Linguists treat alliteration a little differently than traditional English teachers do. Alliteration by English teachers would be defined as the repetition of the same first letters of words. But, linguists do not pay so much attention to orthography (spelling) as to the sounds that underlie the spelling. So the two sentences, "Figures of speech spice up language because they are succinct. Alliteration does just that," would be analyzed a little differently too. To an English traditionalist the first sentence would barely qualify for alliteration since only three words begin with "s." But to the linguist there are 2 alliterations - the "s" sound and the "k" sound because it doesn't matter where the sound appears in spelling (as in just the initial word position), it matters how often the sound was made. So, the "s" sound is heard in "speech"once, twice in "spice," twice in "succinct," and once in "just." The only difference in the "s" in "because" and "does" is that the "s" is voiced rather than unvoiced, but the formation of the sound is the same. So, the "s" (called sibilant in linguistics) has 8 occurrences. The "k" sound, a gutteral, has 4 occurrences. The medial "g" in "language and "figure" are formed the same as the "k" sound, appearing twice in "succinct." Thus, you have 4 occurrences of "k," two voiced and two unvoiced versions
A linguist would also ponder the semantics of the sibilant and the gutteral. They are contrasts in sounds, one being formed in the front part of the mouth, the other in the back, and one using the tongue tip and the middle part of the tongue, the other using the glottis and having the tongue lowered in the mouth. Some see the sibilant sound as having a "pleasant" tone to it and the gutteral having a "harsh" tone to it. So, whoever would make up a statement with this alliteration in it, would be trying to be deceptive. Why else would a person use a figure of speech except to advance a meaning to those who understand the comparisons or figures being made? And the pleasant sound is in a 2:1 ratio with the unpleasant sound, so you have someone having harsh meanings couching that in pleasant sounds.
All of this meaning is packed into 15 words or less. Who would have thought!!! Of course, mathematicians, who also use symbols for their thoughts, know the beauty of the principle of 15 symbols meaning much more. They are used to dealing in algorithms. They get the idea of figures of speech. It's a type of algorithm or the equivalent of an elegant equation.
So, my hat is off to everyone who communicates well in 15 words or less. It's a true art and science.
A linguist would also ponder the semantics of the sibilant and the gutteral. They are contrasts in sounds, one being formed in the front part of the mouth, the other in the back, and one using the tongue tip and the middle part of the tongue, the other using the glottis and having the tongue lowered in the mouth. Some see the sibilant sound as having a "pleasant" tone to it and the gutteral having a "harsh" tone to it. So, whoever would make up a statement with this alliteration in it, would be trying to be deceptive. Why else would a person use a figure of speech except to advance a meaning to those who understand the comparisons or figures being made? And the pleasant sound is in a 2:1 ratio with the unpleasant sound, so you have someone having harsh meanings couching that in pleasant sounds.
All of this meaning is packed into 15 words or less. Who would have thought!!! Of course, mathematicians, who also use symbols for their thoughts, know the beauty of the principle of 15 symbols meaning much more. They are used to dealing in algorithms. They get the idea of figures of speech. It's a type of algorithm or the equivalent of an elegant equation.
So, my hat is off to everyone who communicates well in 15 words or less. It's a true art and science.
No comments:
Post a Comment