Assignment 109

 Assignment 109 : "Figurative Language as a Mirror of Misunderstanding: A Richardson Study of Reader Response"

This blog is part of an assignment for the paper 109 , "Figurative Language as a Mirror of Misunderstanding: A Richardson Study of Reader Response"

 Personal Information :

Name : Mita Jambucha 

Batch : M.A. Sem 2 ( 2024 - 2026 )

Enrollment Number : 5108240015

E-mail Address : jambucha66919@gmail.com

Roll Number : 16

Assignment Details : 

Unit-1 :- A Richards's The Practical Criticism - Figurative Language

Topic :-  "Figurative Language as a Mirror of Misunderstanding: A Richardson Study of Reader Response"

Paper code:- 22402

Paper - 109: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics

Submitted to:- Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar

Table of contents :

Introduction

I.A. Richards and the Aim of Practical Criticism

The Psychological Role of Figurative Language

Common Misinterpretations: Case Studies from Practical Criticism

Figurative Language and Emotional Response

The Role of Education and Literary Competence

Ethical Implications of Figurative Misleading

Conclusion

References 

Introduction

                                                        

Figurative language—metaphors, similes, symbolism, and other literary devices—has long been a critical element in the way poets express complex ideas and emotions. However, figurative language often introduces ambiguity, which can lead to significant misunderstandings in its interpretation. I.A. Richards, in his groundbreaking work Practical Criticism (1929), proposed that such misreading's are not just trivial mistakes but revealing indicators of the reader’s personal biases, emotional blocks, and educational limitations. Richards conducted a series of experiments using student responses to poems, exploring how figurative language exposed these interpretive barriers.

Through Practical Criticism, Richards demonstrated that figurative language does not just communicate the intended meaning of a poem but often becomes a mirror reflecting the reader’s own cognitive and emotional framework. This paper examines how Richards’s analysis of figurative language illuminates the psychological process behind poetic misunderstanding. Moreover, it explores how figurative language serves not only as a stylistic device but also as a diagnostic tool that reveals the nature of reader engagement with poetry.

I.A. Richards and the Aim of Practical Criticism

Richards's Practical Criticism represents a pioneering effort to investigate the act of reading poetry scientifically. By presenting anonymous poems to students without titles or any information about the author, Richards sought to eliminate external biases and focus solely on the individual reader’s interpretive process. The goal of his experiments was not to identify a "correct" reading of the poem, but to understand why readers misunderstood or misinterpreted it.

Richards identified four kinds of meaning in poetry: sense, tone, feeling, and intention. These layers of meaning interact, and misunderstanding in one aspect often results in a domino effect on the others. Figurative language, in particular, disrupts this harmonious interaction by introducing layers of meaning that the reader must navigate carefully. For example, Richards (1929) points out that metaphors are often misunderstood because readers either take them too literally or completely miss the figurative meaning. As he argues, "the mistake of taking the metaphor as literal is not uncommon, nor is the reverse" (Richards, 1929, p. 125). These mistakes reveal how figurative language serves as a window into the cognitive and emotional processes of the reader.

The Psychological Role of Figurative Language

One of the most significant contributions of Practical Criticism is its focus on the psychological dimensions of reading. Richards argues that metaphor and other forms of figurative language can activate unconscious emotional responses in readers. These responses are not always in line with the poet’s intended meaning, which leads to misinterpretations. For instance, a student might read a poem featuring a crow as an omen of death or doom simply because the crow is traditionally associated with such themes in folklore. This is an example of projecting personal or cultural biases onto the text, which clouds the emotional and cognitive understanding of the poem as a whole.

In Richards’s view, these emotional triggers are a natural consequence of metaphor's power to connect seemingly unrelated concepts. A metaphor like "the darkened sky weeps," for example, evokes an emotional response from the reader because of its association with sorrow and grief. However, if the reader is unaware of the metaphor's full context or cultural resonance, their emotional reaction may become disproportionate or misaligned with the poem’s actual tone and theme. This misalignment is not simply a mistake; it reflects a deeper psychological process at work, highlighting how deeply personal biases and experiences can shape literary interpretation.

Common Misinterpretations: Case Studies from Practical Criticism

Richards’s experiments yielded a wide variety of student responses that revealed common patterns of misunderstanding. One of the most frequent errors involved the failure to recognize metaphor and irony, both of which are central to figurative language in poetry. Many students would take metaphorical expressions literally, or conversely, would fail to recognize when an expression was not meant to be taken at face value.

