I found it interesting about everything that makes up style. Between composition and ornament alone, there is so much involved with it. It basically takes everything we learned from kindergarten through high school and puts a rhetorician's twist on it. I am just in shock that how much there is to an argument. I mean, I know I have successfully won arguments that inquire screaming and yelling, but I have won. I know I am not proud of it, because I wish I relayed off valid points and won my argument through fact and knowledge, not screaming and yelling. But after reading this chapter, it makes a lot of sense that any argument requires style. Such as a lawyer, needs to have an opening argument and closing argument. However, I do feel like a lot of these are great for maneuvering and not per say tricking your audience, but persuading them without really persuading them.
Such as, the term metonomy. "Metonomy, 'altered name,' names something with a word or phrase closely associate with with it: 'the White House' for the president of the United States or 'the Kremlin' for the leadership of the former Union of Socialist Soviet Republics." By using this strategy, you are using word association to persuade your audience. Or another word trick would be the use of hyperbaton. "Hyperbaton is the transposition of a word to somewhere other than its usual place." I liked what Quintilian said about hyperbaton. "But, as Quintilian noted, it can be called a trope when 'the meaning is not complete until the two words have been put together.'" I found this interesting because it seems very true.
I enjoyed reading this types of new strategic word associations. I am still just mind blown. This chapter was a lot longer than I anticipated. So who knew there would be so much to style of persuasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment