Language, Cognition, and Society

Which of the statements is the author most likely to agree with?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

Which of the following statements is best supported by the information given in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

What is the tone of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

The passage answers all the below given questions except:

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

What most easily describes the organization of the passage

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

What can be best inferred from the passage about the psychological processes?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

In his well-known essay "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances" Roman Jakobson presents a theory of language based on certain empirical observations and discoveries. Jakobson examines aphasia, a disorder of language use, which he characterizes as consisting of two more fundamental types of disorder. These coincide with what he considers to be the bases and underlying processes of languages as such. These are the metaphoric and metonymic processes that govern all verbal activity and indeed even human behavior in general. Every case of aphasia involves an impairment of the metaphoric or metonymic activities, and every case exhibits at least one of these traits. Normally these two processes occur continuously and interactively in language, though the individual speaker places greater emphasis on one or the other in accord with his or her preferences and predilections. Metaphor and metonymy are the defining poles of language: all linguistic expression lies somewhere between these extremes.

Having identified these essential components of language Jakobson begins looking for further evidence to confirm his claim. He graduates his arguments to facilitate comprehension of the increasingly complex uses to which language is put. He considers, for instance, a normal but controlled use of language in a psychology experiment performed with children. When a group of children were presented with the noun "hut," their verbal responses invariably exhibited metaphoric or metonymic preferences. There was, in other words, no response other than in terms of metaphor or metonymy. This consequence bolsters the findings based on aphasia: the defining poles of language are metaphor and metonymy, and the individual preference (or predilection) determines the priority of one over the other.

Jakobson's theory is brief and concise, and is very much in accord with the concept of a definition prevalent in the natural sciences. But he is not content with these two pieces of evidence; he goes on to consider an uncontrolled use of language. One can gauge the depth of Jakobson's conviction when one notices that in focusing on an uncontrolled use of language he selects an exceptionally creative form--literature. If the theory can handle literature, then unquestionably it must be acceptable. Jakobson considers the literary schools of Romanticism, Realism, and Symbolism and shows how they relate to the metaphoric and metonymic poles. Citing examples of literary products of these schools he shows that they exhibit the same pattern as the aphasia patients and the children in the psychology experiment. From literature it is an easy step to other artistic forms like the cinema; and again one finds the same evidence of metaphoric and metonymic processes at work. Jakobson then makes the larger claim that the same is true of other semiotic systems and suggests that collaborative, interdisciplinary research be undertaken to explore the implications of his discovery fully. (1) Such research could be carried out, he suggests, by experts from the disciplines of linguistics, psychology, psychopathology, poetics, and semiotics (93). The depth of Jakobson's conviction is perhaps best stated in a remark he made in 1980: "A linguistic study of aphasia closely linked to the study of language in general and to poetic language in particular not only contributes to the classification of aphasic disorders, but also to the comprehension of the structure of language and even to the improvement of the methods of poetics" (Jakobson and Pomorska 134).

As an example of what might result from such research and as further evidence for the metaphoric and metonymic poles of language, Jakobson discusses the case of Gleb Ivanovic Uspenskij, a Russian novelist with a strong metonymic bent. Jakobson contends that Uspenskij's writings constitute a case in point of the predominance of metonymy in Realist literature. Uspenskij suffered in his later life from a mental illness that involved a verbal disorder. Since he displayed a metonymical bent in his literary works, one would expect to see this characteristic reflected in his verbal disorder--and that is what exactly happened. Uspenskij was unable to relate his first and patronymic names (Gleb and Ivanovic), a disorder bound up with the metonymical bent. This kind of psycholinguistic analysis of verbal behavior is only one area illuminated by Jakobson's discovery. Other dichotomies in human actions and expressions, too, can be interpreted in this light. For instance, Freud's theory of the structure of dreams, the principles underlying magic and ritual, and the differences between prose and poetry can all be explicated on the model of Jakobson's bipolar division operating in human processes.

It can be inferred from the passage that a speech attempting to persuade people to act would fail if it does not __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

The passage suggests that the genesis of the belittlement of rhetoric by some people is due to their __________________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Which of the following best states the author's main point about logical argument?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

Which of the following persuasive devices is not used in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are used, and how they change.

Many views have been developed by linguists and philosophers to analyse languages. Those who wanted to develop a scientific analysis of human thought and behavior in the early part of this century adopted the "scientistic" view of language.

Of all the devices for dragooning the human spirit, the least clumsy was to procure its abortion in the womb of language; and those who were driven by the impulse to reduce the specifically human to a mechanical or animal regularity, continued to be increasingly irritated by the nature of the mother tongue and make it their point of attack.

