PDF. - full text - Dunarea de Jos

e interpreted as figure. ‘Evening’, ‘lamps’ and ‘comfort’ are now figure in cognitivism, by
the side of another effect they bring about, a renewed ability to symbolize in PL. It is actually
their very role in negative patterns that helped increase their power as symbols.
In processing the information supplied by grammar arrangements in the two poems,
we find that through those grammar devices the announcement of a few gaps happens, at
the same time with a focalized intensity of thought peculiar to the subjectivity of the genre.
Conclusions
MS and PL have a novel way of using the adversarial or contentious aspect of
arguments which are important to an understanding of their poetry.
Most of the implicatures are found to explore not so much time as the relation
between space and body. Wavering between positions within a space is an issue of power,
and also of scale, not to mention the issue of interiority and exteriority. Hence, the interesting
experience of identification through one viewer being made to go out of himself.
Eventually, the major distinction between MS and PL is that the former decides on a
course of action and the latter cannot do so because he finds out that knowledge and proof
are lacking in what he is concerned.
We can recast the idea of dialogue (present subtextually in these poems) as a
conventional situation when two parties reason together for some purpose. The actuality of
the poems puts forward only arguments by one party. Thus, we are faced with a one-sided
argumentation in a natural-language setting, a practical and applied task that will make
legitimate any response as defended by informal logic.
For his invisible respondent in both cases, the questioner resorts to different kinds of
sophistical arguments. In MS’s case, the argumentum ad misericordiam (an appeal to
sympathy) is generated by the wretched situation of a sufferer losing bodyweight. To this,
the argumentum ad populum draws upon the popular opinion that the weightless soul should
perform the action of rising to heaven because people say that this is the right thing to do.
On the other hand, PL has a sophistical way of pressing presumptions ahead in an
aggressive tactic of many questions – what is known as “the fallacy of complex question” so
that “any direct answer will trap a respondent into damaging concessions” (Walton, 1998:
26). In PL’s case, it appears that the questions themselves can be fallacies due to the fact that
the questions contain presumptions that, in a subtle manner, implicate conclusions tripping
up the respondent. By pressing the idea of dying as ‘going down into the ground’, the
answer is contained in the question, but may not be the commitment of a respondent
resembling, for instance, MS.
We cannot conclude without remembering the cautious tone of David Crystal (1992:
386) when assessing that too many zeros or absences in an analysis weaken its plausibility.
We must hope that our paper has not been excessive in that respect.
We tried to get a grasp on the two poets’ insight in terms of purpose versus play,
hierarchy versus anarchy, presence versus absence, epistemology versus ontology. This
strategy of approach may yield the objectivised differences in the poets’ cultural
backgrounds, instead of pondering about the genuineness of their personal grasp. PL poses
questions that cannot be easily answered. MS takes an orientation that is appealing because it
discharges us of the duty to give answers. We are all philosophers by dabbling, the argument
of God awaiting us may impress us or may fail to do so. Truth is needed, but the notion of
truth is not at all a perspicuous one.
References
Crisp, P. (2005). “Allegory and symbol – a fundamental opposition?” in Language and Literature. Vol.
70