TIP OF THE DAY 117: Speaking with style - structural figures; toledots; critical discourse analysis

MJ. Smith

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 structural figures in the Bible.

ANSWER: Drawn from the list of common Biblical figures and tropes shared earlier.

Acrostic: Verses or sections starting with successive alphabet letters

Example: Psalms 111, 112

figureofSpeech:(description:Acrostic AND name:Acrostichion)

Ps. 111—The acrostic here is perfect. The Psalm has twenty-two lines, which commence successively with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Ps. 112 is formed on precisely the same model, and the two Psalms form a pair, Ps. 111 being occupied with Jehovah and Ps. 112 with the man that feareth Jehovah. They may be thus compared—the letters marking the Correspondence (q.v.).[1]

Inclusio or epanadiplosis: Beginning and ending a section with similar words

Example: Genesis 9:3

figureofSpeech:(description:Encircling AND name:Epanadiplosis)

Gen. 9:3.—“Everything (נל) moving that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you everything.” Here the first, according to our English idiom, is every, while the last means the whole.[2]

Chiasmus: Inverted parallelism in word or thought order

Example: Isaiah 6:10

figureofSpeech:(description:Inversion AND name:Epanodos)

figureofSpeech:(description:"Parallel Lines" AND name:Parallelism)

Merism: Expressing totality by mentioning parts

Example: Galatians 5:22-23

figureofSpeech:(description:Distribution AND name:Merismos)

Hendiadys: Expressing a single idea using two words

Philippians 1:25

figureofSpeech:(description:"Two for One" AND name:Hendiadys)

QUESTION: What are the toldots (structural element) of Genesis?

SOFTWARE: Search for toldot in Biblical commentaries.

ANSWER: Coats, George W. Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Vol. 1. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983.

Toledoth (Generationenverzeichnis-). “These are the generations of.…” A demonstrative pronoun, ’ēlleh introduces the technical term tôlĕdôt and the context of the generation is named. Functions to head a story or larger unit of stories about the subject of the formula. (Gen 2:4a; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1, 9; 37:2)[3]

from Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

[2:]4 Here one encounters the first of ten appearances of the formula These are the generations of (Heb. ʾēlleh tôleḏôṯ) in Genesis (see also 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2; cf. 5:1 for a variant of the formula [“this is the book of the generations of Adam”]). This first one differs from the others in that it describes the generations of the heavens and the earth while the others introduce either the descendants of some person or a narrative about some person (e.g., Noah, sons of Noah/Terah/Ishmael/Isaac/Esau/Jacob). While something like “offspring, descendants” would fit many of the last nine, it may seem strange to refer to the “offspring” or “children” of the universe, but that is expressly what Gen. 2:4 intends.[4]

From Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Edited by Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, Bernhard W. Anderson, and James L. Mays. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised Edition. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972. [2:4a] The statement in ch. 2:4a is difficult. The formula is common in Genesis as a title (chs. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). Here, however, the passage cannot be a title; the formula is Priestly. Another difficulty arises from the use of the word tōledōt in this verse, for the word means “family tree,” “genealogy,” literally, “generations.” We assume that the formula, which represents a kind of chapter division in the Priestly document, was subsequently added to the chapter on creation because of the need for system. It then was used in this story with the figurative sense of “story of origin.” Since, however, the beginning of the chapter was canonically fixed, the interpolator had to be satisfied with adding the statement as a concluding word. For a further discussion of the problem, which is connected with the origin of the entire Priestly document, see the commentary at ch. 5:1.[5]

From Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. New Updated Edition. New York; London: Yale University Press, 1993.

Matthew begins his work with a title (1:1): “The birth record [biblos geneseōs] of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” We are immediately reminded of similar titles or formulas found in Gen 2:4a; 5:1; and 6:9. The closest of these in wording to Matt 1:1 is that of Gen 5:1: “The record of the genesis [biblos geneseōs; Hebrew sēper tôledôt] of Adam,” a formula that, as we saw, introduces the Noah story even as Matthew’s formula introduces the Jesus story. But there is a major difference. The genealogy in Gen 5 leads from Adam to Noah, for the genealogy of Adam is a genealogy of his descendants, while the genealogy of Jesus is a genealogy of his ancestors. In Christian salvific history there can be no genealogy of Jesus’ descendants because history has reached its goal in Jesus.[6]

QUESTION: How does critical discourse analysis deal with figures of speech?

ANSWER: from ChatGPT:

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approaches figures of speech not merely as stylistic flourishes but as linguistic tools embedded in power structures, ideology, and social context. CDA treats figures of speech as devices that shape meaning, frame discourse, and influence how individuals perceive reality. Below is a detailed account of how CDA addresses figures of speech:

1. Identifying Figures of Speech as Discursive Strategies

CDA focuses on how figures of speech (e.g., metaphor, irony, hyperbole) function as discursive strategies to achieve broader ideological or rhetorical goals.

Example:In political discourse, metaphors such as "the war on drugs" frame the issue as a battle, invoking militaristic ideas that legitimize aggressive policies.

2. Metaphor Analysis

Metaphor is a central focus in CDA because it shapes thought and action by framing abstract concepts in terms of familiar, concrete domains (as per Lakoff and Johnson’s Conceptual Metaphor Theory).

Process in CDA:

Identify metaphors in the text.

Analyze the source domain (the metaphor’s origin) and target domain (the concept being described).

Examine how the metaphor frames reality and aligns with ideological goals.

Example:

Metaphor: "Taxpayers are shouldering the burden of welfare."

Analysis: The metaphor "shouldering the burden" constructs welfare as a heavy weight, framing recipients as dependent and taxpayers as suffering, which reinforces neoliberal critiques of welfare programs.

3. Hyperbole and Understatement

CDA examines exaggerated or minimized statements as tools for emphasizing certain viewpoints or downplaying others.

Example:

Hyperbole: "Immigrants are flooding the country."

Analysis: The use of "flooding" evokes fear and constructs immigration as a natural disaster, shaping perceptions toward stricter border control.

Understatement: "There have been some difficulties in managing the conflict."

Analysis: Downplaying the severity of conflict can obscure responsibility or diminish accountability.

4. Irony and Satire

Irony and satire are studied in CDA as means of resistance or subversion, as well as tools for reinforcing dominant ideologies.

Example:

In media coverage, ironic commentary like "What a success story this war has been!" (spoken in criticism of prolonged military intervention) can challenge official narratives.

CDA explores how such irony works to delegitimize authority or expose contradictions in discourse.

5. Personification

Figures of speech like personification are analyzed for how they animate abstract entities, giving them agency to influence public perception.

Example:

Text: "The market demands austerity."

Analysis: By personifying "the market," the statement deflects accountability from policymakers and frames austerity as inevitable and impersonal.

6. Examining Power Dynamics

CDA connects the use of figures of speech to issues of power, control, and inequality. It explores how figures of speech can:

Normalize dominant ideologies.

Marginalize alternative perspectives.

Reinforce social hierarchies or inequalities.

Example:

Figure: Euphemism (a type of understatement).

Text: "Collateral damage" (used to describe civilian casualties in war).

Analysis: Euphemism depersonalizes harm, minimizing ethical concerns and legitimizing military action.

7. Framing and Ideological Effects

Figures of speech are analyzed for their role in framing issues and setting the terms of debate.

Example:

Metaphor: "Economic migrants are parasites."

Analysis: This metaphor constructs migrants as harmful and exploitative, shaping public discourse in ways that justify anti-immigration policies.

8. Intertextuality and Historical Context

CDA often situates figures of speech within broader discursive traditions, exploring their historical or intertextual roots.

Example:

Metaphor: "Axis of evil" (used by George W. Bush).

Analysis: CDA links this metaphor to Cold War rhetoric, showing how it draws on older ideological frameworks to frame certain nations as threats.

9. Reception and Social Impact

CDA examines how audiences interpret and respond to figures of speech, particularly in terms of their capacity to reinforce or challenge dominant discourses.

Example:

In environmental discourse, hyperbolic language such as "We’re killing the planet!" might mobilize activism among some audiences while alienating others.

10. Multimodal Discourse Analysis

In cases where figures of speech are embedded in multimodal texts (e.g., political speeches, advertisements, or propaganda), CDA explores their interaction with visual, auditory, or spatial elements.

Example:

An image of a melting polar bear alongside the phrase "The ice is crying" personifies nature and uses visual metaphor to evoke urgency about climate change.

Conclusion

CDA treats figures of speech as integral tools in constructing, perpetuating, and challenging ideological frameworks. The analysis focuses not only on identifying the rhetorical device but also on understanding its social, cultural, and political implications within specific contexts. By doing so, CDA reveals how language both reflects and shapes power relations in society.

q.v. Which see.

[1] Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 182.

[2] Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 245.

[3] George W. Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, vol. 1, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 322.

[4] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 150–151.

[5] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, ed. Peter Ackroyd et al., trans. John H. Marks, Revised Edition, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972), 63.

[6] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, New Updated Edition. (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1993), 66–67.