Purpose:
The use of sententia is crucial in supporting authors' arguments because it allows their points to become more memorable and meaningful to the larger audience. Sententia is most commonly utilised to summarise a previous sentiment that the author intends to emphasise or highlight. When used strategically, sententia can promote an indirect connection with readers or listeners. Utilising terms common to the general population allows the audience to connect the argument to their own personal lives. By enticing and capturing the audience, the author can manipulate them into agreeing with many of their points.
Sententia can, however, have an equally opposite effect if misapplied, therefore it must be used with caution. In cases where a sententia seems to simplify, ignore, or question a previously made argument, it can undermine the author's claims and as a result should not be used. Sententia is a clever method for substantiating arguments and connecting with audiences, and is a valuable tool for achieving memorability and emotional impact in a piece of writing.
Steps for Analysis:
Identify any pithy short phrases or sayings that may be present in a piece of writing.
Consider the simplistic nature of the proverb and how it relates to the bigger picture.
Does the phrase interrupt the 'natural flow' of the passage?
If the saying interrupts the natural reading flow, this could indicate the forceful addition of a phrase to emphasise or highlight an argument or statement.
Ask why the author would have condensed his or her thoughts into a shorter saying:
Does it resonate emotionally with the reader?
If the saying resonates with the reader, it is more likely that they will become invested in the author's arguments, which is why writers would employ the use of sententia.
Think about the significance of the saying.
Why did the author choose that particular maxim over another one?
Why did the author position the phrase in the specific location that they did?
Is it effectively placed?
Some questions to consider:
Does the suspected use of sententia effectively support or connect with a previous argument/stance made by the author?
Is the saying one the reader has encountered before?
Does it enhance or change the reader's stance on the author's argument?
Is the author's choice of sententia effective?
Does it undermine or weaken their argument?
Example from a piece of nonfiction: This is a Mike Kaminski speech as George C. Scott's Patton on Iraq and modern warfare.
"In this time of nuclear weaponry, we cannot afford to wait for the fight to come to us. You need to understand that. This political correctness stuff is a bunch of crap. This generation is so goddamned spoiled and lazy they wouldn't know a real threat to their freedom until it interrupted the power source to their Xbox and killed a half a million people! The complacency of fools will destroy them."
Eidenmuller, Michael E. Rhetorical Figures in Sound: Sententia, www.americanrhetoric.com/figures/sententia.htm.
A prominent use of sententia is underlined above in an excerpt from Mike Kaminski's George C. Scott speech. The underlined text likely represents sententia by summarising preceding material in a clever, witty manner while also interrupting the 'natural flow' of reading in the passage. Occasionally paused reading in writing could suggest an attempt to put emphasis on an idea or point by artificially implanting a phrase or phrase fragment. At the end of the paragraph, the phrase was probably strategically placed to help the reader resonate with it and recognise that it summarises the previous argument. In addition, the maxim tends to create a dramatic effect that effectively cements Kaminski's argument and makes it difficult to undermine or refute. By correctly utilising sententia, the author can manipulate the audience into sometimes supporting them.
Kaminski's speech is a political and social commentary reflecting on the rising Generation Z population and their actions and behaviour in the modern world. Throughout the speech, he speaks about their excessive laziness, complacency, and spoiled mannerisms. The final sentence, "The complacency of fools will destroy them", is a short phrase that condenses his argument and encompasses the Generation Z population. "Fools" refers to the Generation Z population that is either lazy, complacent, or spoiled. In simple terms, the phrase means: "The excessive laziness, complacency and spoiled mannerisms of Generation Z will lead to their eventual downfall". For readers who did not fully understand Kaminski's previous argument, the final sententia summarises and crystallises it for them.
Hugo P.