Four Kinds of Meaning by I A Richards

Four Kinds of Meaning by I. A. Richards

I. A. Richards

Ivor Armstrong Richards, popularly known as I. A. Richards (1893 – 1979), was a literary critic, linguist, and philosopher. He had no formal training in literature. His subject of study at Cambridge was philosophy. As a visiting professor, Richards taught Basic English and Poetry at Tsinghua University, Beijing. Later, he became the director of the Orthological Institute of China.
Richards is a unique figure in English literary criticism because of the originality of his ideas. Moreover, like Coleridge, Richards was also interested in philosophy. His works in literary criticism helped to lay the practical foundations and methodology of New Criticism. The close reading of texts is the strategy of New Criticism. It got its first extensive practitioner in Richards.

Introduction

At the outset, Richards points out some of the difficulties in Part II (of Practical Criticism) because of documentation. The documentation was like navigating through a labyrinth. Richards admits that the analysis of ‘anonymous’ poems his students undertook has generated a hundred verdicts from a hundred readers. He acknowledges that the above result was at the very opposite pole from his hope and intention. 

The suitable method to conclude [with proper understanding and confidence] is to look closely into the ten difficulties of criticism ‘listed towards the end of Part I, considering them one by one in the order adopted’. Richards says that the difficulties are interdependent like a cluster of monkeys. 

‘The original difficulty’ of reading is the problem of making out the meaning. It is the starting point. Richards poses several questions. We have to find answers if we were to understand a poem.

The most significant fact for studying literature (or any other means of communication) is that there are several kinds of meaning. When we read/talk, we are like ‘jugglers keeping the billiard-balls in the air while we balance the cue on our nose. [This idea is one of the guiding principles of post structuralism]. The meaning we arrive at is a combination of different contributory meanings. Language has to perform several functions simultaneously. We have to take note of the differences between these functions. Richards divides them into four types with four types of meaning. 

All articulate speeches are from four different points of view. These are Sense, Feeling, Tone, and Intention.

1. SENSE

We speak to say something. When we listen, we expect others to say something. When speaking, we want to direct the attention of our listeners to something. We also want to excite some thoughts in our listeners.

2. FEELING

We have some feelings when we speak about things/state. We have an attitude towards it, some direction, bias, or accentuation of interest, some personal flavour or colouring of feeling. We use language to express those feelings. Similarly, when listening, we pick up those feelings from what we hear.

3. TONE

The speaker has an attitude to his listener. He chooses or arranges his words differently as his audience varies. The tone of the utterance reflects the nature of the relationship with the listener.

4. INTENTION

The intention may be conscious or unconscious. The speaker speaks for a purpose that modifies his speech. To understand the meaning, we must understand the motive. We can measure success only if we know the intention.

Sometimes the purpose will be to state the thoughts of the author. Sometimes it will be to express his feelings about what he is thinking. It may also express his attitude to the listener.

The author’s intention influences the language he uses.   

Richards admits that in the analysis of ‘anonymous’ poems (by his students), failure of one or other functions is noticeable. Sometimes all four fail together; a reader garbles the sense, distorts the feeling, mistakes the tone, and disregards the intention; and a partial collapse of one function entails aberrations in the others.

In our uses of language, Richards says that one or another of the functions may become predominant.

In a scientific document, the sense is of importance. Any feelings about the subject may not interfere. The academic conventions decide the tone. The intention of the author gets revealed through the work. The work will be a clear and adequate statement of what the author has to say.

Richards cites the example of a popular book on science and shows how it is different from a scientific document.

1. There is no precise and adequate statement of the sense. General intelligibility is more important. Simplifications and distortions may be needed for the ordinary reader to understand what is said. 

2. The author may have to evoke the reader’s interest. Therefore an active display of feelings towards the subject is desirable.

3. Variety in tone is necessary. Jokes and illustrations are admissible. A certain amount of cajolery [persuasion] is not unusual in such writings.

4. ‘A human relation between the subject and his lay audience must be created and the task...is not easy’.   

Richards then takes up the case of political speeches. He questions the ‘rank and precedence’ of the four language functions in utterances made in a General Election. On this occasion, the fourth (Intention) will become the main. The tools used are Function 2 (Feeling) and Function 3 (Tone). Richards points out that ‘we will be pained or surprised’ to see Function 1 (sense or the representation of facts) getting the least importance. He rightly states that this situation of facts getting the least priority in political speeches should take us to the question of Sincerity. Richards deals with the topic of ‘Sincerity’ in Chapter VII. 

The clearest examples of shifts in function (one function being taken over by another) we get in conversations. The intention may dominate others. Sometimes Feeling and Tone may express themselves through Sense. The language used by diplomats provides us with examples for this shift in function. Similarly, shifting takes place in social language or phatic communion. 

Language Functions in poetry

FEELING and TONE become dominant and operate through SENSE in poetry. [On the other hand, SENSE interferes and dominates FEELING and TONE in disciplines like Psychology.] 

In a situation where FEELING and TONE dominate SENSE, Richard foresees some effects:

When FEELING and TONE dominate, the statements in poetry affect our feelings. The feelings are not for their own sake.

If we challenge the ‘truth value’ of such statements or question their seriousness, we are mistaking their function [which is not to impart truth].

Many of the statements in poetry are there for ‘manipulation’ and expression of feelings and attitudes. They do not contribute to any set of doctrines or knowledge.

In narrative poetry, Richards says, there is very little danger of mistaking statements for facts. But in ‘philosophical’ or meditative poetry, there is great danger of confusion. Such confusion would have two consequences:

Many people take all the statements in poetry seriously and find them silly. For them, “My soul is a ship in full sail” would appear profitless. This mistake may be absurd, but it is quite common.

On the other hand, many people ‘swallow’ a declaration like ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty’ as quintessential aesthetic philosophy. Richards says that the statement shows a blend of feelings. If taken seriously, it will lead only to a complete stalemate of muddle-mindedness.

Richards asserts that poets subjugate [subdue, suppress] SENSE in many ways. They do so to express a feeling or adjust the tone. They may distort statements; or make statements that have nothing to do with the subject or present things that are logically irrelevant, trivial, or silly. They are justified in doing so if they succeed in their other aims.

 Conclusion  

Richards concludes that the indirect devices for expressing feelings through logical irrelevance and nonsense (through statements not to be taken strictly, literally, or seriously) are not peculiar to poetry.

Literary criticism is also affected by it [expressing feeling through logically irrelevant and nonsensical statements]. For example, many declarations about poetry turn out to be indirect expressions of FEELING, TONE, and INTENTION. Dr Bradley’s remark that ‘Poetry is a spirit’ and Dr Mackail’s statement that poetry ‘is a continuous substance or energy whose progress is immortal’ are examples of such indirect expressions of feeling or intention. We have to avoid such errors of misunderstanding in our reading of the protocols [the analysis of ‘anonymous’ poems which Richards asked his students to undertake].  

Source:http://sreekumarenglishliterature.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-four-kinds-of-meaningi-richards.html