Emily Schmitt
ENG 280 001
Natalie Phillips
9/6/12
Weekly
Response #2
Quote; Skhlovsky: “Such habituation
explains the principles by which, in ordinary speech, we leave phrases
unfinished and words half expressed. In this process, ideally realized in
algebra, things are replaced by symbols.” (Skhlovsky 15).
Quote; Andrews: “If you prove that
what we believe is wrong, / we should change our minds. / But minds don’t
change like that. / We keep proving it/ every time we take another test. /” (1.
3-7)
Question: In the way the Skhlovsky
points out that we often replace or leave out things because everyone
habitually knows what comes next, isn’t it also true that when we articulate
ourselves, we can also put in things that we know other people will get the
double meaning behind?
Skhlovsky
brings up a very valid point in that there are areas where prose is a lot like
algebra. He makes the point that we often tend to replace words or leave them
out all together because there is a common knowledge of what is supposed to be
present in a particular context. What I would also like to express, taking this
principle even further, is that we often switch out or add words and phrases
that have double meanings to get a greater or hidden point across to whomever
we are speaking with. Essentially what I’m referring to is word play, and that
it relies on a lot of the same habitually to function in context. The example I
would use would be from Andrews Dear Professor
poems. Specifically the use of the word ‘proving’ in line six. It is
because of the previous use of the word in the poem and the connotations that
we arrive at the word with that enable this word to carry more meaning than
just its base one. The habitually behind the word has allowed it to carry
something additional in this context.
Works Cited
Andrews, Nin. Dear Professor.
15. Print
Shklovsky, Viktor. “Art as
Technique.” Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Ed.
Julie
Rikvin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 4. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment