Sentiments of Rhetoric

Geoff Nunberg effectively diagnoses different linguistic pet peeves in his article “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves.” Everyone has a certain word or phrase that negatively stands out to them and sounds like nails on a chalkboard. For Nunberg, the words “oversimplistic” is the definition of “simplistic,” so he sees no point in adding “over.” Utilizing rhetoric, more specifically Logos, the author breaks down his numerous pet peeves and explains the logically reasoning behind it. For example, using the word “gingerly” as an adverb is ridiculous because there is no corresponding adjective. Nunberg goes on to agree that over the years, the English language has changed. Words now have different meanings and usage than they did in the past. Culture shapes the way people use different words or sayings. Naturally, words changed with time. Sometimes words are compounded to sentences based on their appealing sound. It may not fit correctly in the phrase based on meaning, but it sounds correct to put it there. Kingsley Amis for example feels like it is incorrect to say “I was oblivious to the noise” but to me, this sounds like a proper sentence. Amis believes oblivious can only mean “forgetful,” but in this context, I think the word can be substituted for “unaware.” Most people would agree with me because when you look oblivious up in a dictionary, the words unaware, unconscious, unmindful, ignorant and insensible come up, but the word forgetful is not present.

Wording of sentences can also change its meaning. I agree with Nunberg when he explicates that “I made no money last year, I had to live in a dilapidated shack with a dirt floor with 10 other people” does not make sense. In today’s culture, people usually speak more casually than they talk, so when said aloud, this sentence sounds correct. However, the word “made” should be replaced with “earned.” The technical definition of the sentence “I made no money last year” means that one literally did not make any money, as in the sense of perhaps baking. You didn’t cook up or produce any money. Swap out made and insert earned and the sentence completely transforms into the version meant to be said. “I earned no money last year” confirms the fact that you are poor and explains the fact that you are living in a decrepit, dirty shed with multiple roommates.

Logos is the rhetorical technique that breaks down the text to find the logic and reasoning behind it. In every example which he presents, Nunberg first rationalizes his thoughts and then uses proofs and linguistic structures and definitions to logically explain why a certain word or phrase do not equate within one another.

All while incorporating the use of Logos, the main point of his article, “’Equation,’ ‘Gingerly’ And Other Linguistic Pet Peeves,” is to reveal how language establishes a connection with the audience. For the most part, the contents of this article stand true in the minds of the readers. While I read this, every time Nunberg gave another example, I completely agreed with him. Everyone has their certain pet peeves in writing and language. Mine are when people use “literally” to begin, add to, or end a sentence. There is not point to that word other than to sound absolutely annoying. A popular trend this year was to shorten normal words and just use their abbreviation in a sentence. I blame texting, IMing, Emailing and the overuse of technology. I cringe when someone says “dec” instead of decent. It is not a long word. Say the whole thing! With that, people think they are so cool when they say “legit” in replace of legitimately. Don’t get me wrong, I have said it too, but there are some people who say it as a substitute for “okay,” “sounds good,” “alright” and so on, and after two or three “legits,” you want to rip your hair out.

Nunberg’s validations of his pet peeves belong to Pathos, or emotional appeal, to the rhetorical situation. He uses logical to explain why they bother him and the reasons the words are grammatically incorrect, but his own personal opinions are the sentiments used to rapport with the audience.

The knowledge of Logos, Pathos and Ethos have aided and improved my understanding of rhetoric and the way language works. Before, I just thought people write to write and the entire prose was the author’s feelings. Now, I understand that an article is not solely consisted of emotions, but also logical reasoning and ethics as well. Geoff Nunberg successfully describes the list of his many pet peeves in writing by making use of all aspects of rhetoric to sell his audience on his personal thoughts and opinions.