WHAT DO YOU MEAN: A

BRIEF LOOK AT OGDEN By

Ms. Qurat Ul Ann

AND RICHARDS’ THEORY

OF MEANING
“He who knows does not speak, he who speaks
does not know.”
THEORIES MADE TO ANSWER….
How we communicate?
Why we choose the methods we do?
One such scholar, I.A. Richards analyzed human communication
and co-formulated a theory known as the “Theory of Meaning”
(Ogden and Richards, 1927).
Ogden and Richards’ theory attempts to not only describe the
approaches humans take when communicating, but also to
understand how communication is “lost” when not done correctly.
IVOR ARMSTRONG
RICHARDS
Ivor Armstrong Richards was born in England in 1893, and
died in 1979. His interest in language and meaning was
awakened by Charles Kay Ogden (1889 - 1957). Together,
they wrote the book "The Meaning of Meaning" in 1923.
Richards was largely influenced by Francis Bacon's idols of
the market place. Bacon's belief that language functions as a
potential barrier to understanding led Richards to view
rhetoric as a study of misunderstanding and its remedies.
Therefore, understanding and how words come to mean
became one of Richards' chief concerns.
WHAT IS THEORY?
Generally speaking, in science, a theory is centered on a
single idea, which the theoretician wishes to provide an
answer. Usually, there is only one component to the
theory being generated, that being the single idea that is in
question or needs to be explained.
 WHAT IS THEORY ACCORDING TO OGDEN
&RICHARDS
Unlike traditional scientists, Ogden and Richards take a completely
different approach in developing their theory. Rather than focus on a single
idea upon which to base the theory, they deconstruct the idea into many
parts, thus creating a multi-faceted theory to explain communication
behaviors.
The facets explored by Ogden and Richards include:
1. “Meaning Theory,”
2. “Definition Theory,”
3. “Symbol Theory.”
 “THEORY OF MEANING”
The “Theory of Meaning” is a concept that has been present in communication since
the first humans learned to communicate.
As communicators, we are aware that nearly everything we say has meaning on some
level to ourselves as well as those we share our words with.
The fundamental difference between how we previously looked at meaning and how
Ogden and Richards look at it is that many scholars argue that for every word, there
is a single, correct meaning associated with it (Craig Online, 2002).
Ogden and Richards counter this claim with their theory of “Proper Meaning
Superstition,” which states that there is not a single “correct” meaning associated
with each and every word because each word means something different to each
person, or more simply, meanings don’t reside in words, they reside in people
(Erickstad, 1998).
 FOR EXAMPLE
Consider, for example, the word “cold”.
Since there are variations in word meaning among people, if one were to ask
someone
What the word cold means?
He or she would likely get a response pertaining to a condition in temperature.
However, consider the advent of slang and, again, ask someone what the word
cold means and one could receive a response pertaining to types of attitudes
expressed toward other people or objects.
Now, consider the previous example spread throughout the languages of the
world and one could perceive the problem of meaning and how there can be
no single “correct” meaning for any word.
 “DEFINITION THEORY”
In order to correct the problems associated with “Meaning Theory,”.
Ogden and Richards developed “Definition Theory.” It is imperative for
one to understand that when a person speaks, the words he or she chooses
mean different things to different people. One may agree that a term best
suited to describe this condition is ambiguity. According to Ogden and
Richards, the best way to solve the ambiguity problem is to provide a
definition of various terms or concepts (Erickstad, 1998). This can be
accomplished in many ways. One might choose to offer an explicit
definition of the term or concept being used, or he or she could opt to use
the term in such a way as to project the definition through the combination
of other words that share the same universal meaning.
For instance, if a speaker stated that another person was cold, based on the example
dealing with meaning, two inferences could be drawn.
 First, one could assume that the person being discussed is physically, or
temperately, cold. Similarly, one could infer that the person has projected an attitude
that is undesirable toward another person or object.
 Another option, expressed by Ogden and Richards is the use of metaphor. Metaphors
aid in the creation of definitions by forming a link between the word or idea and an
experience he or she and the audience may share. If the speaker were to either define
the term or use other words to “prop” up the definition with the use of metaphor, the
meaning becomes clear. For instance, if the speaker stated that he or she has spoken
to another person who always emits a negative demeanor in conversation and that his
or her attitude appears cold the meaning is evident.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE “SYMBOL THEORY”
Finally, Ogden and Richards developed the “Symbol Theory” in order to explain how
words expressed in communication evoke images, thus providing a personal meaning
based on experience. Symbols are inherently arbitrary by themselves, however, when
used in conjunction with one another, meaning is created for the ideas being
expressed. Problems in communication arise when people attempt to communicate
through the use of arbitrary words because they have no exact or clear meaning.
