I.A. Richards's Theory Of Meaning: A Rhetorical Critique

This paper offers a critique of LA. Richards's thinking about rhetoric, taking him to task for trying to substitute a "theory of meaning" to the western tradition of rhetorical studies.Objecting to the classical conception of rhetoric as an art of persuasion, Richards believes that misunderstanding of words leads to unsuccessful communication and hence ought to be regarded as the root of problems in modern society. Since the "old rhetoric" is concerned primarily with the effects of discourse, it is largely irrelevant to our time. A new rhetoric, re-defined as "the study of misunderstanding and its remedies," must focus on the study of the meaning of words.This new conception, however, raises more questions than it answers. Is it justified for him to focus rhetoric on the meaning of words? Does eliminating misunderstanding help in solving social problems? And does traditional rhetoric lose all its functions in modern society? To answer these questions, this paper reexamines Richards' meaning theory from a rhetorical perspective and concludes that his meaning theory is far from justified. The meaning of words consists in the ongoing interaction between speaker and audiences and is at the same time subject to constraints imposed by the communicative situation concerned. To illustrate this, we first analyze Richards' meaning theory in terms of three major rhetorical terms: context, speaker and audience. Then we go on to argue that the removal of misunderstanding does not help in solving social problems, because language is not a neutral tool; instead, it is in involved in a complicated relationship with power and interests. To support this argument, we examine the relationships among language, power and culture. To conclude, we point out that it is Richards' heavy reliance on science and his failure to perceive the very nature of rhetoric that makes him claim "the traditional rhetoric has declined".