Under the force of this view, it was perhaps inevitable that the art of rhetoric should pass from the status of being regarded as of questionable worth (because although it might be both a source of pleasure and a means to urge people to right action, it might also be a means to distort truth and a source of misguided action) to the status of being wholly condemned. As the “scientist” thinkers believed that people should be regarded only as machines guided by logic, they considered rhetoric to be of low value; for the most obvious truth about rhetoric is that it speaks to the whole person. Some of the rules for the argumentative essay are part of cultural expectations for any kind of discourse or communicative act: a coherent discourse has a beginning (intro, setting up the argument), middle (the argument itself with examples, support of claims, support of prior research, and/or close analysis of material) , and an end (a conclusion that ties up the argument and/or suggests broader implications or wider significance of the "middle".) Rhetoric first addressed the rational side of a person, because persuasive discourse, if honestly conceived, always has a basis in reasoning. Logical argument is the plot, as it were, of any speech or essay that is respect. Fully intended to persuade people. Yet it is a remarkable feature of rhetoric that it transcends the logical argumentative nature and appeals to the parts of our nature that are involved in feeling, desiring, acting, and suffering. It tries to create an analogous situation to achieve it’s ends- by recalling relevant instances of the emotional reactions of people to circumstances-real or fictional- that are similar to our own circumstances.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he argues that the expression of reason is man’s highest attribute, and that all good things can be abused, so rhetoric is no different because there are some who abuse it. He also gives us a great deal comfort in our despair over the continued abuse of rhetoric; he says that the abuse of rhetoric will never be as strong as the right and proper use is.

The same is the case with historical accounts and fables which are always in persuasive discourse: they indicate literally or symbolically how people may react emotionally, with hope or fear, to particular circumstances. A speech attempting to persuade people can achieve little unless it takes into account the aspect of their being related to such hopes and fears.

Rhetoric, then, is addressed to human beings living at particular times and in particular places. From the point of view of rhetoric, we are not merely logical thinking machines, creatures abstracted from time and space. The study of rhetoric should therefore be considered the most humanistic of the humanities, since rhetoric is not directed only to our rational selves. Furthermore, rhetoric is abstract because the basic skills of rhetoric apply across a wide range of situations. Any time you are in a situation that requires speech making, analysis, persuasion, detailed explanations, and so on, you are using rhetorical skills. Rhetoric, therefore, is a widespread ability that comes into play in many other subject areas. A teacher of biology, for instance, uses rhetoric, not in biology itself, but in the teaching and communicating of biology.

Rhetoric is important for it takes into account what the "scientistic" view leaves out. If it is a weakness to harbor feelings, then rhetoric may be thought of as dealing in weakness. But those who reject the idea of rhetoric because they believe it deals in lies and who at the same time hope to move people to action, must either be liars themselves or be very naïve; pure logic has never been a motivating force unless it has been subordinated to human purposes, feelings, and desires, and thereby ceased to be pure logic.

Rhetoric used in the context of poetry produced something called “the flowers of rhetoric.” The flowers of rhetoric were beautiful, interesting, or unique turns of phrase which decorated the poetry of the time. “Flowers of rhetoric” is synonymous with another term that is more familiar to us, i.e., something called “the figures of speech.” We still have the term “a figure of speech” today, but it means much less to us than it did in the Renaissance. Today we use the phrase “a figure of speech” to mean that it was something we didn’t really intend to say. It is a way to excuse an accidentally ill-mannered comment or something that is not quite politically correct. We say that it was just a figure of speech. We also use the term to refer to metaphors, similes, and several other language patterns. This usage, to identify language patterns, is at least accurate, but this still gives us a much diminished view of what figures of speech are. In the Renaissance, there were literally hundreds of language patterns that were considered figures of speech. Any elegant, unusual, or patterned turn of phrase was a figure of speech, and whole books were printed, such as Henry Peacham’s The Garden of Eloquence, listing and cataloguing all the figures of speech and examples of them taken from literature. Learning these patterns and employing them in poetry and letters was fundamental to the education and the culture of the Renaissance. It was a time when people in all educated walks of life were cultured and literary.

The drug users speech is unintelligible to others because

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

Drug addicts in some countries form small groups, the customs of which may be unknown to outsiders. They often speak a language that is so full of expression and words created by themselves, that their speech has become unintelligible to those who are not living, or in some way associated, with them. It is amazing to find that, to understand some of today’s so-called pop music, one requires some acquaintance with the peculiar language, of those enslaved to drugs. A great part of the vocabulary is international with a preponderance of American terms or, corruptions of these. This makes it easy for those in search of drugs in a country, not their own, to communicate with those that have some to dispose.