Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo
of Laetus in Praesens
University of Earth Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos

8 August 2016 | Draft

Questionable Classification of Figures of Speech

as fundamental to the need for powerful rhetoric in governance

- / -


Introduction
Dysfunctionally disparate classifications?
Categorization of figures of speech in non-western cultures
References


Introduction

As fundamental to persuasive rhetoric, it is curious, but potentially significant, that the variety of styles of speech is so notably framed by the term figures of speech. As a term which has both aesthetic and geometrical connotations, how are such "figures" to be understood -- especially in relation to imagining the great game of Castalia? This is discussed separately in a paper of which this is effectively an annex Evoking Castalia as Envisaged, Entoned and Embodied (2016). The implications of the following are discussed there in terms of metapoetics and musical-rhetorical figure theory (Musica poetica).

Figures of speech are of course fundamental to discourse -- and to the public discourse central to governance, the processes of persuasion through argument, and to confidence building. The phrase "talking things up" is noteworthy in this respect.

For Stephen Adams (Poetic Designs: an introduction to meters, verse forms, and figures of speech, 1997):

Far from being artificial distortions of language, the figures have developed from patterns that naturally appear when language is used with great emotion and energy. As such they provide one means for identitying patterns that emerge in free verse and help give it formal organization... (p 108)

Especially pertinent, at a time when arguments presented in English are challenged by those presented, in Arabic is the reflection on figures of speech by Hussein Abdul-Raof (Arabic Rhetoric: a pragmatic analysis, 2006):

The traditional meaning of "figurative" has always involved a contrast with the "proper" meaning of a given word, its supposed meaning, the idea which comes to mind when the word is employed. Figures of speech twist the meaning of the word -- the Greek word for figures of speech is trope which means "turn, twist". The figurative system of language has rhetorical and political force. The word is as powerful as a bullet. Thus figures of speech have psychological force and are the chief element of eloquence and the skill to convince your audience of the truth of your thesis.... [emphasis added]

In presenting a catalogue of the more common schemes and tropes (noted below), Adams specifically focuses on those to which reference is made in the "working critical vocabulary". He notes:

In the long history of rhetoric, different classifications of the figures have been used. One essential distinction is between schemes and tropes, that is between "figures of speech" and "figures of thought". In Brian Vickers' words, a trope "involves a change or transference of meaning and works on the conceptual level" while a scheme "essentially works on the physical level of the shape or structure of language... A trope affects the meaning of words: a [scheme] only affects their placing or repetition". Tropes have received abundant attention. The study of metaphor alone has reached staggering proportions. The lowlier schemes, however -- more closely related to patterning of the physical language like meter, rhyme, and stanza -- have been slighted (p. 108)

Recognizing the distinction, or conflating the two as virtually synonymous, remains a matter of continuing interest, perhaps best succinctly stated by Silvae Rhetoricae as:

Classification of figures of speech: The following exposition of approaches to the classification of figures of speech is lengthy and tedious. It is howevr significant in that it highlights what is so systematically neglected at a time when rhetoric has seemingly a vital role to play. A useful introductory summary is provided by Zhang Xiu Guo (English Rhetoric, 1991):

Literary interest in, and use of, figures of speech reached its zenith in the Renaissance: [Henry] Peacham's handbook [The Garden of Eloquence, 1577] lists nearly 200 different types (400 are listed in [Lee A.] Sonnino, 1968). Although a decline in the study of classics and a growing suspicion of the rhetoric have led to a decline in their use in literary composition and public speaking, a "hard core" of figures still persists, and some are known reasonably well by name. For example, devices of repetition are common in public spending: and figurative language is generally characteristic of advertising.

In the second half of the twentieth ccntury, rcnewed interest in figures of speech came from French structuralism influenced by the earlier Russian formalists and from stylistics in work on text analysis, speech act theory and pragmatics -- modem fields traditional rhetoric in many ways anticipated. As a result, there have been several attempts at classifications of figures on a more rigorous, linguistic basis.

lt is true tbat the Greek forms of figures of speech are admittedly difficult to pronounce and remember. Many of tbem confusingly overlap with others in meaning, or appear to have more than one mcaning. Undoubtedly, however, certain knowledgc of rhetorical figures is of considerable importance for both our understanding of stylistic effect in literary language of earlier periods and our verbal communication in today's world.

