Linguistics Encyclopedia.pdf

The linguistics encyclopedia 512
The due mean lies between poetic style and what Aristotle calls frigidity of style.
Frigidity of style arises from four causes: the use of compounds, strange words, too many
or overlong or unnecessary epithets, and metaphors and similes that are inappropriate
because they are ridiculous, too dignified, or too far-fetched.
According to Aristotle, ‘that which is written should be easy to read or easy to utter’
(III.V.6). This ease will depend on what Aristotle terms purity. Purity, he says, is the
foundation of style, and it depends on five rules. The first is to make proper use of
connecting particles; the second is to employ special, not generic terms; the third is to
avoid using ambiguous terms; the fourth is to keep the genders (masculine, feminine, and
neuter) distinct; the fifth is to observe the number system. Obviously, the fourth rule
would not apply to English which does not have grammatical gender, but the fifth would,
since English has a distinction between singular and plural.
The style of prose should not be continuous, by which is meant ‘that which has no
end in itself and only stops when the sense is complete. It is unpleasant, because it is
endless, for all wish to have the end in sight’ (III.IX.2). Rather, the style should be
periodic, where by period is meant ‘a sentence that has a beginning and end in itself and
a magnitude that can be easily grasped’ (III.IX.3). Much of what Aristotle has to say
about style is not directly relevant to modern English, since it is based on the sound
patterns and grammatical structure of ancient Greek, and since the contexts and subject
matters which largely determine appropriateness of style are no longer applicable.
Interestingly, however, the arrangement of the speech is not so far removed from the
conventions of many genres of modern English writing—in particular polemical
academic articles (see GENRE ANALYSIS) and political speeches.
Aristotle points out that a speech must have two parts, because ‘it is necessary to state
the subject, and then to prove it’ (III.XIII.1). The first part is therefore called the
statement of the case and the second the proof. In addition to these, he allows that there
may be an exordium at the beginning and an epilogue at the end, both of which are
merely aids to memory. Any refutation of an opponent that there may be is part of the
proof, and so is comparison for the purpose of amplifying one’s own argument.
In the exordium, ‘the speaker should say at once whatever he likes, give the key-note
and then attach the main subject’ (III.XIV.1) which is to be approached in the statement
of the case, or narrative. The statements of the case may consist of clearing oneself of
disagreeable suspicion; contesting disputed points; excusing oneself by ‘saying that it
was a case of error, misfortune, or necessity’ (III.XV.3); counterattacking the accuser;
appealing to previous cases; attacking slander; and many more. Proofs concern four types
of disputed points, namely facts, harm done, degree of harm done, and justification.
Proofs are most effective if they are refutative of an opponent’s position rather then
merely demonstrative of one’s own position. After all an opponent’s or opponents’
positions have been refuted, one can state one’s own case. Finally, in the epilogue, one
does four things in each of its four parts (1) dispose the hearer favourably towards oneself
and unfavourably towards the adversary; (2) amplify and depreciate; (3) excite the
emotions of the hearer; (4) recapitulate.
The Greek and Roman tradition of rhetoric influences our views of writing and
speaking (see contrastive rhetoric below) via its place as one of the seven liberal arts on
the medieval school curriculum, and readers may consult Howes (1961) and Bailey
(1965) for examples of the writings on rhetoric from Aristotle to Joos, and Love and