Page 394 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 394
What Do We Know about the World?
In spite of the neglect of paraphrase in the 20th century, this has not
always been the case: in ancient Greece and Rome paraphrase was the
most important exercise in the education of orators, writers and intellec-
tuals. Pupils were asked to reformulate or paraphrase a text or a phrase.
It was also recommended by the great rhetoricians Quintilian and Her-
mogen. Quintilian described it as the best method for a basic under-
standing of the text. However, he warned against using a paraphrase as a
literal translation of the original, but rather advised that it should com-
pete with the original in expression of thought (Quintilian, 1986). An-
cient Romans recommended three types of periphrastic reformulation:
(1) Latin translation of Greek orators, (2) prose paraphrase of Latin po-
etry and (3) rewriting their own texts (Bagić, 2007). Therefore, Greeks
and Romans defined paraphrase more as a process of statement develop-
ment than as a macro-structural stylistic figure.
Quintilian’s definition of paraphrase is also confirmed by some
modern-day linguists: “telling, describing, formulating thoughts and
names with different or clearer words” (Anić, 2006: 996); it could be
said that paraphrase is “modifying the known phrase in a way that it re-
mains recognizable but with a new meaning” (Škarić, 2000: 127). Para-
phrase can therefore appear: (1) as a fundamental rhetorical process of
statement development and (2) also as a macro-structural stylistic fig-
ure. In the first case the meaning of the original is preserved, while in
the second case the original phrase is usually used as a suitable frame-
work for semantic changes (Bagić, 2007: 38). With regard to the dis-
cursive basis we differentiate between four types of paraphrase: linguis-
tic, commentary, literary and ludic (Bagić, 2007). This paper focuses on
the fourth type of paraphrase. The term ludic paraphrase implies the in-
tervention into structurally and semantically canonized statements such
as proverbs, clichés, collocations, titles of books, titles of songs, titles of
films, etc.
2. Purpose and Hypothesis
Because this research was divided in two parts, there are also several
goals and hypotheses. In the first part of the research the goals were (1a)
to determine the representation of paraphrase in daily and weekly news-
papers’ headlines and (1b) to determine the frequency in the use of para-
phrase between daily and weekly newspapers. In the second part of the
research the goal was (2) to analyze the reception of newspaper headlines
between two different groups of examinees.
In spite of the neglect of paraphrase in the 20th century, this has not
always been the case: in ancient Greece and Rome paraphrase was the
most important exercise in the education of orators, writers and intellec-
tuals. Pupils were asked to reformulate or paraphrase a text or a phrase.
It was also recommended by the great rhetoricians Quintilian and Her-
mogen. Quintilian described it as the best method for a basic under-
standing of the text. However, he warned against using a paraphrase as a
literal translation of the original, but rather advised that it should com-
pete with the original in expression of thought (Quintilian, 1986). An-
cient Romans recommended three types of periphrastic reformulation:
(1) Latin translation of Greek orators, (2) prose paraphrase of Latin po-
etry and (3) rewriting their own texts (Bagić, 2007). Therefore, Greeks
and Romans defined paraphrase more as a process of statement develop-
ment than as a macro-structural stylistic figure.
Quintilian’s definition of paraphrase is also confirmed by some
modern-day linguists: “telling, describing, formulating thoughts and
names with different or clearer words” (Anić, 2006: 996); it could be
said that paraphrase is “modifying the known phrase in a way that it re-
mains recognizable but with a new meaning” (Škarić, 2000: 127). Para-
phrase can therefore appear: (1) as a fundamental rhetorical process of
statement development and (2) also as a macro-structural stylistic fig-
ure. In the first case the meaning of the original is preserved, while in
the second case the original phrase is usually used as a suitable frame-
work for semantic changes (Bagić, 2007: 38). With regard to the dis-
cursive basis we differentiate between four types of paraphrase: linguis-
tic, commentary, literary and ludic (Bagić, 2007). This paper focuses on
the fourth type of paraphrase. The term ludic paraphrase implies the in-
tervention into structurally and semantically canonized statements such
as proverbs, clichés, collocations, titles of books, titles of songs, titles of
films, etc.
2. Purpose and Hypothesis
Because this research was divided in two parts, there are also several
goals and hypotheses. In the first part of the research the goals were (1a)
to determine the representation of paraphrase in daily and weekly news-
papers’ headlines and (1b) to determine the frequency in the use of para-
phrase between daily and weekly newspapers. In the second part of the
research the goal was (2) to analyze the reception of newspaper headlines
between two different groups of examinees.
