When examined chronologically, the
excerpts from Richards provide a working definition of “context” and “usage”. According to Richards, context is defined as
a whole cluster of events that recur together including the require conditions
as well as whatever we may pick out as cause or effect. This formal definition of context was not
given until second to last of the collection of excerpts, however, the entire
collection added to the overall definition of what context actually means.
In the first excerpt, Richard made
the notion that one word cannot be qualified unless it is in conjunction with
other words. The first excerpt is where
we also are introduced to Richard’s definition of ‘usage”. Works of true literature are when the usage
of words are arranged in such a way that their context is universal across all
mediums and the words are taken at face value and understood as such. If analysis on literature were conducted in
this matter, there would be little verbal misunderstandings.
The only part of all the excerpts
that I did not understand is when Richards begins to describe “delegated
efficacy”. He describes delegated
efficacy as “exerting the powers of what is not there”. For me, it is unclear if Richards is talking
about words in isolated context or the assemblage of words and the context of
the entire structure.
These
excerpts provide a new prospective on how a remix is evident in almost all of
everything we can perceive. Qualifying
words relies so heavily on depicting each individual word and does not take
into consideration the context of which the word was uttered. If qualifying analysis rejected the former
way and debunked words solely on context and at face value, then verbal misunderstanding
can be eliminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment