Susan Jarratt uses the concept of parataxis as a means of explaining how sophistic historiography differs from “logical” history, so I thought it might be useful to look up parataxis and hypotaxis in my notes from Shea’s prose style class. Here’s what I found:
Parataxis
Usually a series of short sentences that leave the relative significance and ranking of events up to the reader; almost a list. Uses simple polysyndeton (using lots of connectors: and…and…and) to create compound sentences without signifying importance, but due to the lack of meaning implied by the connectors, it reads more like asyndeton. Parataxis gives the reader the freedom (or the onus) to do the thinking, to draw inferences, to make connections.
Hypotaxis
Usually longer sentences with dependant clauses that define the relative significance of events, the order of importance, and the relationships between events. In other words, hypotaxis tries to do the thinking for the audience. Uses conjunctive adverbs, subordinate conjunctions, and other connectors to create compound/complex sentences that illustrate relationships explicitly. Although parataxis uses some simple and repetitive connectors, hypotaxis relates more to polysyndeton because the connectors used are more complex and receive more emphasis, and because they establish a hierarchy of information.
As with most stylistic oppositions, hypotaxis and parataxis are at opposite ends of a continuum, rather than in clearly separated arenas. In my notes, I wrote that a rough way to identify parataxis/hypotaxis is to analyze how much care the author gives to the audience. More care = more hypotaxis. This makes sense when you think about the paternal nature of the Greek culture that has handed down our rational, logical concepts of how history should be recorded. But in its “caring,” the traditional model is like an overprotective parent, shielding the audience from a full knowledge or understanding of all the “branches” (apologies for the mixed analogies). However, I would not characterize the speaker/author in a paratactic historiography as uncaring. I think the caring in this situation is demonstrated by the author’s faith in the audience to have the intelligence to help determine the outcome. Hierarchy is not required in order for a relationship to be caring.
4 comments:
I frequently encountered parataxis in a Greek mythology class I took a few years ago. It was used to eliminate the need for explaining some of the surreal qualities of the myths. As such, rhetoricians and the general population alike would be familar with this technique and would know how to interpret arguments using it. I like what you said about the care an author has for their audience. With myth, the audience is either extremely broad (as in several generations of people) or already expected to know the material--in both cases, an author did not need to take care to explain things using hypotaxis.
I'm having trouble weaving the two together in Jarrett's "middle ground", especially in light of the last part of your post. Granted, we haven't read a lot of primary texts yet, but those that we have read seem heavy on the hypotaxis. And I think I agree with your analysis that those writers care for their audiences.
So how does that mesh with the idea of a paratactic community or communal law? I thought the elite speaker/writers were the governing class. Are we talking about two completely different aspects of ancient life, the educated elite and the uneducated common class? It makes me wonder if we are talking about two completely different sets of laws.
During the sixth century, or maybe it was earlier, the Greeks moved from a monarchic system of government based on the concept of birthright as determined by divine origin to a system in which anyone with wealth could participate. Then, in the fifth century, the governing system evolved again toward a more democratic system. I think one of the points Jarratt makes is that the ruling class in the oligarchic system tended to speak hypotactically—that is, they assumed an instructive role, parenting their subjects, whom they assumed to be less capable of making decisions for themselves and for their community. Jarratt says that Plato's philosophy of government aligned with the oligarchic system. But Protagoras, Gorgias, and the other Sophists, who helped to develop the first concepts of democracy, tended to speak more paratactically. They didn’t place value judgments on the information being conveyed. Instead, the listeners were allowed to participate in the decision making and come to their own conclusions. Thus, it is a more democratic form of communication, and works better in a democratic system.
What I was arguing was that speaking paratactically doesn't necessarily mean that you care less for your audience (even though you aren't "parenting" them), but that you care enough about them to treat them as equals.
Yes, it is also my impression from Jarratt, and Susan's questions in class, that a discussion exists about the implications of hypotaxis and parataxis for democracy. But I don't think paratactic discourse is necessarily "more democratic" than hypotactic, as if the demos can be given "the facts" of a case and be expected to determine the Truth from those "facts." Value judgments are inherent in any rhetorical situation, including the paratactic. It would in fact be more honest, and therefore conducive to democracy, to present arguments hypotactically, demonstrating reasoning based on an assessment of facts, than to try to pass off paratactic discourse as unbiased. I think Jarratt is also saying that antithesis is essential to understanding Sophistic views - on democracy, history, rhetoric - because it "works to awaken... an awareness of the multiplicity of possible truths" (22). Paratactic discourse is only "more democratic" if antithesis is an inextricable component of it.
Post a Comment