In this post I add three more techniques to the three introduced in a previous post. Here I describe anaphora, epistrophe, and chiasmus, three techniques of classical rhetoric—the effective and persuasive use of language. You’ll likely recognize these techniques, and you might be using the first two already. My understanding of them comes from Ward Farnsworth, Classical English Rhetoric (2010).

Anaphora means repeating words at the beginnings of successive phrases or clauses.

Standard: There is no doubt who committed the crimes: Mitchell hid under the stairs, assaulted Ms. Latham, and stole her purse.

Anaphora: There is no doubt who committed the crimes: Mitchell hid under the stairs, Mitchell assaulted Ms. Latham, and Mitchell stole her purse. (Repeats the subject)

Another before-and-after example:

Standard: The Debtor repaid his wife, friends, and brother-in-law—but not the Bank.

Anaphora: The Debtor repaid his wife, repaid his friends, and repaid his brother-in-law—but he did not repay the Bank. (Repeats the verb)

Anaphora creates emphasis through what Farnsworth calls a “hammering effect.” Farnsworth at 16. The repeated words are likely to be noticed and remembered. Id. The repetition also creates expectations—the reader expects the pattern to be continued, so disrupting the pattern becomes an opportunity for emphasis. Id. For example, in the sentence about the Debtor, repeating the verb repaid sets up the expectation that it will continue, but then the verb changes to did not repay, emphasizing the contrast.

Epistrophe means repeating words at the end of successive phrases or clauses.

Standard: The defendant followed, stalked, and harassed Mr. Taylor.

Epistrophe: The defendant followed Mr. Taylor, stalked Mr. Taylor, and harassed Mr. Taylor. (Repeats the object)

Another before-and-after example:

Standard: Mitchell illegally purchased, modified, and sold the rifle.

Epistrophe: Mitchell’s purchasing the rifle was illegal, his modifying the rifle was illegal, and his selling the rifle was illegal. (Repeats the predicate)

Epistrophe also uses the hammering effect, but Farnsworth suggests it’s a bit more subtle because “the repetition does not become evident until each time a sentence or clause ends.” Id. at 32. Added to the hammering effect is the placement of the repeated words at the end—a natural place of emphasis: “The end is emphatic because it makes the last impression.” David Lambuth, The Golden Book on Writing 26 (1983). Thus, epistrophe adds hammering repetition to the emphasis that naturally falls on a concluding word or phrase.

Chiasmus means repeating words or phrases in reverse order. It’s also described as inverted parallelism or an ABBA pattern. A famous example: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” See Farnsworth at 97. The key words are country and you, repeated in this order: country-you-you-country.

Standard: It was the defendant who stalked Mr. Taylor, not the other way around.

Chiasmus: It was the defendant who stalked Mr. Taylor, not Mr. Taylor who stalked the defendant.

Another before-and-after example:

Standard: Although the Bank has negotiated in good faith with the Borrower, the Borrower has not reciprocated.

Chiasmus: Although the Bank has negotiated in good faith with the Borrower, the Borrower has not negotiated in good faith with the Bank.

Chiasmus, according to Farnsworth, “calls attention to itself.” Id. at 98. I agree. It’s a technique that might, in formal legal writing, come off as oratorical, pretentious, literary. And literary style isn’t always right for legal writing because legal writing isn’t always like literature. Legal writers should use chiasmus with caution: “You should write at most one or two in a document . . . .” Ethel G. Romm, A Chiasmus and Contrast Can Help You Win, 70 A.B.A.J. 158, 158 (1984).

Yet a simple chiasmus can be quite memorable:

State boundaries cannot extend beyond the national boundary. . . . That would mean Texas was not annexed to the U.S., but that the U.S. was annexed to Texas. Id.

Caution is appropriate for all rhetorical techniques, but I recommend adding these three to your persuasive-writing toolkit.

_____

If you’d like to comment on this or any post, please email me. I’ve had to disable comments because of excessive spam. Sorry.

This post describes polysyndeton, asyndeton, and isocolon, three simple techniques of classical rhetoric—the effective and persuasive use of language.

Don’t let the fancy names put you off: you’ll recognize these techniques, and you might be using them already. My own understanding of them comes from Classical English Rhetoric, by Ward Farnsworth (the Texas Law Dean) and from The Elements of Legal Style, by Bryan A. Garner.

Polysyndeton means using conjunctions between all the items in a series.

Standard: The flag is red, white, and blue.

Polysyndeton: The flag is red and white and blue.

Thus, with polysyndeton, you might do this:

The background check showed charges of vandalism and gambling and fraud and assault.

To improve your writing, you must study and practice and accept critique.

In legal writing, polysyndeton can supply two types of emphasis. First, “the result is to emphasize every one of the items singly . . . .” Farnsworth, at 128. The extra conjunctions invite readers to think of the items separately rather than as a group. Second, polysyndeton tends to emphasize the sheer number of items in the list. Id.

Compare

The defendant’s responses were hasty, terse, and superficial.
with
The defendant’s responses were hasty and terse and superficial.

Asyndeton means omitting the conjunction, typically before the last item in a series.

Standard: The flag is red, white, and blue.

Asyndeton: The flag is red, white, blue.

With asyndeton, you might do this:

The background check showed charges of vandalism, gambling, fraud, assault.

To improve your writing, you must study, practice, accept critique.

Asyndeton creates emphasis because omitting the conjunction is “irregular and unexpected.” Farnsworth, at 147. Although asyndeton can improve the rhythm of some sentences, Farnsworth also acknowledges it can seem “mannered.” Id. at 148. He’s right. He might have said “literary” or even “showy.” In general, legal writers should use asyndeton cautiously.

Compare

The defendant’s responses were hasty, terse, and superficial.
with
The defendant’s responses were hasty, terse, superficial.

Isocolon means a series of similarly structured phrases, clauses, or sentences of the same length. It’s a form of parallelism.

Standard: The flag is red, white, and blue.

Isocolon: The flag is red; it is white; it is blue

Isocolon: The flag is red. The flag is white. The flag is blue.

Using isocolon, you might do this:

The background check showed charges of vandalism, charges of gambling, charges of fraud, and charges of assault.

The background check showed charges of vandalism; it showed charges of gambling; it showed charges of fraud; it showed charges of assault.

To improve your writing, you must confront your faults, practice your skills, and study others’ writing.

Using isocolon can “produce pleasing rhythms,” according to Farnsworth, and allows writers to use a parallel structure to reinforce parallel substance. Id. at 74. But consider this example:

The defendant’s responses were inappropriate. They were hasty. They were terse. They were superficial.

The tone begins to sound oratorical, as Farnsworth notes. Id. So although isocolon is appropriate for legal writing, it’s more common in speech.

In fact, all three techniques appear more frequently in speeches and literature than in formal legal writing. Outside legal writing, all three can be used in more sophisticated ways than shown here. Still, I recommend adding these techniques to your toolkit for persuasive legal writing. And as with any form of rhetoric and persuasion, be wise: before resorting to classical rhetoric, make sure your writing is clear, direct, correct.