Name:
Solanki Binita M.
Roll No: 05.
Paper No:
07.
Subject:
Literary Theory & Criticism.
Topic:
I.A.Richard’s Figurative Language.
Submitted
to: Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.
Introduction:
I.A.Richards was an influential
English literary critic and rhetorical. Richards is regularly considered one of
the contemporary study of literature in English. Richards life and influence
can be divided into period, which correspond roughly to his intellectual
interest. Richards is often labeled as the father of the “new criticism”,
largely because of the influence of his first two books of critical theory.
I.A.Richards is at one with the new criticism in his stress on close textual
and verbal stud of a poem.
According to Richards there
are three objective to write, ‘The Practical criticism’.
· To introduce a new kind of
documentation.
· To provide new Technique.
· To prepare the why for educational
method.
In his
methodology, a lot of importance is given to the “words”. Richards provide the
theoretical foundations on which the technique of verbal was built.
According to I.A.Richards language
can be used in two ways, i.c. the scientific use and the emotive one. Two uses
of Language shows the scientific way is precise, clear and matter of fact, but
in poetry, one can make use of fiction and the author says that truth in a work
of art means only the internal necessity or rightness of the work of art.
According to him the poets
writes to communicate, and language is the means of that communication language
is made of words and hence a study of words is all important it the meaning of
work of art is understood.
Aim:
Richards says “I have set
three aims before me in constructing this book.” And then says that “First, to
introduce a new kind of documentation to those who are interested in the
contemporary state of culture whether as critics, philosophers, as teacher as
psychologists, or merely as curious person.
Richards’ work we can see
that literary criticism factual, scientific and complete. It no longer remains
matter of the application of set rules or mere “intuition” or impressions. His
critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation have exercised considerable
influence on the new critics everywhere. His approach towards criticism is
pragmatic and empirical.
The Importance of Words:
A study of his practical
criticism together with his work ‘The Meaning of Meaning’ his interested in
verbal and textual analysis.
Meaning of a word depends upon four
factors these are:
1)
Sense:
It meant some that communicated the
plain literal meaning of the words.
2)
Feeling:
It’s refer to the emotions, emotional
attitude like that pleasure, unpleasure and the rest.
3)
Tone:
The
writer use of words and arranges them keeping in minds the taste of his
readers. Feeling is only state of mind.
4)
Intention:
Intention
controls the emphasis, shapes the arrangement, or draws attention to something
of importance.
Richards says “original language may have been almost
pure emotive that is to say a means of expressing feeling about situation, a
means of expressing impersonal attitude and a means of bringing about concerted
action.”
In the poem every words is very importance because
every word has different meaning in different reader.
Figurative Language:
Richards ‘methodology is a scientific one.
His approach is specifically, inductive. Richards lays out the 13 poem together
with the students responses to them, all this with a view to documenting the
sheer variety and divergence of their interpretations of the very same work.
In Figurative Language critical
commentary-causes of misunderstanding. The distraction of meter, Intuitive
versus over-literal reading, Literalism and metaphor, poetic liberty, Mixture
in metaphor, personification, reason for advantages of dangers of critical
comparison. The diversity of aims in poetry.
v Sources of Misunderstanding in
poetry:
According
to Richards there are four sources of misunderstanding of poetry. His control
of thought is ordinary his chief means to the control of our feeling and in the
immense majority of instances we misread his sense. This element of truth in
them makes them most deceptive and misleading. The reader may fail to
understand the sense of the poet because he is ignorance poet’s sense.
v The Value of Figurative Language:
Poets
use a figurative language, and this use of poetic figures poses a number of
difficult and interesting problems. This power and value of figurative
language, as well as problems and difficulties of figurative language in
general, can be better appreciated by a study of a few concrete examples.
v Mixed Metaphors:
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 the fire and water types as it
certainly is in the passage concerned. The mixture must not be of the fire and
water like ‘woven’ does not mix well with sea and lightening.
Figurative Language:
The critic is the right
in pointing out, that if down were
there, night and night’s lighting would not be present. But all such
explanations are not sufficient to justify the presence of dawn in the poem.
According to Richards language can be used in two ways, i.e. the scientific use
and the emotive one. Two uses of language shows the scientific way is precise,
clear and matter of fact, but in poetry one can make use of fiction and the
author says that truth in a work of art means only the internal necessity or
rightness of the work of art.
The Value off
personification:
Personification
in the poem, amounts to a general objection to all personification and,
therefore, deserves to be considered at length. It is so in the history of the
race and in the individual biography. No wonder that if what we have to say
about inanimate from only appropriate if strict sense is our sole consideration
to persons and human relation.
Comparative criticism:
Richards
warns his reader poet and against the dangers of over simple forms of
‘Comparative Criticism’. A critic has compared the Shelley is clear in the
conception.
When
after five verses of antics chiefly concerned with the could itself in its
afternoon dissolution, he cuts the personification down, mixture his metaphors
to reflect its incoherence and finally.
Conclusion:
We
can say that, a proper understanding of figurative language needs closer study.
Its literal sense must be carefully followed, but such literal reading must not
come in the way of an imagination appreciation of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment