Subtext as a method of suggestive influence (on the basis of Aristotle’s "Rhetoric")

Postdoctoral Student of Ukrainian

Literature Department, Senior Lecturer

of Linguodidactics and Foreign

Languages Department,

Kirovohrad Volodymyr Vynnychenko

State Pedagogical University

e-mail: glamourousmail@meta.ua

The purpose of the article. Its main objective is to examine the main and basic points that are both directly and indirectly connected with subtext, its nature, meaning, and ways of its creation. There are a few questions that require clarification: to study examples or enthymemes that are linked to subtext expression; to characterize the peculiarities of the listeners' portrait the knowledge of which allows an orator to suggest certain emotions and thoughts to the audience; to analyse the nature of metaphors that have implied meanings; to survey the creation of expressiveness that is primarily emotional subtext.

The exposition of main material

Aristotle described rhetoric «as the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever» [2, p. 15], in such a way the studying of public speaking focused mainly on the methods of influence on listeners where subtexts and suggestions had a great role.

Firstly and foremostly, subtext arises in such main, the so-called non-technical, methods of proofs as examples and enthymemes: «all orators produce belief by employing as proofs either examples or enthymemes and nothing else...» [2, p. 19], Aristotle claims.

Speaking in a greater detail, the subtext phenomenon constitutes as the enthymeme which Aristotle terms as the syllogism where one of premises or parts is dropped out but is meant. (As it is known in the logics, the enthymeme is an abbreviated syllogism). Accordingly, this omitted or not clearly expressed premise emerges in the recipient's mind. Let us give an example of enthymeme: «.a woman has had a child because she has milk» [2, p. 27]. In this case, we can reconstruct an omitted part by the syllogistic way: any woman that has milk, has a child. So, this woman has milk, consequently, she has a child. Evidently, the information, that is in the omitted premise, can be obscure for recipients, but must be in their mind, in their consciousness, as the result, it is easily and promptly modeled and thought up by them.

In such a way, Aristotle explores the nature of the enthymeme, the peculiarities of its creation, underlining that the enthymeme «is the strongest of rhetorical proofs» [2, p. 9] and the most emphatic of the other methods of proofs («Now arguments that depend on examples are not less calculated to persuade, but those which depend upon enthymemes meet with greater approval» [2, p. 21]).

Actually, the relation with subtext evolves through the comparisons and the fables where the truth is supplied in symbols, images, and allegories, in other words, it is hidden, suggested to listeners. The use of comparisons and fables as illustrative materials for good evidence of some thoughts or phenomena is very effectual. This rich material gives quality resources for an orator: «Fables are suitable for public speaking, and they have this advantage that, while it is difficult to find similar things that have really happened in the past, it is easier to invent fables; for they must be invented, like comparisons, if a man is capable of seizing the analogy; and this is easy if one studies philosophy» [2, p. 277].

The use of such impressive illustrative materials (comparisons and fables) shows both orators' and listeners' high culture, because the subtext effects need the adequate decoding for understanding the hidden truth.

To some extent, both enthymemes or examples denote the subtext expression, especially if we speak about a well-known fact which is concealed, but is easily thought up. Aristotle explains: «The necessary result then is that the enthymeme and the example are concerned with things which may, generally speaking, be other than they are, the example being a kind of induction and the enthymeme a kind of syllogism, and deduced from few premises, often from fewer than the regular syllogism; for if any of these is well known, there is no need to mention it, for the hearer can add it himself. For instance, to prove that Dorieus was a crown, it is enough to say that he won a victory at the Olympic games; there is no need to add that the prize at the Olympic games is a crown, for everybody knows it» [2, p. 25].

Aristotle determines that it is the audience that is a final goal for orators: 2For every speech is composed of three parts: the speaker, the subject of which he treats, and the person to whom it is addressed, I mean the hearer, to whom the end or object of the speech refers» [2, p. 33]. So, the scholar studies the portrait of hearers, because, as we know, the success consists in the understanding of the audience, and, in any way, «...for opinions vary, according as men love or hate, are wrathful or mind, and things appear either altogether different, or different in degree; for when a man is favourably disposed towards one on whom he is passing judgement, he either thinks that the accused has committed no wrong at all or that his offence is trifling; but if he hates him, the reverse is the case. And if a man desires anything and has good hopes of getting it, if what is to come is pleasant, he thinks that it is sure to come to pass and will be good; but if a man is unemotional or not hopeful it is quite the reverse» [2, p. 171]. The above said is about the emotional and suggestive influence on the audience.

Also the philosopher analyses «the emotions» in detail, i.e. «all those affections which cause men to change their opinion» [2, p. 173], character traits, social positions etc., the knowledge of which helps an orator to create his speech in such a way to have influence on the hearers, their mood, thoughts, decisions, and judgements. For example, Aristotle describes the benevolent: «Let it then be taken to be the feeling in accordance with which one who has it is said to render a service to one who needs it, not in return for something nor in the interest of him who renders it, but in that of the recipient» [2, p. 221]. So, if we understand this specific feature, we can set against the audience, destroying the value of favour and defrauding of necessity to giving thanks. This is how Aristotle sees it: «It is evident also by what means it is possible to make out that there is no favour at all, or that those who render it are not actuated by benevolence; for it can either be said that they do, or have done so, for their own sake, in which case there is no favour; or that it was mere chance; or that they acted under compulsion; or that they were making a return, not a gift, whether they knew it or not; for in both cases it is an equivalent return, so that in this case also there is no favour» [2, p. 223].

Furthermore, the speech has a great sense, it must be both «demonstrative and convincing» [2, p. 169], influential and impressive. And in this case the metaphor has an exact signification; because by its nature it has a hidden and implicit meaning and has a fantastic influence on the audience.

Aristotle explains the way of creating the metaphor: «But in all cases the metaphor from proportion should be reciprocal and applicable to either of the two things of the same genus; for instance, if the goblet is the shield of Dionysus, then the shield may properly be called the goblet of Ares» [2, p. 369-371]. But he notes that we need set one object in opposition to another as further as possible, drawing this figure of speech. This way a vivid metaphor is created. Let us have a closer look at the philosopher's interpretation: «As we have said before, metaphors should be drawn from objects which are proper to the object, but not too obvious; just as, for instance, in philosophy it needs sagacity to grasp the similarity in things that are apart. Thus Archytas said that there was no difference between an arbitrator and an altar, for the wronged betakes itself to one or the other» [2, p. 407].

Creating the metaphor, we need to remember about the emotional filling of the image, rather than about associative background. An orator needs to refer to beautiful things to bring positive feelings and to worse - negative: «And if we wish to ornament our subject, we must derive our metaphor from the better species under the same genus; if to depreciate it, from the worse» [2, p. 355].

Herein, almost every image can be imagined in opposite mood tonalities: «Thus, to say (for you have two opposites belonging to the same genus) that the man who begs prays, or that the man who prays begs (for both are forms of asking) is an instance of doing this; as, when Iphicrates called Callias a mendicant priest instead of a torch- bearer, Callias replied that Iphicrates himself could not be initiated, otherwise he would not have called him mendicant priest but torch-bearer; both titles indeed have to do with a divinity, but the one is honourable, the other dishonourable» [2, p. 355-357].

It is very important to realize that the tie between subtext, implied sense, and metaphor, in particular the enigma, is a productive source for its creation: «And, generally speaking, clever enigmas furnish good metaphors; for metaphor is a kind of enigma, so that it is clear that the transference is clever» [2, p. 359]. In addition, a good metaphor «gives perspicuity, pleasure, and a foreign air, and it cannot be learnt from anyone else.» [2, p. 355].

Consequently, the metaphor has a powerful effect of influence on the listeners, their mood, emotions, and thoughts.

Considering the rhetorical style features, including what characteristics the style must have for effective impact on the audience, Aristotle is concerned with the question of expressiveness which is known to be often associated with emotional overtones. The philosopher contemplates: «Style expresses emotion, when a man speaks with anger of wanton outrage; with indignation and reserve, even in mentioning them, of things foul or impious; with admiration of things praiseworthy; with lowliness of things pitiable; and so in all other cases» [2, p. 379].

Accordingly, such an emotional impact on the audience evokes confidence, even defusing the semantic quality of speech. Aristotle underlines: «Appropriate style also makes the fact appear credible; for the mind of the hearer is imposed upon under the impression that the speaker is speaking the truth, because, in such circumstances, his feelings are the same, so that he thinks (even if it is not the case as the speaker puts it) that things are as he represents them; and the hearer always sympathizes with one who speaks emotionally, even though he really says nothing. This is why speakers often confound their hearers by mere noise» [2, p. 379].

The achievement of a goal by the way of belief that influences the hearer's consciousness, and the achievement of a goal by the way of suggestion that influences the hearer's subconsciousness, are closely intertwined. But in every way of speech influence subtext and its effects are very significant and valuable.