Radwa Ayman Ahmed
Chapter Seven: The Rhetoric of Text
7.1 The Rhetoric of text and discourse:
A distinction might be drawn between communication as discourse and as text.
Discourse is an interpersonal activity- a communicative transaction between
speaker and hearer- whose form is determined by its social purpose. Text refers to
the message coded in its auditory or visual medium. Thus, in speech, a text is a
linear pattern of sound waves, in writing, a text is a linear sequence of visible marks
on paper. Communication is considered to be successful when the encoded and
decoded messages are identical. An additional standard of success, however, is the
rhetoric of text or discourse, which refers to the set of principles for achieving
communicative ends.
7.2 The Linearity of text:
Rhetoric in ordinary language can be seen as guidelines for getting things done by
means of language. The focus of this chapter is mainly on the rhetoric of text, the
syntactic, phonological, and graphological forms of language.
Texts are seen as physical transactions between addresser and addressee; the
overriding property of which is linearity: speech occurs linearly in time and writing
occurs linearly in space. In speech, since a sentence that has been uttered cannot be
recalled or erased, the speaker is bound to encode and the hearer to decode in
ongoing time. Although such a thing does not exist in writing: the writer can re-edit
the text, and the reader can re-read it, the message of the text must be decoded in a
fixed order. Therefore, the text is not a static object but rather a dynamic one.
The linearity of text entails segmentation: the hearer has to segment the ongoing
text into units while decoding its message. These units, in speech, are called “tone
units”, and in writing, are called “graphic units”. Additionally, segmentation
involves hierarchy: the units should be presented in a certain order, which makes
some of them more salient, or highlighted than others. Therefore, the three
important factors in the dynamics of text are sequence, segmentation, and salience.
7.3 The principle of end-focus
End-focus is a rhetorical principle suggesting that the new information is reserved
to the end of the tone unit. By and large, there is a tendency for given information to
precede new information, which is marked by “nuclear stress”. New information is
always placed in the focal point of a tone unit. That is why, in neutral
circumstances, the last lexical word tends to carry the nuclear stress. For example,
these two sentences can be answers to different questions:
[1a] She completely DENIED it.
[1b] She denied it COMPLETELY.
The first one is an answer for “Did John admit the offence? No,…” because the
“denial” is the new information here, whereas the second answers this question “
Did John deny the offence? Yes,…..” where the “denial” is assumed in the
question, and is therefore given. The principle of end-focus is not necessarily
applied in all spoken texts, yet it facilities the decoding of the message
Although end-focus belongs to phonology, it clearly has important implication in
syntax, where the order of the elements of the message is determined. For example,
it influences the choice between active and passive sentences.
[2a] John wrote the whole book.
[2b] The whole book was written by John.
These two sentences presuppose different contexts: the first one would answer this
question “What did John write?”, while the second would answer this one “Who
wrote the book?”.
To sum up, the intonation can signal the end-focus principle in speech, whereas
the syntactic structure of a sentence is what might help a reader to identify the new
information. End-focus, therefore, guides the sequencing of elements in a written
text.
7.4 Segmentation:
A tone unit is, in speech, a chunk of information; and the speaker is free to
segment his speech into such chunks as they like. However, the choice they make
will also make a difference to the decoding of the message. For example,
[3a] Next week I’m starting a job in London.
[3b] Next week I’m starting a job in London.
[3a] presents two pieces of information: (i) something is happening next week, and
(ii) what is happening next week is that I’m starting a job in London. On the other
hand, [3b] presents three pieces of information: (i) something is happening next
week, (ii) what is happening next week is that I’m starting a job, and (iii) the place
where I’m starting a new job is London.
The organization of written language in graphic units is rather similar, yet graphic
units tend to be longer than tone units. Accordingly, this sentence in a written text
would have no internal punctuation.
[3c] Next week I’m starting a job in London.
Hence, the same general principles of segmentation can be applied to both speech
and writing.
7.4.1 The ‘rhythm of prose’
Based on the previous remarks, written prose has implicit intonation, of which
punctuation marks are written indicators. For example, Lawerence’s style in
Studies in Classic American Literature is considered “emphatic” due to his
tendency to use very short graphic units, with heavy punctuation. Although
punctuation has an important stylistic role, the punctuation’s stylistic value is not
just a question of where the it occurs, but how heavy it is. To clarify, the full stop is
“the heaviest” punctuation mark, with the greatest separative force; hence the effect
of Lawerence’s use of a full stop after the single word “Renegades” shows the
savage emphasis on this graphic unit.
