DICTION
(a.k.a. word choice)
Never say that
“the author uses a lot of diction.”
Whenever the word “diction” is used,
it must be accompanied by an adjective
to describe what type of diction
We choose words based on meaning AND sound
•Levels of Diction
• -non standard (low): language deficient in some way
– -Vulgarity: language deficient in taste and refinement; coarse,
base language
– -Slang: vernacular language sometimes humorous, exaggerated,
or shortened for effect (Chick, dude, playa, tight)
– -colloquialism: regional language; differing in usage, connotation,
pronunciation, (accepted in informal conversation) creek, y’all,
soda/pop/coke (dialect/idiom)
– -jargon: language specific to a field or profession (chip, bite,
byte, CPU = computers pedagogy/anticipatory set=teaching)
– -cliché': figurative lang. used so often it has lost its freshness and
clarity (fig. lang. without freshness)
Levels of diction
• -informal
(standard/conversational/neutral):
language grammatically correct, but
conversational
• -formal (literate/high): language whose
primary goal is propriety;
often polysyllabic and abstract
•Types of Diction
• -euphonious vs. cacophonous: pleasant
sounding vs. harsh sounding (inelegant vs.
awkward; jerk vs. nincompoop)
Types of diction
• -denotative vs. connotative: lang. w/ exact
meaning vs. lang. w/ suggested, emotional
meaning (+, -)
• (Dress vs. gown, overweight vs plump,thin
vs. scrawny)
Types of diction
• -objective vs. subjective: lang. impersonal,
unemotional, unbiased vs. lang. personal,
emotional, biased
• (Example would depend on the topic---grading by personality vs. data, Michael
Moore documentary vs. nature doc.)
Types of diction
• -concrete vs. abstract: lang. specific,
tangible (things, facts) vs. lang.
conceptual, philosophical (ideas) [flag vs.
patriotism; Usually brings support vs.
usually brings meaning]
Types of diction
• -hyperbole vs. understatement (litotes):
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is
used for rhetorical effect vs. Restraint or
lack of emphasis in expression for
rhetorical effect.
• (The shot heard round the world vs. I was
only doing my job [after saving someone’s
life])
•Devices of Sound (often why
language is memorable: Dr. Seuss)
• -assonance: repetition of similar vowel sound in
closely assoc. words (full rhyme) [No pain, no
gain]
• -consonance: repetition of similar consonant
sound in closely assoc. words (half rhyme) [soullovely-all]
• -alliteration: repetition of initial consonant sound
in closely assoc. words (The twisting trout
twinkled in the twilight.)
• -onomatopoeia: words that imitate the objects or
actions to which they refer (Buzz, sizzle, hiss)
Figurative Language
• Figures of speech - - TROPES
• Trope: An artful deviation from the ordinary
significance of a word
• Often includes imagery
– the sensory appeals in a work – tactile, visual,
aural, gustatory, olfactory
• details: nonsensory facts (appeal to the intellect/logic)
Repetition
• Motif: recurrent element that helps unify a
work
• Symbol: an object which is itself yet stands for
an abstract concept
• Archetype: symbol, motif or idea that occurs
frequently in a culture, therefore evoking
strong audience response
Comparisons
• Simile: comparison of two dissimilar things
using like/as
• Metaphor: implied, symbolic comparison of
two dissimilar things
Representation
• Metonymy: one thing is represented by another
that is commonly associated with it
– Crown, White House, vegetable lasagna
• Synecdoche: a part represents the whole
– wheels, hands on deck, “I need another pair of
eyes”
Representation
• Personification: human qualities applied to
ideas or inanimate objects
– The sea was angry that day, my friends.
– (anthropomorphism= animals and other creatures)
• Apostrophe: speaker addresses object that
can’t respond or something that isn’t there
(often an absent or dead person)
– Ode on a Grecian Urn, Annabel Lee
Irony
• Irony: incongruity between
appearance/expectation and reality
– dramatic: incongruity in which the audience knows
more than the character(s)
– situational: incongruity between audience’s
expectation and the outcome
– verbal: incongruity between what someone says
and what is true