blog post 4

The point Richards is trying to make is that no word can be judged as good or bad, correct or incorrect, beautiful or ugly. The doctrine of usage says that there is a right or a good use for every word and that literary virtue consists in making that good use of it. Quoting Richard, The important point is that words are here supposed just sheerly to possess their sense, as men have their names in the reverse case, and to carry this meaning with them into sentences regardless of the neighbour words. That is the assumption I am attacking, because, if we follow up its practical consequences in writing and reading and trace its effects upon interpretation, we shall'find among them no small proportion of the total of our verbal misunderstandings. What Richards is saying is that no word is wrong because words change and mix and transform over time, words are a remix.

Blog Post 4

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.  

Blog post 4

Richard makes a valid point and backs his claim up with many examples, but to me I don’t fully understand why he is making his claim and I don’t agree with it. I like the idea that words are just to present their sense just like a man presents his name. The idea that words don’t have a permanent connotation doesn’t make sense to me. There are words that are used only in a certain context. He brings up that point but these words with negative connotations would never be used in a context of a positive situation. For example the word “Gore” it’s a noun and can also be an adjective, but the sense that the term presents is something that is awful. I’m not sure how his claims relate to our discussion of Remix. I think that what he is trying to say in relation to remix is that, words with “negative connotations” can be remixed and used in a different context than what they are usually used in and create a whole new sense and connotation for that word. He then goes on to state how words are “a cooperative member of an organism,” and “fluid.” Richards states how words are free and that they shouldn’t be tied down to the usual connotations and contexts that a certain word is usually associated with. But I’m not completely sure about it. I would say that the excerpt as a whole was confusing to me but there were some parts that I was able to pick up and understand. Even though I may not have that strong of a grasp on the idea, I don’t agree with it entirely.

Blog 4

Richard’s essential statement, “No word could be judged as whether it is good or bad, correct or incorrect…” serves as the basis of his argument. This excerpt automatically criticizes the majority of teachings. Most individuals believe there always has to be a right or wrong in any circumstance, especially when concerning usage of word choice. Richards wanted to explain that words simply possess a type of presence, he calls this their “sense”. Sense, however, has commonly been thought of as having a meaning and Richards is adamant that this is not possible. He firmly disagrees that words have meaning on their own; words are a simple fabrication of combining insignificant letters together. It is not until words are put into a particular context and are surrounded by other words that they finally establish meaning. When Richards reiterates words only become meaningful when they are arranged together with other words, he is subtly defining the essence of remixing. Everything, (words, objects, symbols, etc.), have a different meaning to everyone. With time, acquired knowledge, and personal experiences people build on words and find their own viewpoint about them. People remix because they find a unique, distinct interpretation of something and rearrange it to create a new perspective, which ultimately creates a meaning.  

I understood Richards’ main concept about meaning and words, but I could not completely understand what he meant by meaning as a “delegated efficacy.”

Daisiah Akbar; 4

Richards is presenting the argument that so much of language is revolved around intonation. The meaning behind every single word that we use in every day conversations has to deal so much with how we say it. Symbolism plays such a major part in just everyday reading and talking. The point Richards is essentially trying to argue is that there's so much more associated with language, whether it be reading or conversing, than what we attribute to it. There are psychological and social factors associated, and the way these are interpreted is based on the symbol that we have formulated on that particular word. We build upon our symbols through what we have learned. This argument can be used with our argument of the remix we have been discussing in class because we build upon our interpretations through what we have learned. We either keep what we have learned about the word or we switch it up to why we believe. Either way it's based off the foundation we were taught, and this is pretty much the argument of remix. The one part I was confused about and had to re-read several times was the Triangle. I was also a little skeptical as to how I could relate Richard's argument with remix. Another part that confused me was when Richards made the argument about “right and wrong” “better or worse” I think what Richards was trying to say was the connotation we place behind those words, but I am not 100% sure. 

Blog Post # 4

In the first excerpt, Richards is addressing his concern about people judging words as being labeled as good, bad, correct, incorrect, or anything else. He understands how stupid this may sound, and yet it is an issue that is always brought to his attention. He believes that no word should be singled out and labeled due to how it is being used in context. The next excerpt further address this point, by reemphasizing that words rely on one another in order to correctly be interpreted. The author continues on in the following excerpt to address, words and their meanings. He states how meaning determines on the context of the word. He extends the definition of context to anything that is written or said and explains that context heavily affects word meaning. In the next excerpt, Richards address the actual concept of ‘context’. He more simplistically defines context as a cluster of events that reoccur together. In his final excerpt, he summarizes wraps up his article and summarizes what he previously went into further depth with. He reemphasizes the importance of each individual word regardless of how complex the word is. In my opinion, the entire article is extremely confusing. I’m not quite sure where Richard is going with this article and what his overall point is. The article was very scattered and strangely written. However, I did find it interesting how the author tries to challenge current assumptions about words, their meanings and how they are used. I wish he addressed these issues and points a little bit more clearly. Overall, I believe these excerpts relate to our discussion of remix, since Richard explains that every word is a part of a community of other words when used in context, and relies on other words. Similarly, the concept of remix explains how every original work is apart of a community of other works, and relies on past works.

Blog #4

In my opinion, the article by Richards was extremely difficult to understand. The words he used and the way he organized his thoughts made it hard for me to comprehend the points he was trying to make. From what I understood, the main topic of this article was the meaning of words. For Richards, he believes that words are virtually empty until a writer makes them full and gives them life. Also, he said that words on their own have no specific meaning. He said, “no word can be judged as to whether it is good or bad, correct or incorrect, beautiful or ugly, or anything else that matters to a writer, in isolation.” But, once the writer puts them together, they make sense. This holds true because words can have many different meanings depending on how you use them. For example, the word “right” can be used in many ways. A boy can be right about the answer on his test, but he can also make a right turn at the light. The main point that was proved in Richards article was that words could never have a permanent meaning. This article definitely makes a strong connection between remix and words. Richards says how words on their own have no meaning, but when you remix them with a bunch of other words, they become something. Words can have many different meanings depending on how you use them. Therefore, remix definitely plays a roll when deciding when and where to use specific words.