7.4.2 Segmentation and syntax
The three factors of textual organization- segmentation, sequence, and salience-
exist on the level of syntax, as well as on the levels of phonology and graphology.
For example, segmentation on both the syntactic and graphological levels involves
a major unit called “a sentence”. That being said, syntactic and graphological
sentences do not always have a clear match. The syntactic sentence may be defined
as an independent syntactic unit, either simple or complex; in a complex, the
clauses are related to one another wither by subordination or coordination. On the
graphological level, a sentence is simply a unit beginning with a capital letter and
ending with a full stop. For example,
“He wanted to. He tried to. And he couldn’t. Because, in the first place, it made
him sick.”
There are four graphological sentences, but a single syntactic unit.
With the principle of segmentation on the level of syntax in mind, a text can be
broken down int a series of simple sentences of equal importance.
[4a] Jim threw the ball. The ball broke a window. The noise attracted the owner’s
attention. The owner scolded him.
The sentences can be combined into a smaller number of sentences with
coordination and subordination conjunctions.
[4b] When Jim threw the ball and broke the window, he was scolded by the owner,
whose attention had been attracted by the noise.
The significance of these pieces of information does not merely rely on the
segmentation of the clauses, but rather on the use of subordination and
coordination, and their sequence. Thus, in complex structure, the question of
segmentation leads to questions of salience and sequence. Additionally, the
preference of one structure to the other reflects a certain stylistic value.
7.5 Simple and complex sentences:
Although an author is free to use simple or complex structure, the use of complex
structure reflects the writer’s tendency to present their readers with a complex
structure of ideas and a complex reading experience. In more detail, a complex form
gives and withholds information, subordinates some ideas to others that are more
important, coordinates those of equal weight. Therefore, its significance hinges on
foregrounding, segmentation, and sequence. A succession of simple sentences, on
the other hand, leaves only one of these variables to play with: that of sequence.
There are occasions, however, when simple sentences are just what is needed. For
example, “She saw there an object. The object was the gallows. She was afraid
of the gallows.” Conrad in The Secret Agent wants to depict the scene through the
cruel simplicity of the three impressions that pass through the character’s mind in
logical order; the writer moves from the person “she” to the action. In contrast, a
fiction author might choose to use a complex structure, hiding the identity of the
character until the end of the text; they move from the action to the person. For
example, “that luxurious hotel looks perfect to first-time tourists, thought
James”; the identity of “James” is revealed at the end of the sentence. Thus, the
difference between simple and complex structures lies in the writer’s tendency to
present the events step-by-step or as a complex whole.
7.5.1 Coordination and subordination
The main devices for linking two ideas in a complex structure are coordination and
subordination. Coordination gives clauses equal syntactic status, whereas
subordination places one clause in a dependent status, as part of the main clause.
Subordination is thus the opposite of salience since a subordinate clause is
backgrounded by the main clause. In other words, the meaning of a subordinate
clause cannot be understood apart from the main clause. Thus, the subordination
principle, one of the rhetorical principles, is as follows:
If A is subordinated to B, then A is the circumstantial background against
which B is highlighted.
This principle can be violated like other principles; for example, Steinbeck in Of
Mice and Men chooses to subordinate the main action to absolve his character of
the responsibility for this action: “Curley’s fist was swinging when Lennie
reached for it.”.
7.5.2 The principle of climax: ‘last is most important’
Although the two rhetoric principles presented so far- the principle of end-focus
and the principle of subordination- operate at different levels: phonological and
syntactic, they can be linked by a third principle which is “the principle of
climax”.
The principle of climax reads as follows:
“In a sequence of interrelated tone units, the final position tends to be the
major focus of information.”
This principle is considered as an extension of “end-focus” principle since it says
for a sequence of tone units what the end-focus principle says for individual tone-
units: last is most important.
The last tone unit which carries the most weight of information is marked by a
falling tone, implying the finality of a text.
[5] After the gale died DOWN ( ) we were picked up by a COASTER ( )
By and large, in complex sentences, the subordinate clause is marked by a rising
tone to show the non-finality of the idea, whereas the main clause is marked by a
falling tone, reflecting the finality of the thought.
With coordinating clauses, however, the concept is different: there are two
possibilities. First, each clause, which can stand in its own right, might end with a
falling tone. For example, the falling tone in these two clauses implies that they are
two separate, complete thoughts.
[6] The gale died DOWN ( ) and we were picked up by a COASTER ( ).
Second, the first coordinate clause can be marked with a rising tone and the second
with a falling tone, highlighting the relation and the dependency of the first on the
second.
[7] The gale died DOWN ( ) and we were picked up by a COASTER ( ).
In syntax, punctuation can distinguish finality from non-finality. The contrast, for
example, between [6] and [7] can be made by using a comma in [7] and a full stop
or a semi colon in [6].
This is an example of a well-written prose that observes the principle of end-focus
and climax. This sentence is made of four graphic units marked by punctuation
marks which are preceded by nuclear tones; and the last one has the climatic effect
with its falling tone. Literary writers normally rely on the rhetoric of everyday
communication to present the literary rhetoric of a text. They, for example, mimic
the principle “of last means most important” by revealing the important information
at the end to achieve a dramatic effect on their readers.
7.5.3 Periodic sentence structure
a periodic sentence refers to any sentence that has “an anticipatory constituent”
which is distinguished by a subordinate or dependent clause that is non-final.
[8a] [That they have suffered through negligence] is the truth.
[8b] [With her eyes ablaze], Sophie sailed into the room.
These are examples of periodic sentences since the dependent, anticipatory
constituents precede the main clause.
When the dependent clauses, however, come in final position, they are called
“trailing constituents”, such as the dependent clauses in these sentences:
[9a] The truth is [that they have suffered through negligence].
[9b] Sophie sailed into the room [ with her eyes ablaze].
An anticipatory constituent brings the element of suspense into syntax since it
forces some information to be held in the memory until the major constituent is
interpreted. The trailing constituent, on the other hand, does not involve such
suspense: the sentence’s constituents can be interpreted step by step. The element of
suspense clearly depends on the size of the anticipatory constituent: the larger the
constituent is, the greater the burden upon the memory, and the greater the tension.
The use of periodic structure was significant in literary works due to its dramatic
quality: it combines the principle of climax with the principle of subordination, and
progress from a build-up of tension to a final climatic point of resolution. However,
this structure can backfire on the author: this happens when readers expect a
tremendous climax, and the final point doesn’t meet their expectation.
7.5.4 Loose sentence structure
Despite the dramatic effect of the periodic structure, it violates an important
principle of rhetoric: “the memory principle” which reads as follows:
“It reduces the burden on the reader’s immediate syntactic memory by
avoiding major anticipatory constituents.”
The most type of complex structure that observes this principle is called “a loose
structure”. The loose structure is dominated by trailing constituents, rather than
anticipatory constituents. It is considered neutral in that it makes things easy for the
addressee by reducing the amount of syntactic information that has to be stored in
decoding.
For example, the trailing constituents in this sentence can mark points of potential
completion.
[10] He stood in the doorway /with the taste of alcohol on his tongue/ watching
a thin girl/ in a red rubber cap/ giggle under the floodlighting/.
Not surprisingly, the loose structure is a characteristic of a literary style that aims at
neutral simplicity and directness, rather than rhetorical effect.
Periodic and loose structures are two poles between which the style of a sentence
can vary. Assumably, the most neutral style of writing is the one that combines both
anticipatory and trailing elements, and thus achieves a balance between ‘art’ and
‘nature’.
7.6 Adresser-based rhetoric: Writing imitating speech:
The rhetoric of text that has been discussed is addressee-based: this means that this
set of principles has functions that can be explained in terms of the reader’s needs
and responses. However, addresser-based rhetoric is used in literature. In ordinary
speech, the speaker tends to “think on their feet”, having to encode the message
under pressure of time. In some respects, the encoding process observes the
memory principle; therefore, most of the spoken language is loose in structure. In
other cases, the encoding process overrides some of the principles of addressee-
based rhetoric: In particular, the “the last is most important” clashes with the
speaker’s tendency to mention what is most important first, such as “REXLATION
you call it.”
Although a prose writer does not need to speak on their feet, they sometimes want
to reflect the spontaneity of natural speech. Thus, they might violate the principle of
end-focus to highlight a feature of spontaneous speech. For example, the final part
of these two clauses is given (go back, go back to the savages), so it cannot be
considered as “the focus of information”.
[11a] We cannot go back
[11b] we could not go back to the savages.
Another case of addresser-based rhetoric is the use of parenthetical structure.
Although it provides more elaboration to the sentence, the speaker considers it as
something digressing from the main structure and could have been integrated into
the syntax of the sentence.
7.7 Iconicity: the imitation principle:
Up till now the chapter has been dealing with the textual rhetoric that can be
applied to literary and non-literary writing. However, there is a quality that
particularly characterizes the rhetoric of a literary text: “the principle of
imitation”. That means that not only does a literary text serve a presentational
function, but also it serves a representational function: language mimics the
meaning it expresses.
