Figures of Speech Served Fresh

Hi Fig. Great site! I want to thank you, first off, because I teach rhetoric, and this site is a great resource for my students---and for me! I have been really enjoying reading your analyses of the latest political rhetrickery, as Wayne Booth once renamed deceptive rhetoric, of course. Your insights are both instructive and fun to read.

I am wondering if you can help me with the name of a trope. I remember hearing about it long ago, but I can't locate it in my Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. This trope I'm thinking of is when a rhetor says she's not going to say something (because it would supposedly be rude, or off-topic, or what have you)---but at the same time, she is actually saying it, and sometimes even going into great detail about *exactly* that which she claims she's not going to talk about. I've always liked it, but its name has now vanished from my memory.

Can you help me out?

Thanks!
Lisa

Dear Lisa,

But of course! When you say something by saying you're not going to say it ("I'm not going to tell you that Miami is a jock school..."), you're slinging an APOPHASIS (a-PAH-fa-sis), the "I'm not going to say it but I will" figure of thought. Search for the figure on the right and you'll find a number of examples.

While you're at it, search for "trope." You'll find some very cool stuff, and Figaro doesn't mind saying it.

By the way: Figaro's wife is a Miami U of Ohio grad, and she's very, very well educated. Let me know if you want me to do a phoner with your class; just did a 3-hour gig this morning with a university--in Ohio, actually. Great fun.

Yrs,
Fig.

Dear Figaro:

Is there a figure of speech (such as personification, metaphor, simile, or hyperbole) in this sentence from Moby Dick:"Some men die ar ebb tide;some at low water; some at the full of the flood;-and I feel now like a billow that's all one crested comb; Starbuck." ?
Diana

Dear Diana,
It's a conceit, the metaphor gone wild. You stick with the same metaphor and ride 'er out. There he blows!
Fig.

Dear Fig.

The reason for my last post, incidentally, is the Obama comment in the second debate of " .. some think me green behind the ears." I know of "wet behind the ears" and "green about the gills" and "rough around the edges" but this gaff seems to have gone unnoticed. (Except for Jay Leno who inferred from it that Obama was, like Mr. Spock, a Vulcan.)

Jim

What is something like "here today and out the other" called? It's evil twin is "in one ear and gone tomorrow".

Dear Figaro --

During the Vice Presidental debate, Joe Biden said this:

I haven’t heard how his policy on Iran is going to be different than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy with Israel will be different than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy on Afghanistan will be different than George Bush’s. I haven’t heard how his policy in Pakistan will be different than George Bush’s.

I thought it was Symploce but your October 5 response makes me wonder if maybe it is:
Epimone (repetition),
Epiphora (repetition at ending),
Epistrophe (repetition at ending),
Parison (structure),
or a combination of two or more schemes.

-- Sooze

Dear Figaro.
McCain (2000): Asked if he had been tortured in Vietnam, the senator said: "Facts are facts. Truth is truth. History is history." Is it a figure?
Yours,
Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,
McCain is using a SYMPLOCE, a figure that begins and ends succeeding phrases or clauses with the same word. The symploce is a favorite figure of George W. Bush, who keeps (in his own words) "repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in."
Fig.

Dear Figaro,

I think my twelve-year-old daughter may have coined her own rhetorical figure (well, to be honest, I'm not sure if it qualifies for the term "figure," but it certainly represents some form of unusual usage). We were discussing portmanteau words and having fun making up our own. Then she invented her own game by taking existing words and reinterpreting them with portmanteau meanings. For example, by her logic, "custard" must be a blend of "catsup" and "mustard."

I encouraged her to coin a term for this form of word-play, and she came up with "revertmanteau" (which is, itself, a double-portmanteau--it makes my head spin). I am aware that I have a very special, if somewhat odd, kid. My questions are (1) has anyone identified the elusive "revertmanteau" before? and (2) if not, is there an appropriate online forum in which she can share this and future eccentric discoveries with like-minded middle-school word-nuts?

Yours,

Mark P.

Dear Mark,

There's hope for the rhetorical future! I suppose your brilliant daughter's revertmanteau could qualify as a form of PARONOMASIA, a catch-all term for puns and homonymic (words that sound alike) word play.

But the revertmanteau constitutes more strategy than word play, no? You could also call it "woodchuck parsing," after the famous lumber-pitching groundhog.

Fig.

Dear Fig,

Is there a name for this kind of rhetorical usage?

"Come to our play this weekend. There will be flights of fancy, high spirits, eloquent sentiments, and cake."

That is, ending a series with an item of a different order from the ones before it.

Ed

Dear Ed,

Indeed there is--as long as the last item in the series is less important than the preceding ones, as is true with your quote. The ANESIS ends a point with a clause or sentence that diminishes what the speaker said before. It's a superb figure of irony, and Figaro loves it with a passion that is sometimes embarrassing.

Fig.

Reading over your book for the third time, which I find wholly vital to my term btw, on pages 240 and 241 my eyes stumble across something oddly coincidental while reading about information conveyed through text messages. Three-quarters down page 240 I find the word "ephemeral", and three-quarters down page 241 I find the idiom "ephemeral reflection". What's odd about this is that the positioning of words "ephemeral" is such that when you bring the to sides of the book together, the word coincidentally reflects itself between both pages.
Figaro, you sly deuce,
I think you neglected a Persuasion Alert: "Are you paying attention yet?"

Zac

Geez, Zac,
I had no idea you could have goggle eyes without drinking beer.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

Can you please indicate what sort of rhetorical devices are these: (from JFK, Inaugural Address:
not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom
we offer not a pledge but a request

How about this common phrases or clauses like: not only...... but also........
what sort of rhetorical device is this?

Ernest

Dear Ernest,

Ah, the delectably named DIRIMENS COPULATIO, the "but wait there's more" figure. But that's not exactly what JFK is doing, is it? He's employing more of a SYNCRISIS, which offers up a series of contrasts: not this but that, not that but this.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
I am from Italia. I read your book and it is very interesting, but may be you should came in Italy for a while. I know that you have time and money to do this.

Here we don't drink wine at all, may be sometimes during the dinner and only if there is some very good wine on the table.May be you don't know at all italian people.

the only people I always see they are drinking are from UK or USA, may be it is a manner to be more self-confident, but I don't know enough english people to be sure of their cultural values so may be I am saying a stupid thing.

Anyway, here is the native land of rhetoric and we used to talk rhetorically so you do shoud came here to visit us. I am sure you will have more material for your next book.

Ciao.
Cubasia.

Dear Cubasia,

Hmmm. Italians don't drink wine. Figaro just visited Italy recently, and saw a great deal of wine drinking. On the other hand, it's true that Italians tend not to drink in excess, at least in public. I suppose the two Italian businessmen in the last chapter of my book were just playing good hosts to another drunken American.

While Greeks may object to your claim of Italian as the cradle of rhetoric, I'd argue that Italians still speak very, very rhetorically. Next to America, it's Figaro's very favorite country. Except maybe for Greece.

Fig.

Hi,

Watching the Presidential candidates, surrogates and pundits this year I can't help but notice the frequent use of "the reality is" and "the fact is" to preface or qualify pending comments... what is the rhetorical tactic with such language?

Great site!

Cheers,

Curtis

Dear Curtis,

The candidates are deploying the APODIXIS, a form of logical proof based on known or claimed reality. But you could also credit them with the ORACULUM, claiming to speak with the voice of God.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

An advertisement in ‘Le Monde’, september 9, 2008 :

Lenin.
Stalin.
Putin.
Give in?
Enough is enough. Support Georgia.

Please your analysis and comments,

Arie Vrolijk

Dear Arie,

That's a neat ADNOMINATIO, the repetition of similar-sounding words. Some of the most powerful figures make a conclusion seem inevitable through sheer sound. The ending "-in" ties all those nasties together--along with the question of surrender.

If figures could win wars, the Ruskies would be out of Georgia.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

You have so often expressed your affection for chiasmus that I can't hear one in a speech anymore without thinking of you. I'm sure you haven't missed the abundance of the form during the present Presidential campaign; both sides have been wielding it with such abandon that I fear it may be losing its edge with the popular ear: we've had Sarah Palin's "some candidates who use change to promote their careers and some who use their careers to promote change," Bill Clinton's "people are more impressed with the power of our example than the example of our power," and everyman Barney Smith's "We need a President who puts the Barney Smiths before the Smith Barneys."

Slate.com recently published an article about the rhetorical fashion trend (http://www.slate.com/id/2199536/ ), which is where I was able to brush up on the quotes, but I was surprised to read a clarification that the device is called antimetabole, though it is often mistaken for the structurally similar chiasmus. A chiasmus, Julia Lapidos writes, has to do with an inversion of structure but does not involve repeated words.

What's the deal? Are you going to let a political journalist walk all over your favorite trope? Or is the definition a matter of professional hair-splitting? As a technical communicator with an interest in rhetoric, I want to be sure I keep my terms straight.

Thanks,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

As I've admitted before, Figaro has deliberately conflated the two. Distinguishing them is just plain confusing. Besides, rhetoricians past have defined the chiasmus as a mirror repetition of words as well as sounds.

Our objective is not merely to teach the names of words, but to use the names of words to teach.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

Are you going to resume posting your daily figure? This election season SCREAMS for witty analysis. There is so much rhetoric flying around, and I miss your insight.

Thanks,
Kathleen Whaley

Dear Kathleen,

I am indeed. Thanks for the encouragement.

Fig.

Figaro,

I enjoyed your book very much. I am currently looking for masters degree programs that have rhetoric as the focus. Could you recommend a few schools or refer me to a list somewhere?

~Jamison

Dear Jamison,

I get asked that repeatedly, and find myself a bit tongue-tied every time. Rhetoric is growing rapidly, and increasing numbers of schools are offering the discipline. Figaro has admired the scholarship of rhetoricians in a wide variety of schools--in particular Iowa State, Ohio State, UC-Berkeley, Northwestern, Drake, University of Houston, U-TX at Austin, and York College of Pennsylvania, plus many more.

Your best bet is to think about the type of rhetoric you want to study. See if your library has the Encylopedia of Rhetoric, published by the Oxford U. Press. See who wrote the articles on what interests you most, and email them for their advice.

And let Figaro know what you decide.

Fig.

Hi Jay,

Mmmmm...Barbeque! Please tell us (again) which figarospeech(s) this writer is using: "Thompson, a longtime ally of McCain whose own campaign for the White House flamed out early this year, tossed chunk after chunk of rhetorical red meat to the delegates."

Thanks.

Yrs,

Martha V.

Hey, Martha,

It's plain old metaphorizing, of the mixed variety. Only Fred Thompson has the acting chops (no pun intended) to flame out and then toss red meat. Barbecue indeed.

Fig.

Dear Figaro,

If "I'm in want of love " means either "I need love" or "I have no love for others", what kind of rhetorical device is that?

KC

Dear KC,

To say you're "in want" implies personal desire more than paucity. But I take your point. That being said, you could call the device a PARONOMASIA, the near pun. It can play on the meaning as well as the sound of words.

Most of the time, though, a person sounding two meanings at once is using a kind of IRONY--striking a clever chord, if you will. The CACEMPHATON uses a double entendre for humorous or scatological purposes, for instance. Then there's the delightfully snooty ADIANOETA, which says one thing and hides another, meaner one beneath. "I can see you want the job in the worst way."

Fig.

Dear Fig,

If you listen to people being interviewed in supposedly inteligent or intelectual situations on TV or the radio, especially NPR, you always kind of notice that some of the people being interviewed seem to be trying so hard to sound smart. It's like they're trying to add a profound quality to their statements, i.e. "It was.. sort of this.... big moment" or "It was this type of... (insert observation).

I'm not attacking this type of language, just curious, because there seems to be a difference between inserts like "sort of" and ones like "you know" or "like", even though they are almost interchangable. Am I the only one who notices this type of behavior. Hopefully you'll have the answer..... even if it's simple.

Memphis

Dear Memphis,

Saying "sort of" or "type of" does a bit more than occupy air space, as "like" does, because those NPR-isms imply that the example being given is representative of a pattern. Of course, when they're overused, they become little more than public-radio throat-clearing. You know?

Fig.

Dear Figaro,
I was reading your article "Why Harvard Destroyed Rhetoric," and I noticed a strange "Freudian slip." If that's what it was. About halfway down the page, you discuss the transition between Adams and McKean. I think you must have been thinking about the upcoming presidential race, because you begin replacing "McKean" with "McCain:"

"His theories are very different from Adams. As a professional Christian, McCain aligned himself with the Socratic side of the rhetorical argument. McCain emphasized not the ancients but Ramus and the plainspoken ecclesiastical rhetoric of the Puritans. In his nine years of teaching – before dying of tuberculosis at the age of 41 – McCain swung rhetoric at Harvard away from the practical and back to the scholarly. The discipline never recovered."

That does fit in with the "McCain is really old!" meme, but I'm assuming it's a typo, though at least a moderately amusing one.

Thanks for the rhetorical resources,

DS

Dear DS,

Blame it on my voice-recognition software and my lazy proofreading. I read that article into my computer, having written it years ago in a long-lost document.

Fig.