I.A Richards as a critic of Figurative Language

Assignment Topic: -I.A Richards as a critic of Figurative Language

Name: Bhaliya Ravi

Roll no.:

M.A. Semester: 2

Enrolment No.:14101004

Year: 2015-16

Paper no.:7 (Literary Theory & Criticism)

Submitted to: Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

                       ravibhaliya5@gmail.com

                                  


   -I.A Richards as a critic of Figurative Language

                       In criticism if we remember some important and well-known critics then we must remember I.A Richards, in full Ivor Armstrong Richards, who was born Feb. 26, 1893, Sandbach, Cheshire, Eng.—died Sept. 7, 1979, Cambridge, Cambridge shire), English critic, poet, and teacher who was highly influential in developing a new way of reading Poetry that led to the New criticism and that also influenced some forms of reader-response criticism.

Richards was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and was a lecturer in English and moral sciences there from 1922 to 1929. In that period he wrote three of his most influential books: The Meaning of the Meaning (1923), a pioneer work on semantics; and Principles of Literary Criticism (1924) and Practical Criticism (1929), companion volumes that he used to develop his critical method.

 The latter two were based on experimental pedagogy: Richards would give students poems in which the titles and authors’ names had been removed and then use their responses for further development of their “close reading” skills. Richards is best known for advancing the close reading of Literature and for articulating the theoretical principles upon which these skills lead to “practical criticism,” a method of increasing readers’ analytic powers.

During the 1930s, Richards spent much of his time developing Basic English, a system originated by Ogden that employed only 850 words; Richards believed a universally intelligible language would help to bring about international understanding. He took Basic English to China as a visiting professor at Tsing Hua University (1929–30) and as director of the Orthological Institute of China (1936–38).

 In 1942 he published a version of Plato’s Republic in Basic English. He became professor of English at Harvard University in 1939, working mainly in primary education, and emeritus professor there in 1963. His speculative and theoretical works include Science and Poetry (1926; revised as Poetries and Sciences, 1970),Mencius on the Mind (1932), Coleridge on Imagination (1934), The Philosophy of Rhetoric(1936),SpeculativeInstruments (1955), Beyond (1974), Poetries (1974),and Complementarities (1976). His verse has been collected in Internal Colloquies(1971) and New and Selected Poems (1978).

Four Kinds of Meaning

 A study of his practical criticism together with his work ‘The Meaning of meaning reveals his interest in verbal and textual analysis. According to him a poet writes to communicate and language is the means of that communication. Language consists words so study of study of words so study of words is significant to understand the meaning. The meaning depends on.

So,Now Let's have a look on each on them in detail.

1 Sense:-

           Sense is very much important in the figurative language.  By sense it meant something that is communicated by the plain literal meanings of the words. Therefore it matters a lot.

2 Feeling:-

             Feeling deals with the emotions and sentiments of the writers.It Refers to emotional attitudes desire, will, pleasure, unpleasure and the rest words express feelings.so it is important.

3 Tone:-

            Tone is significant as far as Figurative language is concerned. Tone here means the writers attitude towards his audience. The writer chooses his words and arranges them keeping in mind the taste of his readers. Feeling is only state of mind.

4 Intention:-

           So far as intention is concerned in the figurative language. It is authors conscious or unconscious aim, it is the effect that one tries to produce. Also intention controls the emphasis, shapes the arrangement, or draws attention to something of importance. Hence it is very much important in the figurative language.

“Sources of misunderstanding in poetry”:

         

 The source is very much important in the figuratie language.In practical criticism a study of literary judgment, I.A.Richards has given the theory of Figurative language. He starts discussion first on sources of misunderstanding in poetry. He says that it is very difficult to find the source which creates misunderstanding. Further, he says that there are four sources of misunderstanding as far as are poetry is concerned. As one source of misunderstanding is connected with the other in different way it becomes very hard to diagnoses, with certainty, the source of some particular mistake or misunderstanding. This kind of source of misunderstanding can be possible but rarely.

To some readers meter and verse form of poetry are as powerful as distraction as a barrel organ or a brass-bend is to one trying to solve difficult mathematical. But as we know, meter and rhymes are essential part of poetry and cannot be differentiated. Therefore, the reader should a poem several times. Because the constant reading of poem can solve the problem regarding the meter and verse. Reader should read a poem for grasping the concept of it. Perhaps the constant readings can solve the various doubts about the poem. These misunderstanding of sense of the poetry must be solved by the reader. So that he can grasp the idea of the poem.

