Style is part of classical rhetoric and a number of rhetorical devices are worth considering in any analysis of style. For the analysis of literature a knowledge of rhetorical devices is indispensable, since there is often a considerable density of rhetorical figures and tropes which are important generators and qualifiers of meaning and effect. This is particularly the case in poetry. Especially the analysis of the use of imagery is important for any kind of literary text. (For further details see Analysing a Metaphor and Symbol).
Figures of speech in classical rhetoric were defined as “a form of speech artfully varied from common usage” (Quintilian, Inst. Orat. IX.i.2). The forms of figurative languages are divided into two main groups: schemes (or figures) and tropes.
Rhetorical schemes describe the arrangement of individual sounds (phonological schemes), the arrangement of words (morphological schemes), and sentence structure (syntactical schemes). Rhetorical tropes are devices of figurative language. They represent a deviation from the common or main significance of a word or phrase (semantic figures) or include specific appeals to the audience (pragmatic figures).
The
following definitions are mainly based on:
Abrams
1988, Corbett 1971, Holman/Harmon 1992, Preminger 1993, Jahn 2002 Link,
Scaif 2002 Link.
Schemes: Phoneme-level (level of individual sounds)
(Greek
for “doubling back”) the word or phrase that concludes
one line or clause is repeated at the beginning of the next
|
|
a
word or phrase is repeated at the beginning of successive phrases,
clauses or lines
|
|
(Greek
for “ladder”) arrangement of words, phrases, or clauses
in an order of ascending power
|
|
a
word or expression is repeated at the end of successive phrases,
clauses or lines
|
|
the
repetition of the same words immediately next to each other
|
|
words
with the same pronunciation and / or spelling but with different
meanings
|
|
one
word is repeated in different grammatical or syntactical (inflected)
forms. A special case of polyptoton is the figura etymologica
which repeats two or more words of the same stem
|
|
words
formed by blending two words into one
|
|
A
combination of anaphora and epistrophe, so that one word or phrase
is repeated at the beginning and another word or phrase is repeated
at the end of successive phrases, clauses or sentences
|
|
use
of words with the same or similar meanings
|
|
one
idea is repeatedly expressed through additional words, phrases,
or sentences
|
| the
speaker fails to complete his sentence, (seemingly) overpowered
by his emotions
|
|
| the
omission of conjunctions to coordinate phrases, clauses, or words
(opposite of polysyndeton) where normally conjunctions would be
used
|
|
| from
the shape of the Greek letter ‘chi’ (X); two corresponding
pairs are arranged in inverted, mirror-like order (a-b, b-a)
|
|
| a
word or phrase in a sentence is omitted though implied by the
context
|
|
| (Greek
for “stepping over”) a figure of syntactic dislocation
where phrase or words that belong together are separated
|
|
| clauses
and sentences are arranged with subordination, usually longer
sentence constructions (opposite of parataxis)
|
|
| the
usual word order is rearranged, often for the effect of emphasis
or to maintain the meter (a type of hyperbaton)
|
|
| the repetition of identical or similar syntactic elements (word, phrase, clause)
|
|
| clauses
or sentences are arranged in a series without subordination, usually
shorter sentence constructions (opposite of hypotaxis)
|
|
| the
unusual repetition of the same conjunction (opposite of asyndeton)
|
|
| a
syntactic unit or verse line is framed by the same element at
the beginning and at the end
|
|
| (Greek
for “yoking”) one verb controls two or more objects
that have different syntactic and semantic relations to it
|
opposition,
or contrast of ideas or words in a parallel construction
|
|
addressing
an absent person, a god or a personified abstraction
|
|
substitution
of an agreeable or at least non-offensive expression for one whose
plainer meaning might be harsh or unpleasant
|
|
obvious
exaggeration for emphasis or for rhetorical effect
|
|
expression
of something which is contrary to the intended meaning; the words
say one thing but mean another
|
|
a
figure of similarity, a word or phrase is replaced by an expression
denoting an analogous circumstance in a different semantic field.
The comparison adds a new dimension of meaning to the original
expression. Unlike in simile, the comparison is not made explicit
( ‘like’ or ‘as’ are not used, see the
longer discussion in Analysing
a Metaphor)
|
|
a
figure of contiguity, one word is substituted for another on the
basis of some material, causal, or conceptual relation
|
|
(Greek
for “sharp-dull”) a self-contradictory combination
of words or smaller verbal units; usually noun-noun, adjective-adjective,
adjective-noun, adverb-adverb, or adverb-verb – a paradoxical
utterance that conjoins two terms that in ordinary usage are contraries
|
|
a
daring statement which unites seemingly contradictory words but
which on closer examination proves to have unexpected meaning
and truth
|
|
wordplay,
using words that are written similarly or identically, but have
different meanings
|
|
the
use of words with disparaging connotations
|
|
a
descriptive word or phrase is used instead of a proper name
|
|
animals,
ideas, abstractions or inanimate objects are endowed with human
characteristics
|
|
two
things are openly compared with each other, introduced by ‘like’
or ‘as’
|
|
the
description of one kind of sensation in terms of another (description
of sound in terms of colour: blue note; description of colour
in terms of sound: loud shirt; etc.)
|
|
A
figure of contiguity (form of metonymy), the use of a part for
the whole, or the whole for the part: ‘pars pro toto’
or ‘totum pro parte’
|
|
an
idea is deliberately expressed as less important than it actually
is; a special case of understatement is litotes,
which denies the opposite of the thing that is being affirmed
(sometimes used synonymously with meiosis)
|
