sometimes is L~ -a~ overdetermined, as having very special limited use of language, compara­ a dismaying rediscovery which seems to unsettle ""-t. eanmg. It can illustrate this view tively a late development to which we have not our foundations. ~\t. .. of the great controversies. And (outside some parts of the sciences) yet adapted Anyone who publishes a book with the word ..C\,Jf{bvt restraining the One and Only it. This brings me to those large-scale rivalries "Meaning" in its title becomes the recipient of a ~~ Superstition-a better hope, between contexts which shift the very aims of fan mail of peculiar character. In comes a dribble 1tmg from the controversies. A discourse. When the passions-the combative of letters ever after from people who are quite r~ally an exploitation of a sys­ passion and others-intervene, either in the for­ unmistakably lunatics. Indeed, it seems that the msunderstandings for war-like mation of an utterance or in its interpretation, we subject is a dangerous one. Intense preoccupation eorem suggests that the swords have examples of context action just as much as with the sources of our meanings is disturbing, be turned into plough shares· when the word "paper," say, takes its meaning increasing our sense that our beliefs are a veil by which we may (to revert t~ from its contexts. The extra meaning that comes and an artificial veil between ourselves and se to our benefit of effects for­ in when a sentence, in addition to making a state­ something that otherwise than through a veil we the commodity of human life." ment, is meant to be insulting, or flattering, or is cannot know. Something of the same sort can blem concerns what happens interpreted so-we may call it emotive mean­ happen in travel. Anyone who has visited a suffi­ lrds together in sentences. At ing-is not so different from plain statement as ciently strange country and come into close con­ 1mon way of stating it. The the­ we are apt to suppose. As the word means the tact with its life knows how unsettling and disori­ s us rather to tum the problem missing part of its contexts and is a substitute for enting is the recognition of the place of at happens when, out of the in­ them, so the insulting intention may be the sub­ conventions in our mental world. And the effect •hich is the sentence, we try to stitute for a kick,-the missing part of its con­ is deeper as the contact is closer. Few men have te meanings of the words of text. The same general theorem covers all the come into closer and more active contact with an sed. That problem, the analysis modes of meaning . alien world than Colonel Lawrence and when, at the interaction between words I began tonight by speaking of the poaching of the end of the Introduction to The Seven Pillars my subject for next week. It is the other language functions on the preserve of of Wisdom, he writes of the selves which con­ ,t deep-rooted, systematic, and pure exposition. Pure exposition has its guardian verse in the void, he says, "Then madness was :rstandings arise. passions no doubt-though I do not know their very near, as I believe it would be near the man ,roblems concerns rivalries be­ names. But they are not often as strong as the who could see things through the veils at once of Jes of context which supply the poachers and are easily beguiled by them. It has two customs, two educations, two environ­ gle utterance. These start with been so necessary to us, especially since the ments." He is writing of fatigue, and the page ue - as when the word "rea­ physical basis of civilization became technical, to reeks of the extremities of war and of the ther a cause or an argument. I care at least sometimes for the truth only and desert- the desert which pushes man down to s here to make it a type of a re­ keep the poachers sometimes out, that we have the limits of his endurance. The meditation of a uity. Actually in most occur­ exaggerated enormously the extent of pure expo­ single code of meanings is not so devastating, : much more complex and not sition. It is a relatively rare occurrence outside and I have seen already enough of Bryn Mawr to

RICHARDS I THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC ,, ,~.\-t,....-o.ll';>'V\Q..t-,.;~. t\""vL

" \fV\-l...t~- ...\ ~4,,..M""LL.'