 Here I.A Richards also says that the source of the misunderstanding in the poetry.This complicated situation gives rise to misunderstanding or wrong notion that syntax is of less significant in poetry then in prose and that the proper way of understanding poetry is through a kind of guess-work, which may even be called intuition. Such notions are hard solve. Because they are true to some extent. This aspect of truth in poetry makes reader most deceptive and misleading. I.A. Richard warns his readers against this danger.Therefore I.A Richards also makes remarks

“In most poetry the sense is as important as anything else;

It is quite as a subtle, and as dependent of the syntax as in

Prose; it is the poet’s chief instrument to other aims when it is not

Itself his aim. His control of our thoughts is ordinarily his chief means to the

Control of our feeling, and in the immense majority of instances we miss nearly everything

Of value if we misread his sense.

“The significance of visual memory”:

Here in this essay of Figurative language the significance of the visual memory is very much significant in short we can also say that a proper understanding of figurative language required close study of the poem. Reader should read the poem into the context of close reading. its literal since must be carefully followed, but such literal reading must not come in the way of imagination appreciation of it judicious balance must be struck between literalism and imaginative freedom . The aim of the poem must be clearly understood for without such and understanding any judgment of the means the poet has used would be fallacious. New critics give importance to means first then the end of the poem. Because by doing this, they can learn the language – metaphor, figure of speech etc... At art, the end of the poetry can be achieved then the liberty can be given to analysis poem from anyway.

Source of Misunderstanding in Poetry

     As far as misunderstanding is concerned many a times it occurs in the poetry in that misunderstanding occurs because sometimes what a poet wants to say and what the reader understand. So According to I.A. Richards there are four sources of misunderstanding of poetry. It is difficult to diagnose with accuracy and definiteness, the source of some particular mistake or misunderstanding of the sense of poetry. It arises from inattention, or sheer carelessness. I.A. Richards warns readers –In most poetry the sense is as important as anything else it is  quite as a subtle, and as dependent on the syntax, as in prose it is the poet’s chief instrument to other aims when it is not itself his aim. His control of thoughts is ordinarily his chief means to the control of our feelings, and in the immense majority of instances we misread his sense.” Hence I.A Richards makes remarks about the misunderstanding in the poetry.

                 But many times it is observed that sometimes Over-literal reading may cause misunderstanding in the poetry. Hence an over literal-reading is as great a source of misunderstanding. Careless intuitive reading and prosaic ‘over-literal reading are the simple-godes the justing rocks. Defective scholarship is a third source of misunderstanding in poetry. The reader may fail to understand the sense of the poet because he is ignorant of poet’s sense. Afar more serious cause of misunderstanding is the failure to realise that the poetic use of words is different from an assumption about language that can be fatal to poetry. Literary is one serious obstacle in the way of a right understanding of the poetic words. According to Richards-poetry is different from prose and needs a different attitude for right understanding.

The Nature of Poetic Truth:

So far as the nature of the poetic truth is concerned, it differs from Scientific Truth as it is very well said by I.A Richards. In the principle of literary criticism he writes “It is evident that the bulk of poetry consists of statement which only the very foolish would think of attempting to verify. They are not the kind of things which can be verified.

So if it is connected with what was said in chapter 16 as to the natural generality of verge of reference, we shall see another reason why references as they occur in poetry are rarely susceptible to scientific truth or falsity. Only references which are brought in to certain highly complex and very special combinations, so as to correspond to the ways in which things actually hang together, can be either true or false and most references in poetry are not knit together in this way. But even when they are on examination, frankle false, this is no defect. Indeed, the obviousness of the falsity forces the reader to reactions which are incongruent or disturbing to the poem. An equal paint more often misunderstood, their truth when they are true, is no merit. Hence the nature of the poetic truth is very well observed by I.A Richards.

The Value of Figurative Language

In any literary work of art the value of figurative language is very much an inevitable part. Figurative language can create problems. It is difficult to turn poetry into logical respectable prose. Only through accuracy and precision is combined with a recognition of the liberties is combined with a recognition of the liberties which are proper for a poet, and precision is combined with a recognition  of the liberties which are a recognition of the liberties which are proper for a poet, and the power and value of figurative language.

Mixed Metaphors

 In Figurative Language Mixed Metaphors has its own place because it gives ornaments to the language without it the poet is destined to write poetry because what the poet or any authors wants to say they say on the base of Mixed metaphors by using those it makes well-furnished language. Mixtures in metaphors work well if in the mixture the different parts or elements do not cancel each other out. The mixture must not be of the fire and water like ‘woven’ dose not mix well with sea and lightening, and so here the mixed metaphor is a serious fault.

Thus we may also say that the poet is rather negligent in the choice of means he has employed to attain his end. The enjoyment and understanding of the best poetry requires sensitiveness and discrimination with words a nicety, imaginativeness and deftness in taking their sense which will prevent the poem in question, in its original form, from attentive readers. Hence those mixed metaphors are necessary to make the language eye-catching as well as well-ornaments.