Composition-Rhetoric

by Stratton D. Brooks; Marietta Hubbard

IV. THE RHETORICAL FEATURES OF THE SENTENCE

+95. Unity, Coherence, and Emphasis in Sentences.+—On pages 153-155 we have considered the principles of unity, coherence, and emphasis as applied to the whole composition. In much the same way these principles are applicable to the sentence. A sentence possesses unity if all that it contains makes one complete statement, and no more; and if all minor ideas are made subordinate to one main idea. The effect must be single. A sentence exhibits coherence when the relation of all of its parts is perfectly clear. We secure emphasis in the sentence by placing ideas that deserve distinction in conspicuous positions; by arranging the members of a series in the order of climax; by using specific rather than general terms; by expressing thoughts with directness and simplicity; and by employing the devices of balance and contrast.

We must remember that, in the sentence as well as in the whole composition and the paragraph, if coherence and unity are secured, emphasis is quite likely to follow naturally. On the other hand, a violation of coherence or unity often results in a lack of emphasis.

+96. Unity in the sentence is affected unfavorably by+—

1. The presence of more than one main thought. (Stonewall Jackson was a general in the Confederate Army, and he is said to have been a very religious man.) In this sentence two distinct thoughts are embodied, and in such a way that their relation to each other is altogether illogical. The effect is not that of a single thought. To possess unity the two or more thoughts of a compound sentence should sustain some particular relation, like cause and effect, contrast, series, details of a picture. We can unite the two thoughts in a perfectly logical sentence, thus: (Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is said to have been a very religious man.)

2. The addition of too many dependent clauses. (The boy was startled when he awoke, for he heard the plan of his captors, who were preparing to seize the boat, which had been left by his friends who had so mysteriously deserted him at a time when he needed them most.) Here, the numerous dependent clauses tacked on obscure the main thought. The sentence should be broken up and, where possible, clauses should be reduced to phrases and words. (The boy was startled when he awoke, for he heard the plan of his captors. They were preparing to seize the boat left by his friends, who had deserted him in the hour of greatest need.)

3. The presence of incongruous ideas. (With his hair combed and his shoes blacked, he gave the impression of being a very strong man.) The ideas of this sentence have no logical relation to each other. There is little likelihood, too, of making them more congruous by any change in the sentence. Blacking one's shoes and combing one's hair do not make one look strong. The remedy for such a sentence is to separate the incongruous ideas.

4. A needless change of construction. (Silas was kindly received by the men in the tavern; and when they had listened to his story and his answers to their questions had been noted, they began to think of catching the thief.) Confusion arises from such sudden and needless changes of the subject. By keeping the same subject throughout, we secure unity of impression. (The men in the tavern received Silas kindly; and when they had listened to his story and had noted his answers to their questions, they began to think of catching the thief.)

5. Making the sentence too short and fragmentary to serve as a logical unit of the paragraph. (I went to the park yesterday. It was a pleasant day. I saw many animals. I had a good time, etc.) Each of these sentences, when considered in its relation to the others, and to the development of the thought, is altogether too incomplete and unimportant in ideas expressed to stand alone. Unity of impression and dignity of thought are gained by combining the sentences. (Yesterday was a pleasant day; so I went to the park, where I saw many animals, and had a good time.)

+97. Coherence in the sentence is affected unfavorably by+—

1. The wrong placing of modifiers. (The victorious general was returning to his native city after many hard-fought campaigns with his staff officers.) It is not likely that the campaigns here referred to were waged against the staff officers. By changing the position of phrases we express the thought that the writer had in mind. (After many hard-fought campaigns, the victorious general, with his staff officers, was approaching his native city.) Especial care should be taken in placing the correlatives either, or; neither, nor; not only, but also; and the word only. Incoherence frequently arises through the wrong placing of these words.

2. The careless use of pronouns. (Argument plays a very little part in that work, and those that do occur are not interesting.) (He repeated to his father what he had told him the night before when he was in his room.) In both sentences, the relation between pronouns and antecedents is not clear, and incoherence results. With the ambiguity in the use of the pronouns remedied, the sentences are entirely coherent. (Argument plays a very little part in that work, and whatever argumentative material is found is not interesting.) (He repeated to his father what he had told this parent the night before in his room.)

3. Careless participial and infinitive relations. (After carefully preparing my lessons, a friend came in.) (Standing on Brooklyn Bridge, a great many ferryboats can be seen.) The relation of the parts is manifestly illogical and absurd. The sentences should read: (After I had carefully prepared my lessons, a friend came in.) (While standing on Brooklyn Bridge, one can see a great many ferryboats.)

4. The use of wrong connectives. (It rained yesterday, and I went to school.) We assume that the pupil wishes to convey the thought that he went to school yesterday in spite of the rain. But by his use of the coordinating conjunction, "and," he has failed to establish a logical relation between the two clauses. In this case unity is violated as well as coherence. Use different connectives and note the result, (Although it rained yesterday, I went to school) or, (It rained yesterday, but I went to school).

5. Failure to observe parallelism in form. (The stranger seemed courteous in his conduct and to have a solicitude for my welfare.) Although this sentence is grammatically correct, the shift in structure from the adjective and its phrase to the infinitive phrase leads to confusion in thought. How much clearer and smoother this rendering: (The stranger seemed courteous in his conduct and solicitous for my welfare.)

+98. Emphasis in the sentence is affected unfavorably by+—

1. Weak beginnings and endings. (A fire in the city is an exciting event to the average boy.) (It seemed that the unprincipled fellow had forged his father's name.) In the first sentence, the important words are "exciting event," and they should occupy the most conspicuous position,— at the end of the sentence. The effectiveness is much improved by this order: (To the average boy, a fire in the city is an exciting event.) In the second sentence the weak place is the beginning. The subject and its modifiers are striking enough to demand their rightful position,—as the introductory words; in "forged his father's name" we have ideas startling enough for a place at the end of the sentence. "It seemed that" can be reduced to one word, "apparently," and this can be made parenthetical. (The unprincipled fellow, apparently, had forged his father's name.) This sentence, it will be observed, illustrates the periodic or suspended structure, a type particularly effective to employ for sustaining interest as well as for securing emphasis.

2. Failure to observe the order of climax. (Dazed, broken-hearted, hungry, the poor mother resumed her daily tasks.) Clearly, the strongest idea is suggested by "broken-hearted." A better order would be: (Hungry, dazed, broken-hearted, the poor mother resumed her daily tasks.)

3. The use of superfluous words. (I rushed hurriedly into the burning house and hastily snatched my few possessions.) In this sentence, "rushed" and "snatched" lose rather than gain force by adding "hurriedly" and "hastily." Look up definitions of "rush" and "snatch." When we wish to express strong emotion or to describe action resulting from excitement, we only weaken the impression by using unnecessary words. Simple, direct sentences are most forceful. In aiming to secure sentence emphasis, then, we should avoid circumlocution, redundancy, tautology, and verbosity. (Look up these terms in the Century Dictionary.)

4. The use of general rather than specific terms. (He approached the brook cautiously, and concealing himself in the bushes, began fishing.) A consideration of the choice of words in the sentence belongs strictly to the study of diction; however, force in the sentence is dependent in a large measure on the words employed. Observe how forceful the following sentence is as contrasted with the first example: (He crept noiselessly to the fishing hole, and hiding in the willows, threw his hook into the stream.)

5. Failure to employ balance and contrast. (Worth makes the man; but the fellow is made by the want of it.) (His life was spent in repenting of past misdeeds; in doing what was wrong, while he inculcated principles of righteousness.) Compare these with: (Worth makes the man; the want of it, the fellow.) (His life was spent in sinning and repenting; in inculcating what was right, and doing what was wrong.) Here the regularity of form gives pleasure to the taste, while the position of balanced and parallel parts adds clearness, coherence, and emphasis to the thoughts expressed. This method of sentence structure, if employed too frequently, however, will lead to a mannerism difficult to overcome. The caution to be heeded in the case of this type of sentence as well as in the case of every other is, "Nothing too much." Observe the law of variety.