In 20th century rhetoric, the idea that words are symbols that require interpretation is stressed by IA Richards. Richards explains that such interpretation of words must be in context so that the meaning is clear (or at least clearer). Such context relates to Burke’s Dramatism pentad: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. Most specifically, Richards and Burke converge with the idea of scene. Richards is particularly concerned with the way symbols, signs, actions, thoughts, and items relate to each other. This relationship-based understanding of the world creates a “behavioristic theory of interpretation-in-context” with an inherent rhetorical meaning (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 965).
In one experiment, Richards situates contexts solely within the verbal structure of language. By doing this, Richards was able to (or so he claimed) focus on the reader’s experience outside of the history and/or other biases that come with knowing authors, eras, and political situations. Yet, Richards discovers even more so the interdependency of meaning and context. He defines context as a way to name and situate rhetoric in the events that occur together (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 978).
One concept I found particularly meaningful was Richard’s concept of the metaphor. He has a great appreciation for the metaphor because it conveys information by connecting it to things a person already understands. Furthermore, Richards sees the metaphor as limited (which is good because it keeps the metaphor in check). The two limiting factors, namely the “tenor” and the “vehicle”, work in tension to limit the interpretive range of understanding as applied by a particular metaphor. “We understand the one by the other, taking only certain characteristics of the vehicle (the beauty of the Rose, not the thorns) because of the nature of the tenor (my love)” (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 966). In other words, it is the words and phrases that surround a concept or a piece of rhetoric that enable us to understand the meaning. Because we make connotations within a particular situation we use context to understand the metaphor.
Because we are operating between both social (outer) and psychological (inner) histories, we apply what we know when we decode symbolism (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 968). We are decoding and encoding when we listen and speak. Even in one conversation, there can be multiple accurate meanings or a multiplicity of meaning (Bizzell & Herzberg, p. 980). Since, according to Richards, words do not have any inherent goodness or badness, it is through the contextual understanding (both the history and the surrounding words) that we can illustrate points to one another (Bizzell & Herzberg, pp. 983-84, 986).
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI like how you connect Richards and Burke with context and scene. This idea that rhetoric is contextually based is both interesting and challenging. You last paragraph, which summarizes the social and psychological histories we all bring to communicative events can be especially challenging for a rhetor. Not only does s/he have to assess the audience in its physical context (maybe culture, profession, geography, etc.), but the speaker also needs to consider a plethora of psychological unknowns of the individuals. Clearly, each mind cannot be known, but the speaker must try to gain insight of histories that may not be assessed from observation.
History plays a huge role in the way that we understand language. Words and phrases that were common even a few years ago have changed in meaning; the meanings are even different in other cultures. It is important to consider who your audience is, their knowledge, and use of language in order to have a successful persuasive speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree Deb. I think I continue some of these thoughts with their challenges in my Foucault post.
ReplyDelete