Words are variables that can assume different meanings depending on the context in
which they are used (Erickstad, 1998). A good example of a symbol is text. Text, by
itself, is meaningless, as it draws no relation to anything outside itself. However, when
we combine text with a word and even a picture, we create a workable definition
from which to operate. This is the fundamental principle behind Ogden and Richards’
theory.
CATEGORIZATION OF MEANINGS IN TERMS OF
SIGNS AND SYMBOLS
Ogden and Richards categorize meanings in terms of signs and symbols where signs
are natural representations of something beyond themselves, such as a sound,
whereas symbols are specialized types of signs, such as text (Cahill, 1998).
 In both cases, signs and symbols are meaningless unto themselves. Consider the word
“cat.”
 Alone, the word has no meaning, as it does not resemble what we perceive to be a
cat, nor does it possess any direct link to the sounds or behaviors of a cat, as we
know it, thus the word is merely an arbitrary symbol. Ogden and Richards use the
idea of “natural association” to link signs and symbols with actual objects such as a
cat (Cahill, 1998).
 In order to illustrate his point that there is a direct relationship between symbols and
thought, Ogden and Richards created the “Semantic Triangle.” The triangle is a
simple model in which the three factors involved with the statement or idea are
placed in the corners and the relationships between them are represented by the
sides (Ogden and Richards, 1927, p. 10).
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IDEA WORKS IS AS
FOLLOWS:
THE TRIANGLE
One peak of the triangle would be the symbol (a word). Another peak would be a thought,
such as words to describe the symbol. Finally, the image we create in our minds would become
the referent. Through the use of the Semantic Triangle, Ogden and Richards believe they have
found a way to connect all words to their meaning (Erickstad, 1998). There are relationships
between all three factors, represented by the sides of the triangle. The relationship between
the thought and symbol are causal, meaning the symbol evokes an attitude or a proposed
effect on another person. Similarly, there is a relationship between the thought and the
referent, though the relationship can be either direct, such as something we can see in front of
us, or indirect, such as an image or idea about something we have seen in another instance.
Finally, the relationship between the symbol and the referent is purely indirect in that it is an
arbitrary relationship created by someone who wishes the symbol to represent the referent
(Ogden and Richards, 1927, p. 11). As demonstrated by the illustration above, the word
“dog” is associated in the mind of the reader as a particular animal. The word is not the
animal, but the association links the two, thus all three elements are required in an irreducible
triad for the signs to operate correctly (Littlejohn, 2002).
 A unique and fascinating quality of Ogden and Richards’ theory is that it implies
meaning can be arbitrarily exchanged without the need to understand how one
another feels. What this means is that so long as definitions are created that all
parties agree to, feelings regarding those definitions are inconsequential. In fact,
according to Ogden and Richards (1927, p. 15), “Whenever we hear anything said,
we spring spontaneously to an immediate conclusion, namely, that the speaker is
referring to what we should be referring to were we speaking the words ourselves.
 Ogden and Richards’ theories are not flawless, however, and have been challenged
over the years. Some critics cite that while symbols and definitions are important to
communication, there is more to a conversation than merely what a word may mean
to someone (Erickstad, 1998). The critic is speaking of nonverbal communication in
that other factors are at work that can affect what a person means and nonverbal
communication plays a huge role in this area. Even if one were to apply Ogden and
Richards’ “Semantic Triangle” to an interpersonal conversation, it is possible that the
“whole” picture would fall seriously short of capturing all that is meant by one person
and understood by another person. For this reason, the ability to pick up on
nonverbal messages becomes imperative.
An other problem encountered by the critic is that words are left standing by
themselves unless they are spoken in context (Erickstad, 1998). An example of this
was demonstrated previously in the varying meanings for the word “cold.” What,
perhaps, the critic is failing to recognize is that Ogden and Richards have identified
the need to place words in context, thus the creation of “Definition Theory.”
 While one might assume that Ogden and Richards’ theories are not completely
correct, he or she should be able to recognize the truth offered in the theories.
Whether or not Ogden and Richards claim that their theories are the only answers to
the problem of failing communication is a moot point. What is fundamentally more
important is the fact that through the study of Ogden and Richards’ theories, scholars
have been afforded a new avenue from which to view communication behaviors and
thus have been provided a foundation upon which new theories and models can be
formulated. To this end, we might be able to grasp the seemingly infinite number of
facets that affect every level of human interaction through communication and in
many cases form a better understanding of the insurmountable realm of explanations
for these interactions as well as how to best manage them.
Misunderstandings
Figuratives
Misunderstandings

