dmm@calmasd.UUCP (David M. MacMillan) (08/14/85)
Is there a name for the rhetorical device of using a
trite phrase with its original meaning? It is a curious
device whose success depends upon the phrase being so well-
worn that its literal meaning seems surprising, but not so
archaic that its literal meaning is no longer understandable.
(An example of this latter would be the phrase "a nice
distinction". Here, this literal use of "nice" has passed out
oof the language. Indeed, I suppose that modern usage of the
parallel phrase "a nice mess this is" is probably ironic, and
unrelated to the 18th century meaning of "nice". I could easily
be wrong. I don't suppose Alexander Pope ever said "Have a
nice day.")
The only two examples of this rhetorical device which
come to mind are:
1. The song "I Should Care" (1940's?) in which the
singer complains that "I [she] should care" about all
the wrongs done to her by her beloved, but
closes with the line "I should care, and I do."
2. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
"The Shadow knows." (I don't think that the
common use of the phrase "who knows?" implies the
existance of anyone knowing).
David M. MacMillanjudith@proper.UUCP (Judith Abrahms) (08/19/85)
In article <> dmm@calmasd.UUCP (David M. MacMillan) writes: > > Is there a name for the rhetorical device of using a >trite phrase with its original meaning? It is a curious >device whose success depends upon the phrase being so well- >worn that its literal meaning seems surprising, but not so >archaic that its literal meaning is no longer understandable. > ... etc... > The only two examples of this rhetorical device which >come to mind are: > > 1. The song "I Should Care" (1940's?) in which the > singer complains that "I [she] should care" about all > the wrongs done to her by her beloved, but > closes with the line "I should care, and I do." > ... etc... In a short dictionary of critical terms by Meyer H. Abrams (Cornell University Press, I think), MHA defines a "dead metaphor" as one whose literal meaning has been forgotten more or less the way you describe. The example he gave was the leg of a table. He added that humor was frequently created by bringing a dead metaphor back to life, as when Groucho was asked "Are you a man or a mouse?" and responded, "Give me a piece of cheese and I'll show you!" (I never found this particularly hilarious, but there it is to show that a rhetorical device similar to yours was once noted, however parenthetically, by a teacher I had at Cornell.) Speaking of "I should care, etc.," has anyone noticed that the old form "I couldn't care less" has been more or less replaced by "I could care less"? By now the latter phrase could probably be used in the ironic way cited by DMMacM, as in, "I could care less, but I'm within epsilon of zero and working on it!" Judith Abrahms
T3B@psuvm.BITNET (08/20/85)
> [original note asks if there is a name for the rhetorical device > of using a trite phrase restored to its original meaning] The definitive book on figures of speech is probably still Quintilian's INSTITUTES OF ORATORY, and I don't remember his discussing this one. But you may really, in your question be talking about language-turns of at least three sorts: 1) Trite, outworn phrases restored to their original meanings. 2) Phrases normally used metaphorically that are invoked literally. 3) Usually ironic catch phrases that are de-ironized. Of this last one, for which I'd tentatively propose the name REIRONY or DEIRONY, there's a complication. In the examples you cited, there is not a reduction of an original irony to literalism, but an *addition* of irony achieved when ironic expectations are reversed--itself an irony. Hence, there is a sense in which all three of these usages are ironic, since they are not an absence of the original metaphor, cliche, or irony, but an ironic reversal of our expectations about it. Do you know Wayne Booth's RHETORIC OF IRONY? Might be some theory there that would help. -- Tom Benson {akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b (UUCP) T3B@PSUVM (BITNET) 76044,3701 (COMPUSERVE)
GMP@psuvm.BITNET (08/23/85)
In a book I wrote some years ago, I found it necessary to put together a list o
f "rhetorical devices." Working from A SYSTEM OF FIGURES AND TROPES which date
s to the seventeenth century, Henry Peacham lists what he calls the authori-
tative list of literary figures and tropes used in the rhetorical works, mostly
by Cicero. Risking providing more information than anyone cares to have
Alliteration onomatopoeia synechdoche allegory metonymy
autonomasia hyperbole sarcasm catachresis ecphonesis epanorthosis
aposiopesis apophasis (made famous by Richard Nixon)
anacoenosis anastrophe erotesis epanaphora apostrophe periphrasis
euphemism eupuism synchoresis asyndeton oxymoron enanctiosis hypotyposis
prosopopoeia parabole epiphonema
Cicero in De Inventione noted that he often found it necessary to return a
phrase to its original meaning. Cartagena delenda est thus became a direct
reference to a military attack each time he used the word, although the phrase
had taken on the meaning of a routine exhortation to the impossible. Aristotle
did a great deal with the commonplace, best exemplified in the title ^
"Who s afraid of Virginia Woolf?" which takes on the context of juxtaposition
of petty human mind with the great literature of history, but in the final
act refers to its direct meaning as a commonplace, literally, fear of the
destruction of the illusion.
We could go on with this, but if anyone is really interested, drop me a
line and I will send you xerox copies of some pages hardly anyone read, on
which I made hardly a dime, but which do rejuvenate some of the classic wisdom
of those who did their literary work without wordprocessors.
ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM
INQUIRIES TO GMP, 225 SPARKS, PSU, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802
!mcnc!akgua!psuvax!psuvm.bitnet!gmp