Assignment - 4 : Figurative Language and Reader Response: I. A. Richards’s Approach to Literary Understanding
Table of Contents :
Assignment Details:-
Topic:- Figurative Language and Reader Response: I. A. Richards’s Approach to Literary Understanding
Submitted to:- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar
Date of Submission:- 17 April,2025
Abstract :
This paper explores I. A. Richards’s approach to literary understanding with a focus on figurative language and its impact on reader response. Drawing primarily on Practical Criticism, the study examines how metaphor, imagery, and other non-literal language forms challenge and shape interpretation. Using insights from Robert E. Shafer, Louis Mackey, and John W. Burton, the analysis highlights how figurative language not only reveals individual reader tendencies—such as misreading, emotional bias, and doctrinal rigidity—but also serves as a vital mechanism for constructing meaning. The paper argues that figurative language lies at the core of literary engagement, influencing how readers navigate sense and feeling, and reinforcing Richards’s educational emphasis on disciplined and reflective reading.
Key Words Reader response, language, interinanimation, interpretation.
Introduction :
I. A. Richards's Practical Criticism (1929) stands as a foundational work in modern literary theory, offering an empirical approach to understanding how readers engage with texts. At the heart of Richards's project is the reader's struggle with figurative language—metaphor, simile, imagery, and other non-literal forms—which, he observed, often caused confusion and misinterpretation. Through an analysis of reader responses to poetry, Richards identified figurative language as both a tool of artistic power and a site of cognitive difficulty. Drawing on critical discussions by Robert E. Shafer, Louis Mackey, and John W. Burton, this assignment explores Richards’s insights into figurative language, its effect on reader comprehension, and its role in shaping the reading experience.
The Empirical Method of Practical Criticism :
Richards's Practical Criticism originated in an experiment in which he presented Cambridge students with anonymous poems and asked for their written interpretations. The responses revealed vast differences in reader understanding, and the primary cause of confusion was often figurative language. As Shafer notes, Richards identified several obstacles to comprehension: failure to grasp the "plain sense" of poetry, difficulty with rhythm and sound, misinterpretation of imagery, and an inability to handle metaphor and symbol (Shafer 102). These findings exposed the gap between poetic intention and reader interpretation.
By analyzing these difficulties, Richards sought to develop a more precise and effective educational method for teaching reading and literary appreciation. His approach emphasized close reading, attention to context, and awareness of emotional and intellectual responses—skills necessary for handling figurative language.
Figurative Language as Central to Meaning :
Louis Mackey’s examination of Richards in Theory and Practice in the Rhetoric of I. A. Richards provides deeper philosophical grounding for Richards's treatment of figurative language. Mackey explains Richards's opposition to the "Proper Meaning Superstition"—the idea that words have fixed, context-independent meanings. For Richards, words derive their meaning from use, context, and interaction with other words. This view aligns with his notion of "interinanimation," where the meaning of each word in a sentence is shaped by its relationship with the others (Mackey 55).
This theory has profound implications for figurative language. Metaphor, in particular, illustrates how meaning is fluid and context-dependent. As Mackey observes, for Richards, metaphor is not merely a rhetorical flourish but "the omnipresent principle of language". The interplay of tenor and vehicle in a metaphor reflects the dynamic process by which language creates meaning. Figurative language becomes the means through which abstract ideas, emotions, and complex experiences are articulated.
Reader Response and Misinterpretation :
Richards’s analysis revealed that many readers misread figurative language because of psychological, emotional, or educational limitations. Shafer identifies several such interpretive pitfalls, including:
Stock Responses: Preconceived emotional reactions that override the poem’s specific intent.
Doctrinal Adhesions: Rigid beliefs that cause readers to reject or misread poetic expressions.
Mnemonic Irrelevancies: Personal memories that distort understanding.
Sentimentality and Inhibition: Emotional excess or suppression that interferes with balanced interpretation.