realize that it bears no least resemblance to a grammatical analysis - it is worth recalling that meanings we may try desert.s We may then continue undeterred by the grammar takes its name from writing - there is words. In the extrem 1 implications of my fan mail. often very great uncertainty as to where one word as long as we bring f The subject of the next lecture will be the ends and another begins . The written form gives Octavius Cresar is 1 Doctrine of Usage and the Interinanimation of words far more independence than they possess dead, he says, Words and, as the rest of the course will be liter­ as units of sound in speech and we derive thence ary rather than philosophical and will attempt a habit of supposing that they have far more inde­ She looks like slee rather to practise than to theorize, I may close pendence as regards their meanings than they As she would catch a here with some lines from George Chapman usually have in either written or spoken dis­ In her strong toil of g about the theoretic principles of Rhetoric, the course. "Her strong toil of g conduct of interpretation and "impartial con­ The mutual dependence of words varies evi­ what entries in what tention" and their proper relation to action . It dently with the type of discourse . At one end of meanings here of toil , comes in a poem entitled the scale, in the strict exposition of some highly But my subject is I criticized and settled science through technical ­ To Young Imaginaries in Knowledge and I want to keep to ized and rigid speech, a large proportion of them This rather were the way, if thou wouldst be from the strict scient are independent. They mean the same whatever scale of dependent v A true proficient in philosophy other words they are put with; or if a word fluctu­ Dissemble what thou studiest until prose I am talking noi By thy impartial contention ates, it moves only into a small number of stable till I have gone on a Thou provest thee fit to do as to profess positions, which can be recorded and are an­ how you will understa And if thou still profess it not, what less chored to definitions. That is the ideal limit to­ sentences. If, instead ls thy philosophy if in thy deeds wards which we aim in exposition. Unfortunately few theorems of Eu~ Rather than signs and shadows, it proceeds. we tend - increasingly since the Seventeenth You would understan , Century - to take rigid discourse as the norm, I must apologize if in this Lecture I have de- ~ angle," what the word and impose its standards upon the rest of speech. parted from the spirit of his recommendation. ..'!, ~ent .on to say might . " This is much as if we thought that water, for all -1'. mg two sides equal" ~. its virtues, in canals, baths, and turbines, were re- \i completely change th, LECTURE III ally a weak form of ice. The other end of the far given to the wore THE INTERINANIMATION OF WORDS scale is in poetry - in some forms of poetry more than we ordina rather. We know very much less about the behav­ I tum now to that other sense of "context" -the words have to wait fo1 ior of words in these cases-when their virtue is literary context-which I distinguished last time what they shall mean to have no fixed and settled meaning separable from the technical sense of "context," as a recur­ settled. from those of the other words they occur with. rent group of events, that is convenient for the All this holds good There are many more possibilities here than the theorem of meaning. Let us consider some of the the waiting words bu theory of language has yet tried to think out. effects on words of their combination in sen­ functions of language Often the whole utterance in which the co-oper­ tences, and how their meaning depends upon the and set over against tt ating meanings of the component words hang on other words before and after them in the sen­ the feeling if any to· one another is not itself stable in meaning. It ut­ tence. What happens when we try with a sen­ about, for the relatio, ters not one meaning but a movement among tence to decide what single words in it mean? want to establish or 1 meanings. Of course, even in the strictest prose The sentence, of course, as Aristotle taught, is and for the confidence we always have one thing that may be described the unit of discourse. We can hardly give too the remark-to mentic as a movement of meaning. We have change as much importance here to the influence of our other language functio the sentence develops. In "The cat is on the mat" modem way of separating words in writing . In have the aid of inton we begin with the cat and end with the mat. conversation we do not ordinarily separate them But, as with the meam There is a progression of some sort in every ex­ so-unless we are asking questions about words. intonation structure. T plicit sentence. But in the strictest prose the With languages which have not been used in ing words is likely to ' meanings of the separate words theoretically stay writing and thus subjected to a special kind of t~e utterance is comp!, put and thought passes from one to another of t10n. ssryn Mawr College, where these lectures were given in them. At the other end of the scale the whole In writing we have 1 1936 . [Ed.] meaning of the sentence shifts, and with it any m, we can. Most of the

1288 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC s worth recalling that meanings we may try to ascribe to the individual prose style come from the skill with which the om writing - there is words. In the extreme case it will go on moving rival claims of these various language functions · as to where one word as long as we bring fresh wits to study it. When are reconciled and combined. And many of the 'he written form gives Octavius C:.esar is gazing down at Cleopatra rather mysterious terms that are usually em­ nee than they possess dead, he says, ployed in discussing these matters, harmony, and we derive thence rhythm, grace, texture, smoothness, suppleness, ~y have far more inde­ She looks like sleep, impressiveness, and so on are best taken up for A~ she would catch another Antony meanings than they analysis from this point of view. Or rather the In her strong toil of grace . ritten or spoken dis- passages which seem to exemplify these qualities "Her strong toil of grace." Where, in terms of (or fail to) are best examined with the multiplic­ of words varies evi­ what entries in what possible dictionary, do the ity of the language functions in mind. For we can course. At one end of meanings here of toil and grace come to rest? obviously do nothing with such words as these 1sition of some highly But my subject is Rhetoric rather than Poetics by themselves, in the blue. They may mean all ,ce through technical­ and l want to keep to prose which is not too far sorts of different things in different literary con­ ge proportion of them from the strict scientific or "rigid" end of this texts. m the same whatever scale of dependent variabilities. ln the kind of I have been leading up-or down, if you th; or if a word fluctu­ prose I am talking now, you have usually to wait like-to an extremely simple and obvious but ::f: mall number of stable till I have gone on a bit before you can decide fundamental remark: that no word can be judged ·ecorded and are an- how you will understand the opening parts of the as to whether it is good or bad, correct or incor- is the ideal limit to­ sentences. If, instead, 1 were reading you the firi,,t rect, beautiful or ugly, or anything else that mat- }).oiLv~ osition. Unfortunately few theorems of Euclid, that would not be so. ters to a writer, in isolation. That seems so evi- nee the Seventeenth You would understand, as soon as I said "a tri­ dent that I am almost ashamed to say it, and yet it scourse m, the norm, angle," what the word meant, and though what I flies straight in the face of the only doctrine that mn the rest of speech. went on to say might qualify the meaning ("hav­ for two hundred years has been officially incul- , ght that water, for all ing two sides equal"), it would not dei,,troy or cated-when any doctrine is inculcated in these ...... ,_.?.,.k and turbines, were re- 4 completely change the meaning that you had so matters. I mean the doctrine of Usage. The doc- 0 The other end of the \ l far given to the word. But in most prose, and trine that there is a right or a good use for every -\+,....+ >me forms of poetry ! more than we ordinarily 1,,uppm,e,the opening word and that literary virtue consists in making rtut...;..l. 1 less about the behav ­ words have to wait for thrn,e that follow to settle that good use of it. ~ - when their virtue is what they shall mean-if indeed that ever gets There are several bones that can be picked ~k.--- !d meaning separable settled. with that doctrine-as it has been expounded in ) ords they occur with. All this holds good not only as to the sense of many epochs and, in particular for us, from the ibilities here than the the waiting words but as regards all the other middle of the Eighteenth Century onwards. It is ( et tried to think out. functions of language which we can distinguish the worst legacy we have from that, in other .41.A/00~ in which the co-oper ­ and set over against the mere sense. It holds for ways, happy Century. At its best it can be found z_ )onent words hang on the feeling if any towards what I am talking in George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric- 1ble in meaning. It ut- about, for the relation towards my audience I otherwise an excellent book in many respects. At a movement among want to establish or maintain with the remark, its worst, or nearly its worst, the doctrine can be in the strictest prose and for the confidence I have in the soundness of found in most of the Manuals of Rhetoric and that may be described the remark-to mention three main sorts of these Composition which have afflicted the schools- \. We have change as other language functions. In speech, of course, I American schools especially. It asserts that fhe cat is on the mat" have the aid of intonation for these purposes. "Good use is the general, present-day practice of d end with the mat. But, as with the meanings of words, so with the the best writers." One bone we could pick would ome sort in every ex­ intonation structure. The intonation of the open­ be with that "best." How are they the best writers e strictest prose the ing words is likely to be ambiguous; it waits till except by using the words in the best ways? We ords theoretically stay the utterance is completed for its full interpreta­ settle that they are the best writers because we >m one to another of tion. find them using their words successfully. We do · the scale the whole In writing we have to replace intonation as far not settle that theirs is the right, the "good usage" hifts, and with it any as we can . Most of the more recondite virtues of of the words because they use them so. Never

RICHARDS/ THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC '{ai..:n, c.. b,

4.0\,\ \Lha.u..1 ~

\c.vc.A..t,~ was there a crazier case of putting the cart before crnmnation between better and worse - that is ways. The Usage [ j..,,s..f.-1~..,J-1the horse. It is as though we were to maintain that with the closer adaptation of words to the pretation of it, is ju I apples are healthy because 6 wise people eat thoughts and feelings which we undertake to ex­ vasive and more d, them, instead of recognizing that it is the other press. Further, it is only in dealing with the first ious interpretation i way about-that it is what the food will do for principle (correctness) that we can keep our at­ that it takes the sem us which makes us eat it, not the fact that we eat tention entirely on the single word." things we know bef. it which makes it good food. There! that is the view J wished to illustrate. with which he has t But that is not the main bone I have to pick Let us not boggle about the oddities of its expres­ sentences as a mos, with the doctrine, which is that it blanks out and sion: "right and wrong," "better and worse"; or independent tessera hides the interinanimation between words. I had worry as to how by keeping "our attention en­ which we arrive at better cite you a sentence or two in evidence, or tirely on a single word" we could settle anything the interpretative pc you may think I am inventing a ghost to exorcize. at all about it- except perhaps about its spelling! ance. In brief, we I will take them from a Manual of Rhetoric The important point is that words are here sup­ guess much better v which carries the names of three authors: Messrs. posed just sheerly to possess their sense, as men ing, and watch out 1 Gardiner, Kittredge, and Arnold. And I choose have their names in the reverse case, and to carry think we know.7 this book because the regard which I have for Mr. this meaning with them into sentences regardless There are as mar Kittredge's name makes a doctrine which has that of the neighbour words. That is the assumption I the reader in all this sanction seem the better worth refuting. The au­ am attacking, because, if we follow up its practi­ tion. A word or phr thors write: "Usage governs language. There is no cal consequences in writing and reading and ily from its controll other standard. By usage, however, is meant the trace its effects upon interpretation, we shall find velop irrelevant ser practice of the best writers and speakers ." (l have among them no small proportion of the total of half the other word already asked what standard is supposed to settle our verbal misunderstandings. least equally true , which are the best.) They go on to consider "four I am anxious not to seem to be illustrating this other than sense, v great general principles of choice: correctness, sort of misunderstanding myself here, unwit­ you one example o precision, appropriateness, and expressiveness," tingly, in my interpretation of this passage. I feeling, and if I takt which, they say, "within the limits of good usage know well enough that the authors probably had Rhetoric that is bee and in every case controlled by it . . . should in mind such incotTectness as occurs when things to which the 1 guide us in the choice of words." And this is people say "ingenious" when they mean "ingenu­ pretation, as oppose1 what they say of correctness: "Correctness is the ous"; and I know that the Usage Doctrine can be The Authors givf most elementary of all requirements. The mean­ interpreted in several ways which make it true Advancement of Lel ings of words are settled by usage. If we use a and innocuous. will ask you to note word incorrectly-that is in a sense which does It can say and truly, for example, that we learn scribing some mist not customarily belong to it-our readers will how to use words from responding to them and with one hand what miss our thought, or, at best, they must arrive at it noting how other people use them. Just how we the other, indicatin by inference and guesswork." do so learn is a deep but explorable question. It misuses and why thf Inference and guesswork! What else is inter­ can say equally truly. that a general conformity pretation? How, apart from inference and skilled between users is a condition of communication. But the greatest< guesswork, can we be supposed ever to under­ That no one would dream of disputing. But if we ing or misplacing knowledge. For mt consider conformity we sec that there arc two stand a writer or speaker's thought? This is, I learning and know! think, a fine case of poking the fire from the top. kinds of conformity. Conformity in the general curiosity and inqui : But I have still my main bit of evidence to give pr9cess of interpretation, and conformity in the terlain their minds you. My authors say: "In studying the four great specific products. We all know how the duller times for ornament principles of choice, we observe that only the critics of the Eighteenth Century (the century that lo enable them to , first (correctness) involves the question of right gave us the current Doctrine of Usage) the people and most times fm and wrong. The others deal with questions of dis- Wordsworth was thinking of when he wrote his dom sincerely lo gi Preface, confused the poetic product with the po­ reason, to the benc were sought in 1,.nc 6"Bccausc" is offering lo play one of its most troublesome etic process and thought a poem good because it tricks here, of course, in the shift from "cause" lo "reason ." used poetic diction-the words that former good [Au.] poets had used - and used them in the same 7Sce the Note at the e1

1290 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC ltai.:n, c._ \nHt,v 5~so-v l.Al"'-'lf\.

l\o"- \L.~w '1"""'~ 01.A.c,5:0

lter and worse - that is way!.. The Usage Doctrine, in the noxious inter­ rest a searching or restless spirit; or a terrace, for 1tion of words to the pretation of it, is just that blunder in a more per­ a wandering and variable mind to walk up and 1ich we undertake to ex- vasive and more dangerous incidence. The nox­ down with a fair prospect; or a tower of state, for a in dealing with the first ious interpretation is the common one. Its evil is proud mind to raise itself upon; or a fort or com­ hat we can keep our at- manding ground, for strife and contention; or a that it takes the senses of an author's words to be shop, for profit or sale; and not a rich storehouse, 1gle word." things we know before we read him, fixed factors for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's w I wished to illustrate. with which he has to build up the meaning of his estate. he oddities of its expres­ sentences as a mosaic is put together of discrete ' "better and worse"; or independent tesserae. Instead, they are resultants There is much to take to heart here-espe­ ::ping "our attention en­ which we arrive at only through the interplay of cially as to the couch aspect of the Usage Doc­ we could settle anything the interpretative possibilities of the whole utter­ trine, and, I must admit, the tower and fort-but erhaps about its spelling! ance. In brief, we have to guess them and we what the authors say about it is this: :hat words are here sup­ guess much better when we realize we are guess­ ;sess their sense, as men ing, and watch out for indications, than when we Here the splendor of the imagery is no mereem­ everse case, and to carry think we know. 7 bellishment. Without it, Bacon could not have into sentences regardless There are as many morals for the writer as for given adequate expression to his enthusiastic ap­ preciation of learning and his fine scorn for the un­ That is the assumption I the reader in all this, but I will keep to interpreta­ worthy uses to which it is sometimes put. At the 'we follow up its practi­ tion. A word or phrase when isolated momentar­ same time, the figures elevate the passage from riting and reading and ily from its controlling neighbours is free to de­ the ordinary levels of prose to a noble eloquence. ::rpretation, we shall find velop irrelevant senses which may then beguile (p. 372) roportion of the total of half the other words to follow it. And this is at iings. least equally true with the language functions What splendor is there in the imagery? These :em to be illustrating this other than sense, with feeling, say. I will give images have no splendor as Bacon uses them, but 1g myself here, unwit - you one example of an erratic interpretation of are severely efficient, a compact means for say­ 1tion of this passage. I feeling, and if I take it from the same Manual of ing what he has to say. His "enthusiastic appreci­ he authors probably had Rhetoric that is because it illustrates one of the ation" (a poor phrase, I suggest, to smudge over :tness as occurs when things to which the mosaic view or habit of inter­ him!) of the use of knowledge and his "fine vhen they mean "ingenu ­ pretation, as opposed to the organic, often leads. scorn" of unworthy uses are given only if we e Usage Doctrine can be The Authors give the following from Bacon's refuse to be beguiled by the possibilities of splen­ ays which make it true Advancement of learning. And in re-reading it I dor in the isolated images. Loose them even a will ask you to note how cunningly Bacon, in de­ little from their service, let their "splendor" act )r example, that we learn scribing some misuses of learning, takes back independently, and they begin at once to fight responding to them and with one hand what he seems to be offering with against his intention. For the terrace, the tower : use them. Just how we the other, indicating both why men do prefer and the fort, if they were allowed to "elevate," 1t explorable question. It misuses and why they should not do so. would make the misplacings of the last and fur­ iat a general conformity thest end of knowledge seem much grander than But the greatest error of all the rest is the mistak­ ition of communication. "a true account of their gift of reason, to the ben­ ing or misplacing of the last or furthest end of n of disputing. But if we knowledge. For men have entered into a desire of efit and use of men" -as a terrace or tower of see that there are two learning and knowledge, sometimes upon a natural state or a fort will seem grander than a mere rich mformity in the general curiosity and inquisitive appetite; sometimes to en­ storehouse. 1, and conformity in the tertain their minds with variety and delight; some­ II know how the duller times for ornament and reputation; and sometimes Let me go on to some further types of the mu­ Century (the century that to enable them to victory of wit and contradiction; tual control and interinanimation between words. ·ine of Usage) the people and most times for lucre and profession; and sel­ So far I have considered only the influence of 1g of when he wrote his dom sincerely to give a true account of their gift of words actually present in the passage, but we etic product with the po­ reason, to the benefit and use of men: as if there have to include words which are not actually were sought in knowledge a couch, whereupon to a poem good because it being uttered and are only in the background. : words that former good Take the case of what are variously called ex­ 1sed them in the same 1See the Note at the end of this Lecture. IAu.] pressive, symbolic, or simulative words - words

RICHARDS I THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC 1291 which "somehow illustrate the meaning more im­ meaning "big light or noise" shall we say, and the sound but do 110 mediately than do ordinary speech forms," to this couple-sound and meaning is the mor­ other words which st quote Leonard Bloomfield. Examples are flip. pheme. So with "smoothly wet" and (sl-) in sound. Then we see flap, flop, flifler, flim111er, .flicker, .f/ufler, flash, slime, slip, slush, slobber, slide, slither. But pare, to words the sort of a .flush, flare, glare, glifler, glow, gloat, gli111mer, pear, pair, though they have a sound in common, sent a fashion as a bang, bu111p,lump, thu111p,thwack, whack, sn(fj; have no meaning in common, so have no com­ original taste on the I sniffle, Slll(/f . .. Why should these seem so pecu­ mon morpheme. find in fact that we liarly appropriate, or fitting, to the meanings we or course, the existence of a group of words problem upside dow use them for? The popular view is that these with a common morpheme has an influence on ceived correspondenc words just simply imitate, are copies of, what the formation of other words, and on the pronun­ ing being the explana they mean. But that is a short-cut theory which ciation of other words-assimilating them to the tence of a group of "' often does not work, and we can, I think, go fur­ group. Thus, given skid and skate, that is a strong and meaning is the e, ther and do better. As Bloomfield, in his excel­ additional reason, against an English convention, correspondence. lent book, Language, says, "the explanation is a for !laying skee rather than shee. This situation, I sa matter of grammatical structure, to the speaker it This pedantic looking term, 111orpheme, is use­ We can hardly, I thin! seems as if the sounds were especially suited to ful because with its help we manage to avoid say­ of the number of liter the meaning." The speaker usually thinks more­ ing that the sound (sl-) somehow itself means which, as usually forr over that the word seems suited because in some something like "smoothly wet or slippery" and this fashion. For exar way it resembles the meaning, or, if this seems gain a way of saying no more than that a group of tion that when a wore unplausible, that there must be some direct con ­ words which share that sound also share a pecu­ religion or good, is nection between them. If it is not the sound of the liar meaning. And that is all we are entitled to ways, there will be fc word which resembles the meaning then perhaps say. To go further and say that the words share to all the uses, someth the tongue and lip movements instead imitate the meaning because they contain this sound and tal or essential meani something to do with the meaning and so on. Sir because this sound has that meaning is to bring in planation of its use. S Richard Puget's theories of imitative gestures are more than we know-an explanation or theory to discover this comm likely to be appealed to nowadays. to account for what we do know. And actually it out considering that , The most that the modern linguist-who is a bad explanation. For this sound, by itself, often, only as a result compares the very different words which are means nothing. It is not the shared sound but tive argument. This used in different languages for their meanings ­ each of the words which has the meaning. The word ought to have or is prepared to allow towards this resemblance of sound by itself either means nothing at all-as ing, in an important re sound and sense is that "we can distinguish, with with (fl) in .flame, flare, flash, .flicker-or as with ing assumptions that various degrees of clearness and with doubtful (E~) in blare, flare, glare, stare it has by itself ~ meanings would defe1 cases on the border line, a system of initial and only an irrel !Vant meaning, namely, that of air, discussed in my lectun final root-forming morphemes of vague significa­ "what we breathe." But to come back 1 tion." Note how guarded Bloomfield is over such The theoretical position here is worth close that some words, apar a point. study because it is typical of a very large group their own right in vi I must explain what a morpheme is. Two or of positions in which we tend, too boldly and too mean certain things. more words are said to share a morpheme when innocently, to go beyond our evidence and to as­ that there can be no n they have, at the same time, something in com­ sume, as the obvious explanation, as almost a the sound of any Jang mon in their meaning and something in common datum, what is really the conclusion of a vague fled, and, if we set the in their sound. The joint semantic-phonetic unit and quick and unchecked inductive argument, remember the other "' which distinguishes them is what is called a mor­ often a bad and unwarrantable argument. Why we shall have to agre1 pheme. It is the togetherness of a peculiar sound should a group of words with a sound in common ask the question fairly and a peculiar meaning for the number of words. have similar meanings unless there was a corre­ it clear-nearly sense! Thus flash, .flare, flame, .flicker, .flimmer have spondence of some kind between the sound and natural connection can in common the sound (fl-) and a suggestion of a the meaning? That seems plausible. But state the mantic and phonetic el "moving light" -and this joint possession is the argument more explicitly, look over the evidence One is a sound, the oth morpheme. Similarly blare, flare, glare, stare carefully, and it becomes unplausible, for then ally like 'moving light' have the sound (-E~) in common and also the we have to notice the other words which share or (gl-) is not?" Is tha

1292 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC se" shall we say, and the sound but do not share the meaning and the the taste of turkey is like growing in some way meaning is the mor­ other words which share the meaning without the that the taste of mint is not? lly wet" and (sl-) in sound. Then we see that we have been applying I conclude then that these expressive or sym­ slide, slither. But pare, to words the sort of argument which would repre­ bolic words get their feeling of being peculiarly ve a sound in common, sent a fashion a~ a spontaneous expression of fitting from the other words sharing the mor­ non, so have no com- original taste on the part of all who follow it. We pheme which support them in the background of find in fact that we have been looking at the the mind. If that is so, all sorts of consequences e of a group of words problem upside down. That so far from a per­ are at once evident. In translation, for example, 1e has an influence on ceived correspondence between sound and mean­ the expressive word in another language will not ·ds, and on the pronun­ ing being the explanation of the sharing, the exis­ necessarily sound at all like the original word. It ssimilating them to the tence of a group of words with a common sound will be a word that is backed up by other words d skate, that is a strong and meaning is the explanation of our belief in a in a somewhat analogous fashion. Evidently an English convention, correspondence. again, a proper appreciation of the expressive­ shee. This situation, I said a moment ago, is typical. ness of a word in a foreign language will be no !rm, morpheme, is use­ We can hardly, I think, exaggerate in an estimate matter of merely knowing its meaning and relish­ e manage to avoid say­ of the number of literary and rhetorical problems ing its sound. It is a matter of having, in the back­ mmehow itself means which, as usually formulated, are upside down in ground of the mind, the other words in the lan­ · wet or slippery" and this fashion. For example, our common assump­ guage which share morphemes with it. Thus no ore than that a group of tion that when a word such as beautiful or art or one can appreciate these expressive features of ,und also share a pecu- religion or good, is used in a great variety of foreign words justly without a really wide famil­ all we are entitled to ways, there will be found something in common iarity with the language. Without that our esti­ y that the words share to all the uses, something which is the fundamen­ mates are merely whimsical. contain this sound and tal or essential meaning of the word and the ex­ We can, and I think should, extend this notion t meaning is to bring in planation of its use. So we spend our wits trying of a word as being backed up by other words that explanation or theory to discover this common essential meaning, with­ are not uttered or thought of. A first extension is 1 know. And actually it out considering that we are looking for it, most to words that sound alike but do not share a mor­ · this sound, by itself, often, only as a result of a weak and hasty induc­ pheme, do not have a common meaning but only the shared sound but tive argument. This assumption that the same some relevant meaning. Thus blare, scare, and has the meaning. The word ought to have or must have the same mean­ dare do not share a morpheme, but on occasion ans nothing at all - as ing, in an important respect, is one of those bully­ the peculiar force of blare may well come to it in 1sh,flicker-or as with ing assumptions that the context theorem of part from the others. This, of course, is only rec­ ·• stare it has by itself meanings would defend us from - in the way I ognizing on a larger, wider scale the principle 1g, namely, that of air, discussed in my lecture last week. that Lewis Carroll was using in Jabberwocky. Its But to come back to this parallel assumption relevance to the theory of rhymes and assonances m here is worth close that some words, apart from other words, and in is obvious. I of a very large group their own right in virtue of their sound must Another and a wider extension would include end, too boldly and too mean certain things. It was Aristotle who said not only influences from words which in part ::iur evidence and to as­ that there can be no natural connection between sound alike, but from other words which in part planation, as almost a the sound of any language and the things signi­ overlap in meaning. Words, for example, which conclusion of a vague fied, and, if we set the problem right side up and we might have used instead, and, together with d inductive argument, remember the other words before examining it, these, the reasons why we did not use them. An­ ntable argument. Why we shall have to agree with him. Indeed, if we other such extension looks to the other uses, in 1ith a sound in common ask the question fairly it becomes-when we get other contexts, of what we, too simply, call "the less there was a corre­ it clear-nearly senseless. What resemblance or same word." The meaning of a word on some oc­ between the sound and natural connection can there be between the se­ casions is quite as much in what it keeps out, or plausible. But state the mantic and phonetic elements in the morpheme? at a distance, as in what it brings in. And, on look over the evidence One is a sound, the other a reference. "Is (fl-) re­ other occasions, the meaning comes from other ; unplausible, for then ally like 'moving light' in any way in which (sl-) partly parallel uses whose relevance we can ner words which share or (gl-) is not?" Is that not like asking whether feel, without necessarily being able to state it

RICHARDS I THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC 1293 b .,.1,-c.,.,n-h-L:~ s.)-l I

-~ A.;._; 'j-'\. vv ·~\-{S~o~ \lf, explicitly. But with these last leaps I may seem in Note Kenneth E danger of making the force of a word, the feeling The word usage itself well illustrates some of the that no other word could possibly do so well or 1897-1993 more troublesome shifts of meaning. An im­ take its place, a matter whose explanation will proved Rhetoric has among its aims an improved drag in the whole of the rest of the language. I am control over these. Here perhaps a list of some of not sure, though, that we need be shy of some­ Much of Kenneth l the senses of usage may help us in avoiding mis­ thing very like this as a conclusion. A really mas­ an attempt to redefine understanding. terly use of a language-in free or fluid, not all forms of language technical discourse-Shakespeare's use of En­ cal literary criticism a glish for example, goes a long way towards using I. The most inclusive sense is "the entire sophical, political, lit, the language as a whole. range of the powers which the word can His early works, Cou Cleopatra, taking up the asp, says to it: exert as an instrument of communication ( 194 r ), develop the ti· in all situations and in co-operation with mar of Motives (194: Come, thou mortal wretch, any other words." (In this sense "Usage, agency, and purpose) With thy sharp teeth this knot intrinsicate and usage alone, undoubtedly controls lan­ Of life at once untie; poor venomous fool, guage.") Rhetoric of Motives ( Be angry, and despatch! 2. "Some specific power which, in a limited tudes and influence a, Consider how many senses of mortal, besides range of situations and with a limited type he presents elements "death-dealing" come in; compare: "I have im­ of verbal context the word normally ex­ the psychological effe mortal longings in me." Consider knot: "This erts." (This is often called a use or sense Burke was born in knot intrinsicate of life": "Something to be un­ and is what the Dictionary attempts to versities very briefly, done," "Something that troubles us until it is un­ record in its definitions, by giving other !age that included Har done," "Something by which all holding-together words, phrases, and sentences with the and his childhood fric hangs," "The nexus of all meaning." Whether the same specific power.) avant-garde magazine homophone not enters in here may be thought a 3. An instance of 2, at a certain place in publishing poetry, sho doubtful matter. I feel it does. But consider in- Shakespeare, say, which may be appealed the Great Depression, ~C,v..flv trinsicate along with knot. Edward Dowden, fol­ to to show that the word can have that delivering papers at ti c,f--~.~ lowing the fashion of his time in making Shake­ power. speare as simple as possible, gives "intricate" as 4. ~ supposed fixed "proper" meaning that briefly at the New Sd ~ll!.: the meaning here of intrinsicate. And the Oxford the word must be kept to (has in its own until I 96 r) at Bennin j Dictionary, sad to say, does likewise. But Shake­ right, etc.). This notion is derived from I, leges. In his long care1 speare is bringing together half a dozen meanings 2, and 3 by oversimplification and a mis­ As one writer, Gregor from intrinsic and intrinse: "Familiar," "inti­ conception of the working of language brated, forgotten, and mate," "secret," "private," "innermost," "essen­ which, typically, takes the meaning of a belatedly stumbles up1 tial," "that which constitutes the very nature and sentence to be something built up from ered." 1 being of a thing" - all the medical and philo­ separate meanings of its words-instead In Counter-Statem<: sophic meanings of his time as well as "intricate" of recognizing that it is the other way ing else but rhetoric." and "involved." What the word does is exhausted about and that the meanings of words are etic and contemplative by no one of these meanings and its force comes derived from the meanings of sentences in from all of them and more. As the movement of which they occur. This misconception as­ which anticipates elen my hand uses nearly the whole skeletal system of similatei, the process by which words have deconstruction-is th the muscles and is supported by them, so a their meanings determined with that by ers and that the study phrase may take its powers from an immense sys­ which they have their spelling determined precisely what is neec tem of supporting uses of other words in other and ii. the origin of a large part of misinter­ forms of discourse. T \) contexts. pretation. cae," is an annotated I Burke's method. In reh literature as a kind of p

'Gregory S. Jay, "Burke

1294 MODERN AND POSTMODERN RHETORIC