This leads to the hotly debated idea of the iconicity of language. It has been
argued that language is essentially non-iconic, that the form-meaning relationship is
rather arbitrary. Although language has some iconic elements known as
“onomatopoeic words”, such as cuckoo, glimmer, glitter, this kind of iconicity is
marginal and not free from arbitrariness.
Despite this unsolved debate, poets have managed to exploit the symbolic value
of words and sounds to deliver some meanings beyond the explicit meaning of a
word. This suggests that language can be iconic in terms of the syntactic relations
between words: the relation between words in a sentence imitates relationships
between objects and events that those words signify. The two significant instances
of such syntactic iconicity are chronological sequence and juxtaposition.
The order of words in a sentence is affected by some principles. First, the principle
of chronological sequence which says that textual time imitates real time: if A
comes before B in the real world, then A comes before B in the text. This is why
[12a] is nonsensical in contrast to [12b]
[12a] The lone ranger rode off into the sunset, mounted and saddled his horse.
[12b] the lone ranger saddled his horse, mounted, and rode off into the sunset.
Second, the cause-effect relationship between words: the cause normally precedes
the effect in the real word and the same usually happens in the sentence. For
example. “Tom ran out of money and had to find another job.”; the reversal of this
sentence is ambiguous and lacks clarity of meaning. Third, the relationship between
subject and object: there is a claim that subject usually precedes object.
Correspondingly, in real world the “agent”- that initiates an action- comes before
“the patient”-that suffers the consequences of the action. Thus, it makes sense to
say, “the dog ate the bone”, whereas “the bone ate the dog” is obviously wrong. To
sum it up, despite the arbitrariness of language, it is in various ways an iconic
mirror of reality.
7.7.1 Three principles of sequencing
There are three kinds of fictional sequencing: presentational, chronological, and
psychological. The first of these three is non-iconic unless it is considered as an
imitation of the reader’s though processes. The second is iconic since it imitates the
sequence of events in the fictional world. The third is also iconic, for it exemplifies
the principle of “first is most important”. The last sequence presents the events in
the order in which they arise in the consciousness of the author.
Here an example of the psychological sequence:
She saw there an object. That object was the gallows. She was afraid of the gallows.
7.7.2 Juxtaposition& other forms of iconicity
Another aspect of iconicity is “juxtaposition” which refers to the idea that
language can be iconic in the sense that words which are close in the text may
evoke an impression of closeness or connectedness in the fiction.
[13] (a schooner manned by forty men) sailed into (Portsmouth harbour).
the schooner is related to man and thus they appear next to each other in the
sentence. The same thing can be applied to “Portsmouth” and “harbour”. However,
this principle of connectedness might be violated to achieve another principle like
the “end-focus” one. For example, the speaker might decide to put the verb at the
end of the sentence to give it more emphasis (the time came for everyone to
LEAVE).
In [14] the reader who makes sense of the sentence in terms of juxtaposition will
try to build connection between the two parts of the expression: haste. The men
were in a hurry, so they ate without taking off their hats.
[14] There were six men at the table in the lunchroom eating fast with their hats on
the back of their heads.
The possibilities of ‘form enacting meaning’ are unlimited. In other words, they
depend on the author’s imaginative language and the reader’s capacity to see
connections. Iconicity rests on the ability to recognize similarities between one field
of reference and another.
7.8 Cohesion:
The rhetoric of text controls the way in which the message is segmented into units.
Segmentation, however, can be considered as the opposite of “cohesion”. Cohesion
refers to the idea of linking units together, either implicitly or explicitly. The main
concern in the chapter is the linear cohesion: the connectivity that takes place
between sentences, as well as within them. There are two kinds of linear cohesion:
cross-reference and linkage.
Cohesion is an important part of what makes a text, but it is not always important
in the literary style. In literary fiction, it can be seen as the background to more
significant style markers, just as the framework which makes a building hang
together is rarely the most interesting part of its architecture.
7.8.1 Cross-reference:
Cross-reference refers to the various means that language uses to indicate that “the
same thing” is being referred to or mentioned in different parts of the text. It has
five types:
1. Definite reference:
A. Personal pronouns: he, she, it, they, etc.
B. the definite article the
C. deictics: this, that, these, those, etc.
D. Implied: same, different, other, else, such, etc.
2. Substitution:
the pro-forms, such as one, ones, do and so which substitute for other linguistic
expressions.
3. Ellipsis:
omission or deletion of elements whose meaning is understood from the context
4. Formal repetition:
the repeated use of an expression (phrase, proper noun, lexical item) that has
already occurred in the context.
5. Elegant variation:
the use of an alternative expression as a replacement for an expression in the
context.
Cross-reference is a device for a repetition of meaning or reference. Although the
most obvious kind of repetition is “formal repetition”, cohesion frequently involves
the idea of reduction, where some lexical items are omitted or substituted by other
grammatical words. The most common form of reduction to avoid lexical repetition
is by means of “third-person pronouns”. As for semantic repetition, it can be
avoided by substitution or ellipsis. It is worth mentioning, that there are two rules
governing the choice of reduction:
‘Do not reduce where reduction heads to unclarity.’
‘Otherwise, reduce as much as possible.’
In other words, it is a good thing to make your message concise, so long as it is
done without loss of clarity.
Elegant variation is preferrable when the repetition of lexical items or of reduced
forms becomes excessive. It can take either the form of a synonym for a meaning,
such as “swing and sway”: they are virtual synonyms in some contexts, or that of a
repetition of reference, such as “the young teacher” to refer to Mr. James.
Another principle that can replace the reduction of a phrase or a word is
“expressive repetition”: the formal repetition of words to give emphasis or emotive
heightening to the repeated meaning. A good example of “expressive repetition” is
the use of syntactic parallelism: “A exceeds B, as C exceeds D”. Another example
is the redundant repetition of “object and the gallows” in Conrad’s sentence: She
saw there an object. That object was the gallows. She was afraid of the gallows.”.
The phrase “the gallows” occupies the end position in two consecutive sentences,
violating the principle of end-focus. This apparent violation of the textual rhetoric
reflects the fear she felt while comprehending the situation.
7.8.2 Linkage:
It refers to the use of overt connectors: coordinating conjunctions, subordinating
conjunctions, and linking adverbials.
1. Coordinating conjunctions: and, but, both….and, neither…..nor, etc.
2. Linking adverbials: for, so, yet, however, therefore, etc.
The history of fiction suggests that prose writing tended to use linking devices in
the past to achieve a certain stylistic value: making the text logically interpreted,
leaving little to the reader’s imagination. In contrast, modern writers avoid using
obvious connectors, relying instead on inferred linkage or simple juxtaposition.
Semantically, linkage can be placed on a scale of cohesiveness: the most cohesive
signals are connectors like “therefore, however” which states explicitly the relation
between two clauses. “And”, on the other hand, is the vaguest of connectives; it
merely says that two ideas have a positive connection and leaves the reader to work
out what it is. But the endpoint of this scale is “inferred linkage” where readers
have to make inference to interpret the fictional text.
Example on the use of cross-reference and linkage:
This passage provides examples of the two kinds of cohesion:
A: Cross-reference:
1- Definite reference
(a) personal pronouns: (2) they (co-referring to ‘the sides’); (6) them
(co-referring to ‘chambers’); (10) it (co-referring to ‘the boulder’) etc.
(b) the definite article: (9) ‘the boulder’ (co-referring to ‘the boulder that swings on
the highest of the hills’); ‘the cave’ (co-referring to ‘a bubble-shaped cave’) etc.
(c) deictics: (1) thus; (6) these; those.
(d) implied: (4) elsewhere (i.e., in a different place from that already mentioned);
deeper (i.e., deeper than this).
2-Substitution: (3) one (= ‘an entrance’).
3-Ellipsis: (6) four thousand (= four thousand of them); or million (= four million
of them); etc.
4-Formal repetition: (1) chamber, (4) chambers; (7) nothing, nothing, nothing
(rhetorical value); (6) exceed, exceed; (9) smash, smash, etc.
5-‘Elegant’ variation: (1) the wall – (2) the sides; (9) empty – (10) hollowness; (8)
swings – (10) sways; (8) the highest of the hills – (10) its stupendous pedestal.
B: Linkage
1- Coordinating conjunctions: (4) but; (8) neither . . . nor; etc.
2- Linking adverbials: (3) so; (9) too; (10) hence.
It is worth noting that the use of overt signals in this text is limited; the author
relays on “inferred linkage” to link the ideas in the text. For example, the implied
connection between these two sentences can be made explicit by “so”: The sides of
the tunnel are left rough, they impinge as an afterthought upon the internal
perfection. Also, linking the following sentences with “because” can make their
connection more obvious to the reader: “Nothing is inside them, they were sealed
up before the creation of pestilence or treasure.”
7.9 Conclusion:
This chapter sheds light on the principles that govern a writer’s production of a
linear and coherent text. The examination of such principles focuses on five general
factors: segmentation, salience, sequence, iconicity, and cohesion. It aims to show
how a fiction writer can exploit the simple, obvious features of textual forms to
heighten their literary expressions.