Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Weekly Response #2


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