1. I believe that Richards argument is that writing is more feel oriented, rather than set by rules and regulations. He makes this point in the very beginning of the reading saying, "No word can be judged as to whether it is good or bad, correct or incorrect, beautiful or ugly, or anything else that matters to a writer, in isolation." He even pokes fun at the Usage Doctrine (which states that writing should be used for clarity), saying that many parts of it shouldn't be used because they look at words too simplistically.
In support of his general argument, Richard says that whole sentences reveal the meaning of specific words, and that the only way we understand the meaning of all words in context is responding to words and noting how other people use them, respectively. He uses the example of saying the simple statement, "the gardener mowed the lawn," when in reality we all know that it was the lawn mower that actually cut the grass. This example is one of the many connections humans make after day to day usage of words and specifically, this is something that the Usage Doctrine would have overlooked and therefore the Doctrine should be dismissed.
Richards closes his argument by saying that words should be used for its simplicity, so rather than following step by step in the Usage Doctrine, and trying to be as specific as possible, people today have adapted their speech into one that is more laid back.
2. One thing I didn't understand as I read was the very middle portion that addressed symbols. It didn't make sense to me and I thought Richards had all of his points already laid out without that portion.
3. I believe that Richards point about the newly adapted usage of words correlates directly with the idea of Remix. Back then words were studied and used in such specific ways where now as time progressed people became more comfortable with their language and created general known "shortcuts" for their language.
No comments:
Post a Comment