Words and Meaning

Locke claims that language often fails us. Our own attempts to communicate our beliefs and feelings to others is clouded by a level of inherent disconnect. In Ong’s, “The Writer’s Audience is Always Fiction”, Ong explains how the author (the communicator) often tries to directly appeal to their implied audience. In analyzing what Locke has to say about language, one can further understand Ong makes the direct appeal to authors to disregard their intended audience and rather, just write their own experience to the best of their ability. Ong believes that this is the best way to actually transmit message and discover meaning. Understanding what Locke has to say about language and meaning, are Ong’s claims reasonable? More importantly, how does Locke’s idea of language translate into Ong’s rhetorical strategy?

Locke argues that language helps to create an understanding of the world as a specific individual experiences it (Locke, 817). For those accepting a message through speech, the reception allows us to derive meaning and establish empathy for others. For our establish society, language is the best way to transmute to others objects and beliefs. This is a process through which a signifier, that being the actual utterance of words, gives an established understand of a signified, that being the actual object or belief being discussed (Locke, 821). This is really a crucial part of Locke’s argument for the incompleteness of language. There’s room for so many errors in regards to inherent disconnect in understanding of the signified, signifier, and intended meaning. Locke, in essence, argues that the intended message of the orator will never be understood in full (Locke, 822). There are barriers to understanding like life experience, articulation of message, and method of communication, for example.

Use of language is an imperfect practice in which we often fall short of our intended meaning (Locke, 822). Ong understands language as a method through which an author can convey meaning and intention to the public (Ong 20). With this in mind, Ong believes there will always be a natural disconnect between the author and the audience that’s derived from life experience. Ong discusses the fact that authors usually place stock in their implied or intended audience, the group that they believe their message will hold resonance with (Ong, 12). Considering the falsity of language, recognizing a subset of individuals, as an “intended audience” doesn’t necessarily mean that your specific message will hold significance within that community. There’s still a large area of possible disengagement. This is why Ong suggests to writers not to even consider who they are intending to reach. There’s no guarantee that they will be able to effectively communicate to that specific audience. If, as Locke suggests, we use language to, principally, expound on the world in front of us and we see it, who’s to say that the implied audience is able to comprehend your own definition of an experience?

Ong explains that language sets the scene for writing (Ong, 15). It is through word choice and explanation that the reader starts to paint the visuals of the written source in their own imaginations. Whether they visualize characters or setting differently, there’s never an exact transmission of ideas from the author to the reader. There will always be differences derived from exposition. Locke points to how some of these differences are highlighted through the example of the word “gold” (Locke, 821). The usage of the word, “gold” invokes different imagery in different individuals. Ong points to this in his own explanation of scene setting by the author via language (Ong, 15). The author is able to further address complex ideas and imagery through the art of their own storytelling. It is the unique voice of the author and their own capabilities through language and word choice that is able to excite emotion and stir a reaction from the audience. Locke believes that language allows for a synthesis of complex ideas such as religion and philosophy (Locke, 821). The art of storytelling and, for further example, the usage of symbolism point to widely accepted examples of signification in process. While we might not all agree exactly on what is meant symbolically by the author, it’s still expressive.

Ong’s understanding of language allows for freedom in interpretation. Like Locke, there’s an inherent belief that meaning derived from language varies from individual to individual. There’s still power in the message. There’s still potential to invoke emotion and a call to action. It’s through language that we comprehend and probe the world around us.

-Kiernan Doyle