Writing Help 129 | - ☆ Freelance Writer
Mar 26, 2013 | #1
Using Advanced Rhetorical Devices to Surprise and Delight
As we have seen in many previous articles, patterning is one of the main ways in which rhetorical devices operate, and by changing the order in which the patterned elements are presented, we end up with different devices that create different effects. Two fine examples of this principle are chiasmus and antimetabole, which rely on general and specific inversion of parallel structures to create novel effects.
Chiasmus is by far the more common of these two terms, and it is even taught in some high school classrooms, often as a broad device which includes antimetabole (though the term antimetabole is never mentioned in these settings). It is helpful to remember that chiasmus comes from a Greek term meaning crossing, which is itself derived from the Greek letter χ (chi), composed of an obvious cross. In the stricter definition (which separates chiasmus from antimetabole), chiasmus is used to describe an ABBA structure, composed of grammatical or semantic elements, but not consisting of an inversion of the same words between clauses. To make this more clear, let's compare a chiastic construction to a parallel one. First, we see a parallel structure: "I love grapes, and I adore pineapples." Each clause presents the same elements in the same order, beginning with the subject, then a verb, then the object. If we change the structure from parallel to chiastic, we get the following: "I love grapes, and pineapples I adore." Here, note that the order of the second clause has flipped, putting the object first.
A second species of chiasmus occurs when words with similar meanings are arranged in the same ABBA manner, as in the following example: "It is easy to hate, and despising is simple." Here, we can see that easy and simple are synonyms, as are hate and despise. They are arranged so that one set of synonyms border the other set which are adjacent to each other, resulting in the ABBA structure necessary for chiasmus. Strictly speaking, chiasmus has no further definitions as a rhetorical device, but anything with an ABBA structure can be referred to as chiastic, such as a comparison essay where you begin with one text when discussing a given point, then finish that point with the other text. The next point begins with the text you used to end the last one, and so on, giving you an extended ABBA sequence, resulting in a chiastic structure.
Antimetabole is one of my favorite devices, as it exploits a chiastic arrangement in the presentation of repeated words in creating witty remarks which are often very memorable. The following example is one I found on a T-shirt that expresses the concept succinctly: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog." Looking at the successive clauses (divided by the semicolon), we can see that the key nouns dog and fight are repeated, and their order is reversed, creating a chiastic structure. Note, however, that since the words that create the chiastic structure are repeated in each clause, this is not technically a case of chiasmus, but rather antimetabole. Looking more closely at this example, we can see that antimetabole can create its witty and memorable effects through a type of wordplay which uses the same words in successive clauses, but subtly alters their meaning and context to create unexpected meanings. In the first clause, we see fight used in its situational sense, as in a battle in which beings (like the dog) participate. In the second, we see it used as a personality trait, as a synonym for bravery, tenacity, or courage. The inversion is doubly effective because in the first clause, the dog is in the fight, whereas in the second, the fight is in the dog. By shifting the sense of the terms, the seemingly impossible reversal (after all, there are not many things which can encompass each other in turn) becomes possible, and creates a memorable line through its reversal of expectations.
Chiasmus and Antimetabole
As we have seen in many previous articles, patterning is one of the main ways in which rhetorical devices operate, and by changing the order in which the patterned elements are presented, we end up with different devices that create different effects. Two fine examples of this principle are chiasmus and antimetabole, which rely on general and specific inversion of parallel structures to create novel effects.
Chiasmus is by far the more common of these two terms, and it is even taught in some high school classrooms, often as a broad device which includes antimetabole (though the term antimetabole is never mentioned in these settings). It is helpful to remember that chiasmus comes from a Greek term meaning crossing, which is itself derived from the Greek letter χ (chi), composed of an obvious cross. In the stricter definition (which separates chiasmus from antimetabole), chiasmus is used to describe an ABBA structure, composed of grammatical or semantic elements, but not consisting of an inversion of the same words between clauses. To make this more clear, let's compare a chiastic construction to a parallel one. First, we see a parallel structure: "I love grapes, and I adore pineapples." Each clause presents the same elements in the same order, beginning with the subject, then a verb, then the object. If we change the structure from parallel to chiastic, we get the following: "I love grapes, and pineapples I adore." Here, note that the order of the second clause has flipped, putting the object first.A second species of chiasmus occurs when words with similar meanings are arranged in the same ABBA manner, as in the following example: "It is easy to hate, and despising is simple." Here, we can see that easy and simple are synonyms, as are hate and despise. They are arranged so that one set of synonyms border the other set which are adjacent to each other, resulting in the ABBA structure necessary for chiasmus. Strictly speaking, chiasmus has no further definitions as a rhetorical device, but anything with an ABBA structure can be referred to as chiastic, such as a comparison essay where you begin with one text when discussing a given point, then finish that point with the other text. The next point begins with the text you used to end the last one, and so on, giving you an extended ABBA sequence, resulting in a chiastic structure.
Antimetabole is one of my favorite devices, as it exploits a chiastic arrangement in the presentation of repeated words in creating witty remarks which are often very memorable. The following example is one I found on a T-shirt that expresses the concept succinctly: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog." Looking at the successive clauses (divided by the semicolon), we can see that the key nouns dog and fight are repeated, and their order is reversed, creating a chiastic structure. Note, however, that since the words that create the chiastic structure are repeated in each clause, this is not technically a case of chiasmus, but rather antimetabole. Looking more closely at this example, we can see that antimetabole can create its witty and memorable effects through a type of wordplay which uses the same words in successive clauses, but subtly alters their meaning and context to create unexpected meanings. In the first clause, we see fight used in its situational sense, as in a battle in which beings (like the dog) participate. In the second, we see it used as a personality trait, as a synonym for bravery, tenacity, or courage. The inversion is doubly effective because in the first clause, the dog is in the fight, whereas in the second, the fight is in the dog. By shifting the sense of the terms, the seemingly impossible reversal (after all, there are not many things which can encompass each other in turn) becomes possible, and creates a memorable line through its reversal of expectations.