All students of language concede to it a certain public character.
Insofar as it serves in communication, it is a publicly-agreed-upon
thing; and when one passes the outer limits of the agreement, one
abandons comprehensibility. Now rhetoric affects us primarily by setting
forth images which inform and attract. Yet because this setting forth is
accomplished through a public instrumentality, it is not free; it is tied
more or less closely to the formalizations of usage. The more general and
rigid of these formalizations we recognize as grammar, and we shall here
speak of grammar as a system of forms of public speech. In the larger
aspect, discourse is at once bound and free, and we are here interested
to discover how the bound character affects our ability to teach and to
persuade.
We soon realize that different ways of saying a thing denote different
interests in saying it, or to take this in reverse as we do when we
become conscious users of language, different interests in a matter will
dictate different patterns of expression. Rhetoric in its practice is a
matter of selection and arrangement, but conventional grammar imposes
restraints upon both of these. All this amounts to saying what every
sensitive user of language has sometimes felt; namely, that language
is not a purely passive instrument, but that, owing to this public
acceptance, while you are doing something with it, it is doing something
with you, or with your intention.[117] It does not exactly fight back;
rather it has a set of postures and balances which somehow modify your
thrusts and holds. The sentence form is certainly one of these. You pour
into it your meaning, and it deflects, and molds into certain shapes.
The user of language must know how this counterpressure can be turned
to the advantage of his general purpose. The failure of those who are
careless, or insensitive, to the rhetoric of grammar is that they allow
the counter force to impede their design, whereas a perspicacious use
of it will forward the design. One cannot, for example, employ just any
modifier to stand for a substantive or just any substantive to express a
quality, or change a stabilized pattern of arrangement without a change
in net effect, although some of these changes register but faintly. But
style shows through an accumulation of small particulars, and the artist
in language may ponder a long while, as Conrad is said to have done, over
whether to describe a character as “penniless” or “without a penny.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account