Richards excerpts were kind of hard to understand. However, after reading it multiple times I started to understand a little bit more of it. It states that a word that stands just by itself cannot be judged properly. The words around it are what give it meaning. The same word can mean completely different things based on how you use it. It says there is no bad or wrong use of a word. In this excerpt its is disproving the assumption that the dictionary definition of the word is the only meaning a word has no matter what the words around it are saying. The meaning of words all depends on how it is interpreted. The entire excerpt is trying to prove that a word having only one fixed meaning is wrong which relates to our studies of remix. You are able to take a word that is said to only mean one thing but then change words around it and create a entirely new meaning, creating a remix.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Richards
“Read and
respond to Richards: In each of these excerpts, what do you think Richards is
saying? What parts are you confused about? How might these readings relate to
our discussion of Remix thus far?”
Richards excerpts were kind of hard to understand. However, after reading it multiple times I started to understand a little bit more of it. It states that a word that stands just by itself cannot be judged properly. The words around it are what give it meaning. The same word can mean completely different things based on how you use it. It says there is no bad or wrong use of a word. In this excerpt its is disproving the assumption that the dictionary definition of the word is the only meaning a word has no matter what the words around it are saying. The meaning of words all depends on how it is interpreted. The entire excerpt is trying to prove that a word having only one fixed meaning is wrong which relates to our studies of remix. You are able to take a word that is said to only mean one thing but then change words around it and create a entirely new meaning, creating a remix.
Richards excerpts were kind of hard to understand. However, after reading it multiple times I started to understand a little bit more of it. It states that a word that stands just by itself cannot be judged properly. The words around it are what give it meaning. The same word can mean completely different things based on how you use it. It says there is no bad or wrong use of a word. In this excerpt its is disproving the assumption that the dictionary definition of the word is the only meaning a word has no matter what the words around it are saying. The meaning of words all depends on how it is interpreted. The entire excerpt is trying to prove that a word having only one fixed meaning is wrong which relates to our studies of remix. You are able to take a word that is said to only mean one thing but then change words around it and create a entirely new meaning, creating a remix.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Richards Blog Post
I think what Richard's is talking about in his article is that how you cannot rely on the dictionary definition of a word alone, because so many other things come into play when trying to give a meaning to a word. For example, a word that we commonly use in America might mean something completely different in another country. Also, the context of the other words around it can give it a completely different meaning. For example, the dictionary definition of the word "mad" usually means that someone is upset about something. But if you use it in the sentence "When Jimmy rides his skateboard he has mad skills" it completely transforms the meaning of the word into something positive. This has a lot to do with what we have been learning about remix because of the way that we use different words and contexts to give alternate meanings to words that are different than the dictionary definitions that we are provided. At some parts the article was hard to follow, but I feel like I got the overall message of what he was trying to say.
When I first started reading Richards' excerpts I was confused as a whole because the way he wrote seemed like he was talking so in depth about meaning and what it means to mean something that he was just going in circles. I really had to slowly read through his writings and look up definitions of words to grasp what he was trying to say.
I think Richards is for using words in a way they were not originally intended to stand for because people give words different meanings even if they are not trying to. Someone could misinterpret a definition and use a word improperly although it makes sense and a remix is born. I think Richards believes words have no meaning or label unless we as humans give them a meaning through communication. There is not a wrong way to use words because the true meaning of the word is ever changing.
I could probably be way off and not even realize it so some analysis on his excerpt could be helpful.
I think Richards is for using words in a way they were not originally intended to stand for because people give words different meanings even if they are not trying to. Someone could misinterpret a definition and use a word improperly although it makes sense and a remix is born. I think Richards believes words have no meaning or label unless we as humans give them a meaning through communication. There is not a wrong way to use words because the true meaning of the word is ever changing.
I could probably be way off and not even realize it so some analysis on his excerpt could be helpful.
Blog post 4
The
General idea behind Richards’ excerpts is that all words are useful when used
well and in the most appropriate contexts and that we should focus on words in
the meaning of its context and not just the standard definition because words
have completely different meanings depending on the contexts in which they are.
The true meaning/s of the word would never be established if we just focus on
the plain dictionary definition.. For example, vernacular in novel vs. academic
tone in a research paper. Also how words such as chilling which is lowering the
temperature of a substance can have totally different meanings like when person
says their chilling which means their just relaxing.
The writer also argues that words do
not carry their meanings into sentences independently and unaffected by their
neighboring word. Therefore one word can mean something to one person and a
completely different meaning to another. Showing that the meaning of the word
is totally based upon the athlete and how he interprets it.
This relates to previous in class discussions on remixes and
assemblages because essentially a sentence is just a bunch of assembled words
with your own twist on it hence the remix.
The reading was quite difficult to understand.
It makes me wonder if the writer could’ve found a more understandable way to
get his point across. Also after reading this theory how will this help us with
our writing strategy
Blog Post 4
The
principal is that there is a correct use for every word. Literary excellence is
when one uses a word in its correct way. The exact meaning or function of a
word cannot be determined when secluded from other words. The writer also
argues against Old forms of Rhetoric study, because, according to the writer, it
had many conflicts.
The writer
states that meanings are decided by how the word is used in a sentence and not
ingrained in the word itself. Words are therefore defined by people,
differently. The excerpts focus on the study of the meanings of words, how
words can be misunderstood, and how to set this right. We can decrease these
misunderstandings by understanding how the meaning of words change in a
conversation. The writer explains how communication is lost when not done
correctly. These problems occur, for instance, when people communicate by using
arbitrary words.
These readings
relate to our discussion as even sentences, consisting of various words and
their meanings, are essentially remixes. The process of copying other words,
combining and transforming them to create new written work, whether the meaning
is intentionally or accidently changed, occurs daily. The relationship between thoughts,
words and things is depicted in the diagram in the reading. Whenever a statement
is made, it can be analysed to have three main factors involved: the symbol,
thought and referent. The relation between a thought and a symbol is described
as “correct”, symbol to reference would be “true”, while thought to referent only
“adequate”. Communication evokes certain images, providing personal meaning
based on experience.
The diagram
and its description depicting the relationship between words, thoughts and
things was particularly confusing to me, but the reading as a whole was
somewhat challenging.
blog 4
“Read and respond to Richards: In each of these excerpts, what do you think Richards is saying?
What parts are you confused about? How might these readings relate to our discussion of Remix thus far?”
The first excerpt is stating the idea that there is no wrong way to use a word. This applies to remixing because it's a process of copying/combining/transforming a piece of literature/art (in this case words) to make a new piece of work. Richards could be arguing that using words in a different way than they normally are is just as good because it's a way of remixing. He believes this is an obvious fact.
The second excerpt was confusing.
"delegated efficacy" means the authority to produce a desired or intended result. Richards says this is the definition of meaning. I think he might be saying that words themselves don't mean anything, they are just the name/label of a meaning. This could be seen as a combination.
The fourth excerpt talks about the meaning of context. It starts with how context is the surrounding text, then includes more information to be context, and takes it to the next level and so on. This can be applied to remix because it seems like all words are a copy, transformation, or combination of how another word affects it.
The fifth excerpt talks about context and delegated efficacy. Context essentially is dependent on delegated efficacy. I didn't really understand the rest of this excerpt.
In the last excerpt he is arguing about the Doctrine of Usage again, and he says that we cannot say there is only one correct way to use a word unless it encompasses " whole how of its successful cooperations with other words, the entire range of the varied powers which, with their aid, it can exert"
The first excerpt is stating the idea that there is no wrong way to use a word. This applies to remixing because it's a process of copying/combining/transforming a piece of literature/art (in this case words) to make a new piece of work. Richards could be arguing that using words in a different way than they normally are is just as good because it's a way of remixing. He believes this is an obvious fact.
The second excerpt was confusing.
"delegated efficacy" means the authority to produce a desired or intended result. Richards says this is the definition of meaning. I think he might be saying that words themselves don't mean anything, they are just the name/label of a meaning. This could be seen as a combination.
The fourth excerpt talks about the meaning of context. It starts with how context is the surrounding text, then includes more information to be context, and takes it to the next level and so on. This can be applied to remix because it seems like all words are a copy, transformation, or combination of how another word affects it.
The fifth excerpt talks about context and delegated efficacy. Context essentially is dependent on delegated efficacy. I didn't really understand the rest of this excerpt.
In the last excerpt he is arguing about the Doctrine of Usage again, and he says that we cannot say there is only one correct way to use a word unless it encompasses " whole how of its successful cooperations with other words, the entire range of the varied powers which, with their aid, it can exert"
blog post 4
I think richards is saying that no word can be looked at as good or bad , correct or incorrect , beautiful or ugly when it is in isolation. Context is the pivitol point of the his argument word given before or after a given word determine how it is to be interpreted. Personally everything that was not highlighted was very hard to understand. I still feel like I understand his main point.I honestly have no idea how this reading relates to our discussion of remix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)