Richards argued that these difficulties are especially evident when readers encounter metaphors or symbols that challenge their expectations. Figurative language, by nature, resists straightforward interpretation. It demands that readers move beyond literalism and engage with ambiguity, emotional resonance, and tonal nuance.
For example, a metaphor might evoke imagery or emotional associations that differ significantly between readers. Richards emphasized the importance of recognizing that such responses must be evaluated in light of the poem’s purpose, tone, and internal logic—not merely through personal resonance or factual accuracy.
Figurative Language and the Philosophy of Language :
Mackey highlights how Richards’s theory of language as context-dependent aligns with a broader linguistic idealism. Meaning is not a static property but an effect produced by context, intention, and the reader's interpretive act. Words do not stand for things directly; they stand in for them, drawing on "delegated efficacy" from context.
This understanding redefines how figurative language functions. A metaphor becomes an act of meaning-making rather than a decorative comparison. Richards's example of metaphor as a "plant that grows" captures the organic, evolving nature of meaning. In this view, reading is not decoding a fixed message but participating in the co-creation of meaning through linguistic interaction.
Richards's insights anticipate later developments in semiotics and deconstruction. Yet, unlike Derrida, Richards maintains a pragmatic commitment to communication. He acknowledges the instability of meaning but insists on the value of critical discipline to manage that instability.
Figurative Language in Cultural Contexts: Burton’s Perspective :
John W. Burton's anthropological study of Atuot ox-songs offers a compelling complement to Richards's theory. Burton shows how figurative language operates as a social and cultural tool. In Atuot society, ox-songs use metaphor to express personal identity, social values, and collective memory. Each performer composes songs using symbolic language that both conceals and reveals personal meaning. As Burton notes, the use of metaphor allows individuals to define themselves socially while participating in a shared aesthetic tradition .
This use of figurative language mirrors Richards’s belief that metaphors shape both individual perception and communal understanding. Just as Atuot singers employ metaphor to express identity, readers of literature use figurative language to interpret emotional, ethical, and intellectual experiences. Burton’s observation that metaphors in ox-songs are not just expressive but formative aligns with Richards’s view that figurative language defines how we perceive and understand the world.
Pedagogical Implications: Training the Reader :
Richards’s ultimate goal was educational. He believed that students could learn to read better by understanding how language works—especially figurative language. To do so, readers must develop what Richards called "balanced reading": a capacity to integrate sense (literal understanding) with feeling (emotional and tonal response).
Shafer emphasizes that Richards’s work offers a framework for teaching students to recognize and overcome their interpretive biases. By identifying the typical errors readers make, educators can develop methods to train attention, foster critical awareness, and build interpretive flexibility. Figurative language, as the most challenging yet rewarding aspect of literary style, becomes central to this training.
Reading, in Richards’s view, is not passive reception but active interpretation. Figurative language is where this interpretive activity is most visible. It forces the reader to slow down, reflect, and ask: What does this mean? Why is it said this way? What is the effect?
Conclusion :
I. A. Richards’s approach to literary understanding through Practical Criticism foregrounds the essential role of figurative language in shaping reader response. Figurative language is not merely decorative or secondary; it is the crucible in which meaning, feeling, and interpretation are forged. As readers grapple with metaphors, symbols, and other non-literal forms, they reveal their interpretive habits, assumptions, and capabilities.
Through the insights of Shafer, Mackey, and Burton, we see how figurative language connects personal response with cultural meaning, individual perception with communal understanding. Richards’s legacy lies in showing us that reading literature is a profoundly human activity—one that engages our intellect, emotion, and imagination in the search for meaning. To read well, then, is to read figuratively, with a mind attuned to the richness, ambiguity, and potential of language.
Word Count : 2070
Images : 2
References :
Burton, John W. “Figurative Language and the Definition of Experience: The Role of Ox-Songs in Atuot Social Theory.” Anthropological Linguistics, vol. 24, no. 3, 1982, pp. 263–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027843. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.
.jfif)
No comments:
Post a Comment