Main categories: The problematic issues of classification (anticipating those implied below), are introduced by the main categories presented by Wikipedia as the classical rhetorical operations (quadripartita ratio):

As the four categories of change in Silva Rhetoricae, these become another means of mapping the forest of rhetoric: "a way of finding motifs, habits of mind, or simply similar approaches operating on multiple levels across the breadth of rhetoric".

By contrast, according to Zhang Xiu Guo (1991), figures of speech, according to their function, fall into three categories, those involving:

As noted by Zhang Xiu Guo:

... sometimes a givcn figure of speech will fall mainly into a single category, as, for example, an apostophe is used mostly for emotion. But more often the effects of a particular figure are multiple, and a single one may operate in all three categories. Parallelism, for instance, helps to order, clarify, empbasize and beautify a thought. Occasionally a figure has certain effects not readily identifiable or explainable, so it is not always easy to tell why or when certain ones are good or should be uscd. (p. 89).

How many, of what kind, are required for competence -- beyond the simple 4-fold set of classical rhetorical operations?

Dysfunctionally disparate classifications?

With respect to figures of speech, Wikipedia has very extensive checklists of 90 Linguistic schemes and of 119 Linguistic tropes -- all linked to more extensive commentary.

A very extensive list of figures of speech is provided by Lee A. Sonnino (A Handbook to Sixteenth-Century Rhetoric, 1968). Therein his Groupings of Figures is clustered as follows, and cross-linked to the valuable Silva Rhetoricae: the forest of rhetoric database where definitions and examples can also be found. An associated listing, entitled Musica Poetica (discussed below), identifies 465 figures.

Clustering of 326 figures of speech used in rhetoric of the 16th century
(from Lee A. Sonnino, Groupings of Figures, 1968; named in Latin)
  • Figures of addition-digression, etc. (19)
  • Figures of admission and concession (10)
  • Figures which amplify the importance of the subject of discourse (6)
  • Figures of appeal to the audience, by threat or promise or entreaty (14)
  • Figures for beginning (4)
  • Figures of comparison and similitude (14)
  • Figures of contrast (10)
  • Figures of description (13)
  • Figures which directly address someone (9)
  • Figures which distort the truth -- see also figures which exaggerate (8)
  • Figures involving doubt or hesitation (4)
  • Figures which lead to a certain emotion (10)
  • Figures for emphasizing different points (19)
  • Figures for ending (11)
  • Figures which exaggerate or diminish (7)
  • Figures of exclamation (6)
  • Figures which heap things up (5)
  • Figures which imitate (3)
  • Figures of implication (10)
  • Figures which list things -- enumeration or summation (10)
  • Figures which depend upon logical forms (6)
  • Figures which involve memorable phrases or deeds (5)
  • Figures which are narratives (9)
  • Figures of omission, including refusals to speak (14)
  • Figures of personal abuse or accusation (10)
  • Figures which involve a play on words (10)
  • Figures of premeditation (7)
  • Figures which ask questions (4)
  • Figures by which the speaker recommends himself to the hearer -- by praise, thanks, etc. (10)
  • Figures of repetition (20)
  • Figures which cause variations in style (4)
  • Figures which vary the normal syntax (25)
  • Figures which alter the form or grammatical status of a word (10)
Tropes (21) Vices and faults (16)

Arguing that his classification is "descended from a distinguished heritage", Stephen Adams (1997) clusters the rhetoric devices as follows, helpfully summarized separately at Rhetorical Devices and Scansion Terms (where definitions and examples are indicated as having also been culled from the Silva Rhetoricae database):

"Figures of speech" as distinguished by Stephen Adams (1997)
A. Figures of speech
  1. Figures of balance and parallelism
    antimetabole
    parallelism
    balance chiasmus antithesis
    climax
  2. Figures of repetition
    alliteration
    epanalepsis
    paroemion
    anadiplosis
    epistrophe
    paromoiosis
    anaphora
    epizeuxis
    ploce
    assonance
    iteratio
    polyptoton
    consonance
    mesodiplosis
    symploce
  3. Figures of amplification, omission or interruption
    asyndeton
    epithet
    periphrasis
    catalogue
    fixed epithet
    pleonasm
    congeries
    kenning
    polysyndeton
    ellipsis
    parataxis
    zeugma
    epanorthosis
    parenthesis
  4. Figures of address (apostrophe)
    adynaton
    proclees
    apostrophe
    rhetorical question (6)
    command exclamation invocation
  5. Figures of syntactic deviation (inversion)
    anacoluthon
    hendiadys
    anastrophe
    hypallage
    anthimeria aposiopesis diacope
  6. Figures of verbal play (puns and coinages)
    acrylogia neologism portmanteau pun (3)  
B. Tropes
  1. Metaphor and simile
    catachresis
    submerged metaphor
    cliché conceit metaphor simile
  2. Metonymy and synecdoche
    antonomasia metonymy synecdoche    
  3. Personification
    allegory personification      
  4. Irony and paradox
    antiphrasis
    epitrope
    meiosis
    synaesthesia

    apophasis
    hyperbole
    non sequitur
    tapinosis

    aporia
    hysteron proteron
    oxymoron


    bathos
    irony (3)
    paradox
    cacozelia
    litotes
    sarcasm

The website on Changing Minds, via its page on figures of speech (or 'rhetorical tropes'), offers similar resources -- noting that these are ways of using words that may seem unusual but have a specific and desired effect. Read as 'normal words' they often break normal rules of grammar, but can be nevertheless understood -- and as such, being common in poetry and eloquent speech.

In addition to its Full list of figures of speech, the Changing Minds website offers a classification of figures of speech by type, with links to further explanation in each case (corresponding to those of Wikipedia)

Changing Minds ***
  1. Amplification, namely some kind of exaggeration or enlargement
    adynaton
    bdelygmia
    distinctio
    parrhesia
    ampliatio
    climax
    dysphemism
    synonymia
    amplificatio
    correctio
    dystmesis
    tricolon
    anabasis
    epizeuxis
    enumeratio
    auxesis
    hyperbole
    epanorthosis
  2. Distortion, or some other change in meaning.
    adynaton
    aureation
    enallage
    merism
    proparalepsis
    tmesis
    amphibology
    auxesis
    epanorthosis
    metaplasmus
    prosthesis
    antisthecon
    cacophony
    epenthesis
    metathesis
    synaloepha
    apcope
    catachresis
    hyperbole
    parisology
    syncope
    aphaeresis
    dystmesis
    malapropism
    perissologia
    Tapinosis
  3. Emotion
    aganactesis
    ethopoeia
    asteismos
    euche
    anamnesis
    hypocatastasis
    apostrophe
    oeonismos
    cacophony
    paraeneticon
  4. Excess, namely some form of exaggeration or enlargement
    adynaton
    enumeratio
    syndeton
    amphilogy
    optatio
    tautology
    bdelygmia
    periphrasis
    cledonism
    perissologia
    hyperbole
    pleonasm
  5. Falsehood, including any kind of negativity
    accismus
    hypocorism
    anangeon
    paradeigma
    antanagoge
    personification
    aporia
    fictio
  6. Grammar
    chiasmus
    parataxis
    hypallage
    perissologia
    hypotaxis
    pleonasm
    hypozeuxis
    polysyndeton
    malapropism
  7. Hidden meaning, namely not necessarily is immediately apparent
    accismus
    homophone
    pun
    adianoeta
    perissologia
    subreption
    antanagoge
    paronomasia
    synchysis
    autoclesis
    periphrasis
    cledonism
    praecisio
  8. Humour
    acutezza
    pun
    Irony malapropism paraprosdokian paronomasia
  9. Meaning, namely its creation or change
    accumulatio
    amphibology
    antiphrasis
    distinctio
    merismos
    acyron
    anacoluthon
    aphorismus
    fictio
    paraprosdokian
    adianoeta
    anacrusis
    archaism
    glossolalia
    adynaton
    apposition
    aureation
    hypocatastasis
    allegory
    asterismos
    correctio
    merism
  10. Omission, often to gain attention or emphasize importance.
    anapodoton
    ellipsis
    polysyndeton
    apcope
    hypocatastasis
    synaloepha
    aphaeresis
    paralipsis
    syncope
    aposiopesis
    parisology
    cataphora
    praeteritio
  11. Questioning
    anthypophora aphorismus aporia apostrophe  
  12. Rearrangement of words in some way.
    adjunction
    extraposition
    spoonerism
    anastrophe
    hypallage
    synchysis
    antimetabole
    hyperbaton
    chiasmus
    hysteron proteron
    diallage
    oxymoron
  13. Reasoning, namely some form of reasoned argument
    accismus
    epitrope
    procatalepsis
    aetiologia
    exemplum
    proverb
    affirmatio
    narratio
    sententia
    anthypophora
    paradeigma
    subreption
    antirhesis
    personification
  14. Reduction, namely a reduction or other change in meaning.
    anesis
    brevitas
    tapinosis
    antirhesis
    euphemism
    asteismos
    eusystolism
    autoclesis
    hypocorism
    brachyology
    meiosis
  15. Reference to some other item.
    accismus
    apostrophe
    adianoeta
    illeism
    allusion
    merism
    antiptosis
    praeteritio
    apophasis
  16. Repetition, often with the intent of gaining attention or emphasizing importance
    alliteration
    antimetabole
    consonance
    epizeuxis
    parachesis
    paroemion
    synonymia
    anacephalaeosis
    antistrophe
    correctio
    exergasia
    parallelism
    polyptoton
    tautology
    anadiplosis
    assonance
    dysrhythmia
    homoioteleuton
    paregmenon
    polysyndeton
    tricolon
    anaphora
    auxesis
    epanados
    hypozeuxis
    parison
    repetitio
    antanaclasis
    chiasmus
    epistrophe
    Inclusio
    parisosis
    rhyme
  17. Reversal, including some form of inversion
    acyron
    hypallage
    antimetabole
    hysteron proteron
    antiphrasis
    paradiastole
    antithesis chiasmus:
  18. Sound, namely the sound of words
    alliteration
    consonance
    anacrusis
    homophone:
    assonance
    paronomasia
    cacemphaton
    synizesis
    cacophony
  19. Substitution, with one thing substituted for another
    allegory
    dysphemism
    hypocatastasis
    synecdoche
    alleotheta
    enallage
    innuendo
    anthimeria
    euphemism
    metaphor
    antonomasia
    hendiadys
    metonymy
    antisthecon
    heterosis
    pun

Common figures of speech: A set of 60 is proposed by Arthur Quinn (Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase, 1995). In offering a list of the Top 20 Figures of Speech, the website about education notes that there are hundreds of figures of speech (of which 130 are included in its Tool Kit for Rhetorical Analysis, with links to expanded discussions and examples).

Top 20 figures of speech
(reproduced from about education)
  1. Alliteration: The repetition of an initial consonant sound.
  2. Anaphora: The repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or verses. (Contrast with epiphora and epistrophe.)
  3. Antithesis: The juxtaposition of contrasting ideas in balanced phrases.
  4. Apostrophe: Breaking off discourse to address some absent person or thing, some abstract quality, an inanimate object, or a nonexistent character.
  5. Assonance: Identity or similarity in sound between internal vowels in neighboring words.
  6. Chiasmus: A verbal pattern in which the second half of an expression is balanced against the first but with the parts reversed.
  7. Euphemism: The substitution of an inoffensive term for one considered offensively explicit.
  8. Hyperbole: An extravagant statement; the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis or heightened effect.
  9. Irony: The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning. A statement or situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the idea.
  10. Litotes: A figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite.
  11. Metaphor: An implied comparison between two unlike things that actually have something important in common.
  1. Metonymy: A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it's closely associated; also, the rhetorical strategy of describing something indirectly by referring to things around it.
  2. Onomatopoeia: The use of words that imitate the sounds associated with the objects or actions they refer to.
  3. Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side.
  4. Paradox: A statement that appears to contradict itself.
  5. Personification: A figure of speech in which an inanimate object or abstraction is endowed with human qualities or abilities.
  6. Pun: A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words.
  7. Simile: A stated comparison (usually formed with "like" or "as") between two fundamentally dissimilar things that have certain qualities in common.
  8. Synecdoche: A figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole (for example, ABCs for alphabet) or the whole for a part ("England won the World Cup in 1966").
  9. Understatement: A figure of speech in which a writer or speaker deliberately makes a situation seem less important or serious than it is.

A text by Dillon T. Thornton (The Classification of Some of the Major Figures of Speech, including scriptural examples, 2012), presented as an adaptation of a text by E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 1898), clusters 17 figures of speech as:

Understood as stylistic devices, Figures of Speech (Stylistic Devices) indicates the following 35 as being the most important.

accumulation
adjunction
adnomination
alliteration
allusion
anaphora
antanaclasis
anticlimax
antiphrasis
antithesis
apostrophe
assonance
cataphora
chiasmus

climax
dysphemism
ellipsis
euphemism
epigram
epiphora (or epistrophe)
hyperbole
hypophora
irony
litotes
oxymoron
personification
puns
merism

metalepsis
metaphor
metonymy
simile
syncdoche
tautology
understatement

Of particular interest in relation to the question of memorability (discussed below), is the elaboration of a set of 42 figures of speech claimed to be of value to actors. With leaders, especially political leaders, readily appreciating their need to "act" before audiences, its relevance for them is especially clear. For some, that number fruitfully recalls the significance given to 42 by Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 1979) as being the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Forty-two Figures of Speech for Actors by Ralph Alan Cohen (2010)
(with the recommendation that the significance of the 16 hyperlinked be memorised)

accumulatio
anadiplosis
anaphora
anastrophe
antanaclasis
anthimeria
antimetabol
antisthecon
antithesis

apocope
aporia
aposiopesis
asyndeton
auxesis
brachylogia
catachresis
chiasmus
diacope
ellipsis
enallage
epanados
epanalepsis
epanorthosis
epistrophe
epizeuxis
erotema
gradatio
hendiadys
hypallage
hyperbaton
isocolon
metaplasmus
metonymy
parenthesis
pleonasm
polyptoton

polysyndeto
repetitio
symploce
synecdoche
tmesis
zeugma

Categorization of figures of speech in non-western cultures

Irrespective of ignoring the respective merits of alternative classification, the exercises above fail to take account of how figures of speech might be identified and clustered in other languages and cultures -- again, as with natural species.

Indian: The case is well made by Edwin Gerow (A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech, 1971):

Despite the wealth of figures in the Indian poetic and despite the exactitude and breadth of their exemplification in the treatises, modern critics have not shown much interest in the universe implied by the figures, preferring to extrapolate theories of poetic beauty from the rare and sketchy references to terms like vakroti, riti, and sobha. If they are concerned with the figures at all, it is philogically, as an exercise in the history of a text tradition. Critics concerned with intellectual history... often adopt the point of view of the dhvani theorists and are puzzled by the persistent emphasis on figuration. (p. 24)

Gerow notes the comment of one critic: On the classification of figures of speech no serious thought appears to have been expended. Adding that: The Indian texts, on the contrary, are almost exclusively devoted to questions of concrete definition: the number of figures and related poetic categories (p. 24).

Gerow continues:

Verbal beauty is a consideration proper to poetics, but the initial task of the discipline is to describe the expressive apparatus by which this poetic comprehension is achieved. To begin with, the poetic charm of language has to be taken for granted; it is not an object of investigation, but a criterion of identification. The question necessarily posed by the first figurationists was "how", not "what". Of course, in time, when the formal apparatus had been more or less successfully delineated, critics, under the impetus of newer poetic genres, began to speculate on the problem of beauty itself and to seek a single principle which underlies poetic language. (p. 24)

Chinese: Other comments of relevance have been made regarding the contrast between Chinese and English. Although these languages have comon usages of such forms, each language has its own unique set. It has been found that 16 used in Chinese and 26 employed in English each included 6 figures not observed in any other language (Bai and Shi, 2002). Even similar figures are used differently in each language (Rosemary Luckin, et al, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts that Work, 2007, p. 547).

Also noted there, many studies have found fundamental differences in discourse organization between Chinese and English writing. In Chinese a spiral pattern is often observed in contrast to the linear sequence in English. The coherence in the latter emphasized a tree structure between main and subordinate clauses. In contrast in Chinese discourse the structure tends towards parallel sequences. People in western cultures use a deductive method of reasoning or argument, while people in eastern cultures use inductive reasoning (p. 546-547).

Such comments are especially relevant given that Chinese is a tonal language.

Arabic: A detailed commentary on figures of speech in Arabic is offered by Hussein Abdul-Raof (Arabic Rhetoric: a pragmatic analysis, 2006). This notes:

The three major figures of speech ['ilm al-bayan] that have featured in Arabic rhetorical studies are simile, allegory, and metonymy.... It is worthwhile to note that simile is culture-specific. In other words, semantically speaking, what is a simile in Arabic may not be appreciated by speakers of other languages such as English. This is due to the fact that the two languages, Arabic and English, have distinct connotative significations to the same expression which denotatively represent the same entity. (p. 196).

Persian: An extensive entry in the Encyclopaedia Iranica (Rhetorical Fugures: devices of embellishment, tropes, and figures considered as an intrinsic part of literary expression in medieval Persia) notes:

From the late 10th century, the embellishment of speech (so?an, kalam) gradually assumed a primary importance for both poets and scribes who were eager to delight and impress their audience and create verbal marvels. A century later the art of applying rhetorical figures became almost synonymous with literary craftsmanship.... One should not assume, however, that the creative spirit of Persian letters was of foreign origin. Arab mo?da?un poets developed their virtuoso techniques under strong Iranian influence and saturated their verses with both Persian imagery and ways of expression... In a sense the Persians borrowed from the Arabs the very style of poetry that they had earlier helped them create. New Persian poetry exploited rhetorical figures from its very beginning. The theme of "naked verse in need of bedecking" had become conventional as early as the 10th century.

The description draws particular attention to phonetic and graphic figures, notably tajnis ("making homogeneous", paronomasia), used in both poetry and prose, with esteqaq (derivation) e considered as next of kin to tajnis. This subtle linguistic approach to the means of assonance is utilized in three more devices: mokarrar ("repeated") postulates repetition of the same word in the bayt or two adjoining ones, maqlub ("overturned" or "reversed"), with its four varieties (pp. 15-17), presents different kinds of palindromes. Several figures, dealing in some way with similarity between words, provide additional means of cadence and rhyming, not canonized by the established principles of metrics.

Japanese: In commenting on figures of speech in Japanese, a valuable point is made with regard to the role of silence by Senko K. Maynard (Japanese Communication: language and thought in context, 1997):

Silences or pauses in speech have different cultural values.... we may consider that silence and speech "function as the 'figure' and the 'ground', one being possible because of the other's existence, but dynamically so. Generally, silence is regarded as the ground against which figures of speech are perceived and valued. The two should sometines be perceived in the reverse way; silence should be treated as the figure against which the ground of speech functions. (p. 153)

Russian: Contrasts with English figures of speech are noted with respect to Russian by Michael Wachtel (The Cambridge Introduction to Russian Poetry, 2004).

Together with the contrasts identified above, it might be asked how the lack of attention to figures of speech informs and distorts discourse at the highest level, most notably within the United Nations Security Council. Given the geometry implied by "figure", this neglect could be consistent with a related issue (Unquestioned Bias in Governance from Direction of Reading? Political implications of reading from left-to-right, right-to-left, or top-down, 2016).


References

Hussein Abdul-Raof. Arabic Rhetoric: a pragmatic analysis. Routledge, 2006

Stephen Adams. Poetic Designs: an introduction to meters, verse forms, and figures of speech. Broadview Press, 1997

Sylvia Adamson, Gavin Alexander and Katrin Ettenhuber. Renaissance Figures of Speech. Cambridge University Press, 2007

Wye Jamison Allanbrook. Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart: Le nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni. University of Chicago Press, 1983

S. T. Bai and A. W. Shi. A Comparative Study of Figures of Speech between Chinese and English. Journal of Xinzhou Teachers University, 18, 2002, 1, pp. 70-71

Dietrich Bartel. Musica poetics: musical-rhetorical figures in German baroque music. University of Nebraska Press, 1997

Gregory Bateson. Mind and Nature; a necessary unity. Dutton, 1979

Vincent Benitez. Musical-Rhetorical Figures in the Orgelbüchlein of J. S. Bach. Bach, 18, 1987, pp. 3-21.

Felicia Bonaparte. The Poetics of Poesis: the making of nineteenth-century English fiction. University of Virginia Press, 2016

Mark Evan Bonds:

E. W. Bullinger. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Delmarva Publications, 1970

Joachim Burmeister:

Gideon O. Burton. Silva rhetoricae. Brigham Young University. 1996-2003

Ralph Alan Cohen. Shakesfear and How to Cure It: a handbook for teaching Shakespeare. Prestwich House, 2007.

Mikel Dufrenne The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. Northwestern University Press, 1973

Huda J. Fakhreddin. Defining Metapoesis in the Abbasid Age. Journal of Arabic Literature, 42, 2011, pp. 205-235 [text]

Ward Farnsworth. Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric. David R. Godine, 2011

Joxerra Garzia, Jon Sarasua and Andoni Ergaña. The Art of Bertsolaritza: improvised basque verse singing. Bertsozale Elkartea, 2001

Edwin Gerow. A Glossary of Indian Figures of Speech. Walter de Gruyter, 1971

Zhang Xiu Guo. English Rhetoric. Tsinghua University Press, 1991

Willibald Gurlitt. Music und Rhetorik: Hinweise auf ihre geschichtliche Grundlageneinheit. Helicon, V, 1943, pp. 67-86.

Don Harran. Toward a Rhetorical Code of Early Music Performance. The Journal of Musicology, 15, 1997, 1, pp. 19-42.

P. A. Heelan. The Logic of Changing Classificatory Frameworks. In: J A Wojciechowski (Ed). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge. K G Saur, 1974, pp. 260-274

G. N. Lee. Contrastive Studies of Figures of Speech in English and Chinese. Fujian People's Publishing House, 1999

Senko K. Maynard. Japanese Communication: language and thought in context. University of Hawaii Press, 1997

Marilyn McEntyre. Caring for Words in a Culture of Lies. Eerdmans, 2009

Henry Peacham:

Sheila Petty, Garry Sherbert and Annie Gérin Wilfrid (Eds.). Canadian Cultural Poesis: essays on Canadian culture. Laurier University Press, 2006

Kate Emery Pogue. Shakespeare's Education: how Shakespeare learned to write. PublishAmerica, 2012

Alex Preminger (Ed). Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton University Press, 1974.

Patricia M. Ranum. The Harmonic Orator: the phrasing and rhetoric of the melody in French Baroque airs. Pendragon Press, 2001

Lee A. Sonnino. A Handbook to Sixteenth-Century Rhetoric. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968

Judy Tarling. The Weapons of Rhetoric: a guide for musicians and audiences. Corda Music, 2004 [contents]

Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre. Classical Architecture: the poetics of order. MIT Press, 1986 [review]

Brian Vickers. In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press, 1988

Caroline Voet. The Poetics of Order: Dom Hans van der Laan's architectonic space. Architectural Research Quarterly, 16, 2012. 2 pp. 137-154 [text].

Michael Wachtel. The Cambridge Introduction to Russian Poetry. Cambridge University Press, 2004

D. P. Walker. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

P. Williams. The Snares and Delusions of Musical Rhetoric: some examples from recent writings on J. S. Bach. In: P. Reidemeister and V. Gutman (Eds), Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion, Amadeus, 1983, pp. 230-240.

James Anderson Winn . Unsuspected Eloquence: a history of the relations between poetry and music. Yale University Press, 1981.

Yun Yue. Rhetoric: A Tale of Two Cultures. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 28, 2009 [text]

creative commons license
this work is licenced under a creative commons licence.