·
A
dramatic stop, conveyed by a larger, bolded period following a sentence of
lighter typeface.
·
The
importance of a quote, suggested by exaggerated quotation marks.
·
A
strong direction telling the reader to reference something, implied by an
enlarged asterisk.
Solomon quickly
cautioned, however, that “Exaggerated punctuation should not be used with all
messages. The indiscriminate display of punctuation for the sake of design
turns these marks into devices unrelated to concept; punctuation used out of
context can diminish the effect of a message” (285-286). I tried to find
examples of this on the internet, and these were some of the results:
Take a look at
the first photo. Perhaps Dennis believed that quotation marks would add
emphasis to the word, or perhaps he meant to merely decorate the word. Either
way, his “design” confused the message and left the reader wondering if “vehicle”
is to be taken literally or metaphorically for something else. The second image
also presents a confusing message. How is one expected to interpret “Oh! Boy
syrup”? Does this syrup exclude girls from using it? Or is “boy” supposed to
modify “syrup,” in which case you’re left speculating what sort of muddy
concoction is in the jar? Upon closer inspection, “oh!” and “boy” are outlined
in a different color, whereas “syrup” lacks a shadow. We would be safe to say
that the label should properly read, “Oh boy! Syrup,” noting that “Oh boy!” is
just the brand name for this particular syrup. Perhaps the designer meant to balance the
smaller-typeface “oh” with the weight of the word “boy” by adding an
exclamation mark after the former. In both examples, the effect of the message
was diminished because the punctuation (meant only for design) was used out of
context, just as Solomon had warned.
Solomon also
briefly mentioned the rhetorical effect of punctuation through spacing and
positioning, and he used a telephone listing as a primary example. He was at
the cusp of discussing punctuation in and
of itself (without exaggeration in design) as a rhetorical tool, but he
didn’t venture further. Therefore, I searched online for another article that
delved into the subject a little bit deeper and found a great paper called Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool by
John Dawkins. Dawkins proposed that certain types of punctuation marks create different
amounts of “separation”—or emphasis—between and within independent clauses. The
table below illustrates the “hierarchy” of punctuation according to Dawkins:
Table
I
Hierarchy
of Functional Punctuation Marks
MARK
DEGREE OF
SEPARATION
sentence
final (.? !) maximum
semicolon
(;) medium
colon
(:) medium
(anticipatory)
dash
(—) medium (emphatic)
comma
(,) minimum
zero (0) none (that is,
connection) (pg. 535)
Dawkins
explained that writers could gain emphasis by “raising” the current punctuation
of the sentence to the punctuation above it in the table; writers could also
gain connectedness by “lowering” the punctuation of the sentence to the
punctuation below it in the table (536). For example (and I’m using the example
Dawkins provided), consider how the meaning of these sentences changes just
based on differences in punctuation:
1.
John
asked for a date when he got the nerve.
2.
John
asked for a date, when he got the nerve.
3.
John
asked for a date—when he got the nerve.
4.
John
asked for a date. When he got the nerve. (pg. 538)
Solomon stated
that because of the flexibility with which we use punctuation, “punctuation is
often taken for granted” (282). I agree that we probably take punctuation for
granted; however, I would argue that we don’t use punctuation flexibly enough. How many times do we write a
sentence without considering how to redirect the emphasis by changing
punctuation? How many times do we fail to experiment with punctuation so as to
garner the most force for our statement? As Solomon and Dawkins demonstrated,
punctuation can serve as a useful rhetorical tool—and we’re letting it sit in
the toolbox collecting dust.
No comments:
Post a Comment