This chapter was simply amazing. For some reason or another this week’s assigned readings in all my classes seem to be turning the light bulb on. Suddenly, ideas that on their own accord made sense are now meshing together and totally setting my mind a glow. Sorry, light humor aside, I really did find this week’s chapter insightful. I felt that this chapter’s main point was common knowledge (commonplace topics) that is shared between both the rhetor and listeners.
In my other ENGL class blog, I discuss a similar topic but it appears that both chapters this week want to drive home the point of how mutual understanding of the definition of words allows the writer (rhetor) to successfully interact with his or her audience. This understanding or recognition of “appropriateness conditions” (deciding what jargon is most fitted for the situation) allows a connection to be made between the rhetor and listener (Williams 181). In this blog, I would like to address how this mutual understanding between both the speaker and the audience is vital to the reception of the message. In other words, style is not just about conveying a message. Style is vital. If the rhetor is unfamiliar with which style is appropriate for his or her audience, the rhetor could risk sending out the wrong (failed or inappropriate) message and will be left having to invent and arrange a new speech to handle the new crisis.
Quintilian writes that “The verb eloqui means the production and communication to the audience of all that the rhetor has conceived… and without this power all the preliminary accomplishments of rhetoric are as useless as a sword that is kept permanently concealed within its sheath” (327). In this statement, Quintilian (and Crowley and Hawhee too since they utilize it) declares that the most important part of oration is actually writing it. In order to write a compelling speech, the speaker must keep in mind the audience is. Once he or she has formed a picture or has a firm idea of the audience members then the rhetor can start to assemble common examples and to utilize a shared vocabulary. Crowley and Hawhee agree stating that “For Plato, then, attention to kairos-the nature of the subject matter, the general attitudes and backgrounds of the audience-helped the rhetor make decisions about an appropriate style” (331-332). They also write that “the achievement of an appropriate style requires rhetors to pay attention to the conventional rules for verbal behavior in a given context, rules that have been laid down by their culture. If a rhetor has been asked to give a eulogy (a funeral speech), for example, his language should be dignified and subdued, because our culture dictates dignified and subdued behavior on such occasions” (332). This statement not only shows that the orator has certain key items to keep in mind (like the audience and the event) but he or she must also keep in mind the shared cultural norms as well. In some cultures, funerals are a joyous celebration and festive and all three factors (audience, event and cultural norms) would need to be addressed in the speech.
While reading about the cultural practices of a eulogy, my thoughts seemed to circle around the notion that the audience’s mood, the event and the cultural norms of such a situation were understood. In other words, a person knows how to make a eulogy because he or she has been taught what is correct and appropriate. However, what is understood in one culture is not understood in another. If a rhetor speaks about something that he or she assumes is a widely held (or understood) sentiment and the audience is not aware of it then there will be confusion between the speaker and listener which will effect the transmission of the message. I felt that the part of this chapter that highlighted the importance of this shared understanding between the speaker and audience members was the tropes part. Onomatopoeia is basically the description of noises. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Contemporary rhetoricians define onomatopoeia as words or languages whose sound emulates or echoes their sense” (357). They cite an example from an Alfred Noyes work and I could not help but to wonder at it. If an audience heard that lined read out loud it would have to be understood that they all had knowledge of what a “brook babbled and murmured” or “over the cobbles he clattered and clashed” would sound like (357). The author obviously wrote his book for a specific audience but it is understood that his audience has experience with these items and can agree that his description matches their experience and offers them a vivid image of the scene. However, what if a person or group of people had not heard these sounds before. How would this impact the writing and the reading? For example, where I taught, we had a great deal of inner city youth that were use to the sound of metal rattling and screaming sirens. To them, to their inner city culture these sounds represented nature and were natural. Many of the students had difficulty in reading books that mentioned nature and natural sounds because they could not grasp the concept of it. After a while, they would become frustrated with it and would eventually complain that they did not understand the book. For example, several of my students had issues reading Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice because of Austen’s descriptions of horses, the parks and nature walks. Many of my students were frustrated because they had no idea what she was writing about. For many readers, who share the same cultural understandings as Austen, they praise her for her use of vivid detail and delve into the book. Thus, one can see how if a speaker and audience do not have a shared understanding (or acceptable vocabulary) how one can easily become frustrated and turned off from the speaker’s message.
While the other tropes can also highlight the point that there must be shared understanding between a speaker and audience if he or she is going to utilize one or more of these items in his or her speech, I want to closely focus on two more. Antonomasia is basically a detailed nickname. Crowley and Hawhee write that “a rhetor substitutes a descriptive phrase for someone’s proper name (or vice versa) (357). This whole concept is completely based on a shared cultural understanding. For example, Crowley and Hawhee write that “Elvis is ‘the King’” (357). However, if a person used this in a courtroom, eulogy or wedding that in no way, shape or form has ties to Elvis many people would be confused about why it was utilized. A person who is not from the United States or into Elvis Presley music and history would have no idea who he is or why he is dubbed such a royal title. If a speaker and audience both share a common understanding of Elvis then the speaker will be able “to characterize the person he speaks or writes about in either positive or negative terms” (357). However, his audience will only be able to understand the message that Elvis rules or not if they share familiarity with the speaker.
The last trope that I want to touch on is metonymy. I view metonymy as a detailed substitute for a person, place or thing. Crowley and Hawhee write that a metonymy “(‘altered name’) names something with a word or phrase closely associated with it” (357). They use the example of “the White House for the president of the United States” (357). I am struck with how often newspapers, radio hosts and newscasters utilize the White House example. However, if a listener or viewer saw or heard this metonymy, I wonder what he or she would think. Since I have been conditioned to the term, I am unable to think of anything else but its connection to the President. This shows that I have been trained into the shared and understood knowledge of my culture. I have another example. While attending school, I worked as a receptionist at a local hotel in Chicago. My tag line was “Welcome to the … the Windy City’s coziest haven. Many of our customers were from all over and every now and then, I would have a couple of customers who had never heard of the Windy City. One time I had a couple that was so alarmed, they thought that they had been taken to another city and were about to cancel their reservations when I told them that they were in Chicago. I produced a map and explained that our nickname was the Windy City. The couple was obvious embarrassed and after calming down asked if Chicago had any other nicknames that they needed to be aware of. After a dozen or more similar situations, our manager allowed us to say the hotel name-in Chicago… the Windy City’s coziest haven. This example also supports Crowley and Hawhee’s point that tropes work only when there is shared cultural knowledge between the speaker and listener.
I really enjoyed this chapter and cannot wait for Thursday’s discussion. I apologize for the long post. There was just so much great information in this chapter!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment