Diction, Syntax, and Language AnalysisDiction Diction is a term essentially meaning "words," but the problem that students encounter when dealing with diction as a subject for analysis is that they often don't know what to do with it -- it's often a "can't see the forest for the trees" problem. Typical problems include student statements such as The author uses a lot of diction or The author uses some interesting diction. Neither of these sentences demonstrate that the writer understands there is a purpose or a pattern to the words, only that there are words there. Saying The author used diction is similar to saying The painter used paint. All that "diction" means is "words," and when we ask you to analyze diction, what we're effectively asking is this: Why that word? Why not another word that means something similar? Why did the author choose to use that word there, in those circumstances? What is the connotation of that word? Is it suggesting or implying another, less obvious layer of meaning?
Diction Examples The choice of words in conversation, writing, or speaking is absolutely crucial. Most students know the difference between denotation (a word's technical "dictionary definition") and connotation (the "feel" of a word; that is, its associations, implications, context, and history).
However, consider the difference in words within the following groups:
She is assured.
She is confident.
She is assertive.
She is aggressive.
She is bossy.
Bob belongs to a group of friends.
Bob belongs to a fraternity.
Bob belongs to an organization.
Bob belongs to a club.
Bob belongs to a gang.
How are our perceptions of Bob changed when we see him as belonging to a gang rather than to a fraternity or group of friends?
Would we describe George Bush, Colin Powell, Bill Gates, or Barack Obama as assertive? Why not bossy?
Differences Matter Even from those two examples above, we can see that subtle -- and not-so-subtle -- racial, ethnic, gender, and other forms of bias affect not only our own choice of words, but also affect our perception of an event, object, or person being described. Clearly, even from those two examples above, we can see the profound change in our emotions or perceptions of Hillary Clinton if we describe her as bossy rather than as assured. How did our perception of "Bob" change when he was described as belonging to a gang rather than to a group of friends?
Exercise: George Bernard Shaw, from Man and Superman
The mistake some students make is assuming, "Well, a synonym means the exact same thing as the word it replaces, so what's the difference?" Well, first of all, the assumption that a synonym means exactly the same as a similar word is essentially fallacious. Words have a variety of connotations and very few of them are exactly alike. (If they were exactly alike, why keep both?) In fact, words can be compared to shades of paint. Any trip to Home Depot will show that there is no such thing as just a simple color or type of paint. Even if you said, "I want a gallon of white paint," here are some shades of white you could choose from.
This doesn't even take texture into account. Language works the same way. Walk is not the same as amble, stride, march, meander. Sleep is not the same as snooze, nap, slip into unconsciousness, or faceplant. Here are some exercises that will help clarify the differences.
Passage: From Man and Superman, by George Bernard Shaw
Don Juan: Your friends are all the dullest dogs I know. They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated they are only college pass-men. They are not religious: they are only pew-renters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly. They are not even vicious: they are only "frail." They are not artistic: they are only lascivious. They are not prosperous: they are only rich. They are not loyal, they are only servile; not dutiful, only sheepish; not public spirited, only patriotic; not courageous, only quarrelsome; not determined, only obstinate; not masterful, only domineering; not self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, only vain; not kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; not considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious; not just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not disciplined, only cowed; and not truthful at all--liars every one of them, to the very backbone of their souls.
"Looters" or "Finders"?
How about this famous example? In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many residents of New Orleans, trapped by the flood and prevented from receiving help or services, were in immediate need of food, water, medicine, shelter, and many basic necessities of existence and were forced to retrieve these items for themselves or their families in whatever way they were able to. However, this fight for survival was described in radically diverge t terms by news outlets...depending on the race of the survivors in question.
After losing a formal debate in a contest with the Bard Prison Initiative Debate Team, a group of incarcerated prisoners participating in a debate program run by Bard University, the Harvard Debate Team wrote the following message on its team Facebook page:
There are few teams we are prouder of having lost a debate to than the phenomenally intelligent and articulate team we faced this weekend.
The victorious Bard Debate Team following its victory over Harvard
Lost in Translation: Women's Language
Excerpt from "Famous Quotes the Way a Woman Would Have to Say Them During a Meeting" by Alexandra Petri (Washington Post, 10-13-15)
“Woman in a Meeting” is a language of its own.
It should not be, but it is. You will think that you have stated the case simply and effectively, and everyone else will wonder why you were so Terrifyingly Angry. Instead, you have to translate. You start with your thought, then you figure out how to say it as though you were offering a groveling apology for an unspecified error.
To illustrate this difficulty, I have taken the liberty of translating some famous sentences into the phrases a woman would have to use to say them during a meeting not to be perceived as angry, threatening or (gasp!) bitchy.
“Give me liberty, or give me death.” Woman in a Meeting: “Dave, if I could, I could just — I just really feel like if we had liberty it would be terrific, and the alternative would just be awful, you know? That’s just how it strikes me. I don’t know.”
“I have a dream today!” Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, I just had this idea — it’s probably crazy, but — look, just as long as we’re throwing things out here — I had sort of an idea or vision about maybe the future?”
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, Mikhail, if I could? Didn’t mean to cut you off there. Can we agree that this wall maybe isn’t quite doing what it should be doing? Just looking at everything everyone’s been saying, it seems like we could consider removing it. Possibly. I don’t know, what does the room feel?”
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Woman in a Meeting: “I have to say — I’m sorry — I have to say this. I don’t think we should be as scared of non-fear things as maybe we are? If that makes sense? Sorry, I feel like I’m rambling.”
“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” Woman in a Meeting: “I’m not an expert, Dave, but I feel like maybe you could accomplish more by maybe shifting your focus from asking things from the government and instead looking at things that we can all do ourselves? Just a thought. Just a thought. Take it for what it’s worth.”
“Let my people go.” Woman in a Meeting: “Pharaoh, listen, I totally hear where you’re coming from on this. I totally do. And I don’t want to butt in if you’ve come to a decision here, but, just, I have to say, would you consider that an argument for maybe releasing these people could conceivably have merit? Or is that already off the table?”
“I came. I saw. I conquered.” Woman in a Meeting: “I don’t want to toot my own horn here at all but I definitely have been to those places and was just honored to be a part of it as our team did such a wonderful job of conquering them.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Woman in a Meeting: “I’m sorry, it really feels to me like we’re all equal, you know? I just feel really strongly on this.”
“I have not yet begun to fight.” Woman in a Meeting: “Dave, I’m not going to fight you on this.”
“I will be heard.” Woman in a Meeting: “Sorry to interrupt. No, go on, Dave. Finish what you had to say.” _________________________________________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONS
What is Petri’s message?
What is her ultimate goal? That is, what does she ideally want people to do?
All humor has a target (a victim). What or who is Petri's real target? At whom is she offended?
Why does she capitalize “Terrifyingly Angry”?
Why does she include the parenthetical exclamation “(gasp!)”?
Why is the word “bitchy” the one she saves for last?
What is the difference between some of these statements as phrased by men versus women?
What are some of the conversational "moves" that Petri's speaker, the Woman in a Meeting, feel as if she has to make in order to be heard?
In what way does the Woman in a Meeting intentionally (or in some cases, unintentionally) end up reinforcing stereotypes about women?
Diction and Crime: Saying it Without Saying It
One of the more riveting court cases of the twentieth century involved a double homicide. (I'm deliberately being vague about which double homicide because I want these words to be evaluated with as few preconceived notions as possible.) One of the leading suspects was the husband of one of the victims. The suspect, "Bob," was expected to surrender to police custody, but instead, made the choice to flee, leaving behind this note for his friend to read on national television. The friend, "Robert," read the letter, correcting grammar and ambiguous language as he went. Below are the two statements, "Robert's" corrected version, and "Bob's" original text.
1. Robert's corrected version: "To whom it may concern: First, everyone understand I had nothing to do with [Victim's] murder." 2. The Actual Original Statement: ""To whom it may concern: First, everyone understand XXXXXX nothing to do with [Victim's] murder." * In the actual original statement, the words "I had" (or possibly "I have") were entirely crossed out.
After he was found not guilty in his criminal trial, Bob published a book with the following title:
When he was later found culpable in a civil trial for damages, the family of the victim gained publication rights over Bob's book and reissued it with the following slightly amended cover. (The "If" is tucked into the "I.")
Diction, Class, Power, and "Proper" Academic Language
In every society, class -- and therefore power -- is partly defined by language. When the Normans invaded England in 1066, for example, the Anglo-Saxon words for normal body functions became considered "low-class" because the conquered Saxons were the subjects of the conquering Normans, whose French was considered "classier." Thus, many of modern English's improper words are a product of 11th-century class warfare in the form of language.
Some English, therefore, is considered "classy," "proper," and "educated" because it tends to be associated with the people in power. Consider this famous scene from My Fair Lady, the musical version of George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion.
____________________ As you can see in this scene, Eliza's Cockney accent sets her apart from the classier, upper-crust world of Covent Garden's opera crowd and the linguist Henry Higgins, whose essential attitude toward Eliza is that she is little more than a minor linguistic curiosity, an object of minor study. The play encourages us to be sympathetic to Eliza, however, and in that sympathy, Shaw is moving us away from the notion that there is anything inherently and naturally superior about those of the upper class -- and away from the notion that the "lower class" is characterized by lack of intelligence -- or even ignorance. Ambitious, intelligent, and industrious, Eliza is willing to take Higgins up on his boast that under his tutelage, she could pass for a duchess. This is a plan that encounters some initial setbacks, particularly in the process of "unlearning" one's native dialect and accent (See "My Fair Lady Pronunciation") and then "unlearning" the behaviors and attitudes associated with one's own class of birth, as in the third scene ("My Fair Lady - Horse Race Scene," starting at 3:20). Class privilege is not maintained only through diction and pronunciation, but acceptable codes of belonging and behavior -- codes Eliza masters by the climactic scene of the film at the Embassy ball (see "Audrey Hepburn at Glamorous Embassy Ball" starting at 1:45).
Diction and Power and Class: Academic Language and Exclusion ____________________________________________________________ Consider the following passages from language scholar Dr. Geneva Smitherman, Distinguished Professor of English and Director of the African American Language and Literacy Program at Michigan State University, from her book Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America:
In Black America, the oral tradition has served as a fundamental vehicle for gittin ovah. That tradition preserves the Afro-American heritage...
Blacks are quick to ridicule "educated fools," people who done gone to school and read all dem books and still don't know nothin!
...it is a socially-approved verbal strategy for black rappers to talk about how bad they is.
Questions
Basic: Write down three or four phrases from Dr. Smitherman's work which qualify as "academic discourse" or "academic diction." Then write down three or four phrases which are definitely not traditionally "academic" in nature.
How would you describe or label those three or four not-traditionally-academic phrases? What characteristic do they share?
What impact did those phrases have on you emotionally? How did you respond differently to Dr. Smitherman's academic language versus her non-academic language?
What larger point about academic language was Dr. Smitherman making in her text? What criticism is she essentially leveling at academic langauge here?
What commentary about race and class is Dr. Smitherman using her language to make? Why does her language help her make that point?
Just for Fun: If Shakespeare Wrote Pop Songs The following passages are written in Shakespearean sonnet style, but are actually translations of modern pop songs. The trick here: Can you identify which pop song is being referenced here?
Selection One Into the well, I cast a humble pray’r And though the wish remains yet unconveyed, My countenance, on seeing you so fair, Has left all my desire thus betrayed. ‘Twas naught from lust or love that I did seek, Yet you obstruct the road of Fate for me. As skin through tears in shabby trousers peeks The torrid, breezy night arouses glee. Now our acquaintance, only moments sown, Has made my heart fair Logic cast away, I give thee now this favor of my own, Perchance to call upon me soon, I pray! For long before we had our chance to start, Your absence left an aching in my heart.
Selection Two
I found my way into the market square To drink in deep the festival’s delights, I suffered the misfortune of you there, Like I had borne through all our troubled nights. So recently we’d broken bonds of love, I doubted you had sooner still forgot; Yet still your jealous ire rose above When passions in another had grown hot. Yes, I am in his gaze, and he in mine, But your eyes somewhere else should swiftly start – For three long years, I left myself to pine For matrimony’s gifts to grace my heart. If truly you did wish to win my hand, You should have graced it with a wedding band.