Blog Post #4

In the excerpts from Richards’ writing, he discusses the meaning a word holds in theory and how no word really is a bad or good word. A word is much more than the textbook definition it holds, because the context in which it’s held in can affect the meaning it has or its connotation. There are many words that have different meanings based off of the time period they were used in, or the culture that founded them. One particular part of the essay that slightly confused me was the delegated efficacy part, as I did not really understand what Richards was trying to define.

            One thing I thought was interesting was how he talked about the effect an author can have on the rhetoric they use. We do not think about it enough, but authors do have a lot of power in what they do, changing the meaning of a word to suit their needs, using Shakespeare as an example who was widely known for reinventing words and even creating his own.

            The reading was relevant to what we are learning in class about remixes and assemblages, because it discussed the concept of words not having concrete meanings and essentially having the ability to be remixed as seen fit. When we think about remixes and assemblages, the first thing that comes to mind is usually some form of media such as a song or film because that’s what we have discussed so far. However, I thought it was interesting to note that linguistics also hold the ability to be remixed and many of the words we use today are assemblages of other words from different languages and meanings.