TIP OF THE DAY 112: Speaking with style - figures of emphasis
I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day
QUESTION: Give some examples of the tagging of figures of emphasis in the Bible.
ANSWER: Drawn from the list of common Biblical figures and tropes shared earlier.
Hyperbole: Exaggeration for effect
Example: Lamentations 3:48
figureofSpeech:(description:Exaggeration AND name:Hyperbole)
Litotes: Understatement for emphasis
Example: Genesis 18:27
figureofSpeech:(description:Demeaning AND name:Tapeinosis)
Pleonasm: Using more words than necessary for emphasis
Example: Psalm 40:8
figureofSpeech:(description:Redundancy AND name:Pleonasm)
Note how the translation may lose the figure of speech and therefore the emphasis intended by it.
Epizeuxis: Immediate repetition of words
Example: Matthew 5:37
figureofSpeech:(description:Duplication AND name:Epizeuxis)
Climax: Arrangement in order of increasing importance
Example: Joel 1:4
figureofSpeech:(description:Gradation AND name:Climax)
QUESTION: What subdivisions does Bullinger make in the figure of pleonasm?
ANSWER: from Bullinger, Ethelbert William. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898.
This figure is used to set forth the subject more fully by repeating it in other, sometimes in opposite, terms. What is first expressed affirmatively is sometimes repeated negatively, and vice versa. It is also used for the purpose of marking the emphasis; or, for intensifying the feeling; or, for enhancing in some way what has been already said. The term pleonastic may therefore be applied to all similar figures of repetition or addition. But we have endeavoured to classify them according to the object in view in the repetition; whether it be definition, or interpretation, or for mere emphasis by amplification, etc.
We have reserved the term pleonasm for this latter class, where what is said is immediately after put in another or opposite way to make it impossible for the sense to be missed; and thus to emphasize it.
The figure may affect words, or sentences. We have therefore arranged the examples as follows:—
I.Words.
1.Certain idiomatic words.
2.Other words.
II.Sentences.
1.Affirmative.
2.Negative.[1]
QUESTION: What is the relationship of emphasis as identified in classical rhetoric and emphasis as identified in modern discourse analysis?
SOFTWARE: This form of question is one we should ask with many of our current tools – how does it skew our attention away from what the original audience would have as their interpretation.
ANSWER: from Perplexity:
The relationship between emphasis in classical rhetoric and modern discourse analysis reveals both continuities and significant shifts in focus. While both approaches recognize the importance of emphasis in communication, they differ in their conceptualization and application.
Classical Rhetoric's Approach to Emphasis
In classical rhetoric, emphasis was primarily viewed as a tool for persuasion and effective communication. Key aspects include:
Stylistic Devices: Classical rhetoricians used various figures of speech and tropes to create emphasis. These were seen as ornamental yet integral to the argument's effectiveness.
Three Levels of Style: Emphasis was achieved through the appropriate use of plain, middle, or grand styles, each serving different purposes (instructing, delighting, or moving the audience).
Speaker-Centric: The focus was largely on how the speaker could use emphasis to persuade or influence the audience.
Modern Discourse Analysis' Approach to Emphasis
Modern discourse analysis takes a broader, more contextual view of emphasis:
Functional Role: Emphasis is seen as serving a primary or functional role in communication, rather than just an ornamental one.
Context-Driven: Modern rhetoric emphasizes the importance of situational context in understanding and analyzing emphasis.
Audience-Centric: There's a shift towards considering how the audience interprets and responds to emphasis, rather than just how the speaker employs it.
Key Differences and Similarities
1. Purpose:
Classical: Emphasis for persuasion and oratory excellence.
Modern: Emphasis as a tool for effective communication and understanding.
2. Scope:
Classical: Primarily focused on spoken and written discourse.
Modern: Expanded to include various forms of communication, including visual and symbolic.
3. Analysis:
Classical: Prescriptive, offering rules and techniques for effective emphasis.
Modern: More descriptive, analyzing how emphasis functions in real-world contexts.
4. Theoretical Framework:
Classical: Based on a more unified view of society and human nature.
Modern: Acknowledges a fragmented society and diverse audience perspectives.
5. Continuity:
Both approaches recognize the importance of emphasis in shaping meaning and influencing audience reception.
In conclusion, while classical rhetoric viewed emphasis primarily as a tool for persuasion within a more structured framework, modern discourse analysis sees it as an integral part of the communicative process, shaped by and shaping the context in which it occurs. This shift reflects broader changes in our understanding of communication, society, and human cognition.2
[1] Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 405–406.
2 and https://ivypanda.com/essays/classical-and-modern-rhetoric/ and and https://www.jstor.org/stable/374944 and and https://historicalperformance.dikmans.net/rhetoric-an-overview and and https://www.cram.com/essay/Classical-And-Modern-Rhetoric-Analysis/A77EF57ECA811BED and and https://www.britannica.com/topic/rhetoric/Toward-a-new-rhetoric https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300448808_The_Relation_between_Dialectic_and_Rhetoric_in_a_Classical_and_a_Modern_Perspective
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."