Ogden and Richards argued that a major problem in human communication is a

speaker's tendency to treat words as if they were things in reality. In other words, we
tend to confuse "symbol" or "word" with the thing or object in reality. This led
Richards, in his explanation of the "proper meaning superstition", to refute the
notion that words possess a single meaning. Rather, the meaning of words are
determined by the past (and current) experiences of speakers who encounter these
words in specific literary contexts. Since speakers interpret words with a background
of unique experiences, each and every speaker is bound to interpret the same word in
a unique and different way. Misunderstandings, therefore, result from speakers
having different references for the same symbol. Take, for instance, the symbol
"abortion." This symbol will have different references, and therefore different
meanings for pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
At the heart of Richards' theory of meaning is a device called the "semantic triangle." Each corner of the
triangle corresponds to a component that is integrally involved in the process of meaning.

REFERENCE-- indicates the realm of memory where recollections of past experiences and contexts occur.
REFERENT-- are the objects that are perceived and that create the impression stored in the thought area.
SYMBOL-- is the word that calls up the referent through the mental processes of the reference.
(Ogden & Richards, pp. 9-12)
FIGURATIVES

Richards argues that metaphors are highly effective in facilitating comprehension and
therefore minimizing misunderstandings. Richards describes metaphor as "the use of
one reference to a group of things between which a given relation holds, for the
purpose of facilitating the discrimination of an analogous relation in another group. In
the understanding of metaphorical language one reference borrows part of the
context of another in an abstract form." Since metaphor reveals the relationship
between two disparate objects, it is effective in communicating experiences to others
since the speaker may use the listener's knowledge of one of the objects to impart the
meaning of the second.
"TENOR" AND "VEHICLE"
In discussing metaphors, Richards makes use of two terms--"tenor" and "vehicle."
The tenor refers to the underlying idea or principal subject of the metaphor. The
vehicle conveys the underlying idea, the borrowed idea, or what the tenor resembles.
For example, in "The sun is a red balloon," the tenor is the sun and the vehicle is the
balloon (i.e., characteristics of redness and roundness are being attributed to the sun).
REFERENCES
Cahill, A. (1998). Proper meaning superstition: I.A. Richards. Unpublished research paper,
university of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 27 February 2002,
from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourse/Papers/App_Papers/Cahill.htm
Craig, B. (No Date).The meaning of meaning: I.A. Richards (1893-1979). Unpublished
PowerPoint Slideshow, university of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 27 February 2002, from
http://Colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourse/Theory/richards.htm
Erickstad, J. (1998). Richards’ meaning of meaning theory. Unpublished research paper,
University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 27 February 2002,
from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-
discourse/Papers/App_Papers/Erickstad.htm
Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of human communication (7th ed.). Albuquerque, NM:
Wadsworth.
Ogden, C.K., & Richards, I.A. (1927). Meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
Company.