For example, when presented with the line “love is a gilded cage,” a majority of students interpreted it as a positive statement, associating "gilded" with wealth and luxury. This reading missed the poem’s deeper critique of emotional imprisonment, where "cage" suggests emotional confinement rather than freedom. Such misreading's are indicative of poor figurative understanding. Richards’s study demonstrates how readers, through a combination of literalism and emotional misinterpretation, often miss the subtleties embedded in metaphorical language.

Richards's work emphasizes that these misinterpretations are not random but rather systematic. They highlight the limitations of the reader’s interpretive framework, which may be shaped by personal experiences, emotional needs, or even educational background.

Figurative Language and Emotional Response

Figurative language does more than just convey meaning—it has the power to evoke strong emotional responses from readers. Richards (1929) argues that metaphors often bypass rational thought and directly impact the reader’s emotions. These emotional responses can create confusion or discomfort, especially when the figurative language clashes with the reader’s emotional expectations.

For instance, a poem that uses a metaphor to describe love as both beautiful and painful might create an emotional split in the reader. Some might find themselves drawn to the beauty of love described in the metaphor, while others might feel alienated by its darker, more painful implications. This emotional ambiguity is a hallmark of effective figurative language, but it also leads to misunderstanding if the reader is unable to reconcile these opposing emotions.

Recent studies, such as those by Hidayati (2023), align with Richards’s findings, showing that students frequently struggle with metaphor because it disrupts their emotional comfort zones. Hidayati’s research highlights the confusion and emotional discomfort students experience when metaphors do not meet their emotional expectations, thus reinforcing Richards’s psychological interpretation of figurative language.

(ResearchGate link: Students’ Problem to Interpret Metaphor in Poems)

The Role of Education and Literary Competence

In Practical Criticism, Richards argues that many of the misunderstandings in poetic interpretation arise not from ignorance but from a lack of proper literary education. He suggests that the ability to interpret figurative language effectively is a learned skill that requires training. Misreading metaphors, for instance, can often be traced back to a lack of familiarity with the conventions of poetic language.

Richards’s study underscores the need for a pedagogical approach that encourages students to become more aware of how their emotional responses and biases affect their reading. Proper literary education should teach readers to recognize and navigate figurative language, enabling them to interpret it more effectively. As supported by Sari (2023), students who lack this education often struggle with metaphor because they fail to understand the deeper symbolic meaning behind figurative expressions.

(ResearchGate link: I.A. Richards – Figurative Language – Practical Criticism)

Ethical Implications of Figurative Misreading

Misunderstanding figurative language is not just a cognitive failure; it has ethical implications as well. Richards touches on this idea when he suggests that misreading poetry due to a lack of sensitivity to figurative language can result in oversimplified, reductive interpretations. In doing so, the reader denies the poem its full emotional and intellectual complexity.

In her essay “No Share in Poetry,” Nair (2021) argues that ethical reading involves engaging with the text in a way that resists oversimplification and acknowledges the ambiguity inherent in figurative language. Misunderstanding metaphors can lead to the mischaracterization of ideas or even cultural worldviews, making it crucial for readers to approach figurative language with patience and an openness to multiple interpretations. Richards’s work, in this sense, not only challenges readers to engage with poetry more deeply but also calls for a more ethical approach to literary interpretation.

(Academia.edu link: No Share in Poetry: The Ethics of Figurative Language)

Conclusion

In conclusion, figurative language serves as more than just a tool for conveying meaning; it functions as a psychological mirror that reveals the reader’s emotional state, biases, and interpretive limitations. I.A. Richards’s Practical Criticism remains a foundational text for understanding how misunderstandings of figurative language reflect deeper psychological processes in the reader. Through his experimental approach, Richards exposes the complex interplay between language, emotion, and cognition in the act of reading poetry.

Moreover, contemporary studies and critiques, such as those by Sari (2023) and Nair (2021), continue to extend Richards’s insights, emphasizing the importance of educational and ethical engagement with figurative language. By fostering greater sensitivity to metaphor and other figurative devices, readers can gain a more nuanced and profound understanding of poetry, enriching both their cognitive and emotional experience.

Works Cited

Rahman, Nadia Mustika. “Students’ Problem to Interpret Metaphor in Poems.” ResearchGate, Oct. 2023, www.researchgate.net/publication/374905154_Students’_Problem_to_Interpret_Metaphor_in_Poems. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025.

Barad, Dilip. “I.A. Richards - Figurative Language - Practical Criticism.” Researchgate, Jan. 2024, www.researchgate.net/publication/377146653_IA_Richards_-_Figurative_Language_-_Practical_Criticism. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025.