Style/Content Dichotomy

Longinus's idea of a necessary language "grandeur" within sublimity brought up an interesting dichotomy between "style" and "content" of language. The terms style and content denote very opposite things, while both being similar in that they are speech aids. The "style" of language (and speech, since, after reading Bahktin, they are obviously different) implies a certain high diction or fancy wording, the decorations to make your language/speech sparkle in a sense. Style attempts to be performative, or aids language in its performability. In contrast, content is the knowledge or truth being relayed, the meaning of attempted communication. Thus content is constative, stating its own meaning.

The interesting thing is that, although style and content are in a complete contrast, they do not oppose one another. Rather they are necessary differences, and their unity is vital to culminate performative speech. According to Longinus, they need each other to be sublime.

Style+Content=Sublime

Longinus explains this dependent dichotomy in "On the Sublime". "Grandeur is particularly dangerous when left on its own, unsteadied by knowledge" (347). Without a content or base of knowledge to decorate, the style would mean nothing, decoration for decoration's sake. There would be no base for meaning, nothing of substance to be polished. It may still evoke emotions in the reader but certainly not noble ones. And whatever emotions it can invoke will become "valueless on repeated inspection". Yet with the proper accompanying content, the style/grandeur can be sublime and make"a strong and ineffaceable impression on the memory" (350). It can leave a "great" and lasting impression, one that exceeds the life of the speaker.

Likewise content without style is not "great" but rather purely constative and not sublime. Two necessary "sources" of sublimity, according to Longinus, are "noble diction" and "dignified and elevated word-arrangment" (350). Without these stylistic devices one's content could not impress upon the listener/reader could not make the language/speech performative. A major part of the speaker (in terms of being able to communicate well and persuasively) is to create a "visualization" with words. This often implies using figurative speech to allow the reader/listener to see what the reader/writer is trying to say. Yet these figures involve a sort of trickery in that they aren't purely true or realistic language, and so to remain effectively persuasive they must be shrouded in grandeur, decorated with shiny style. Thus the trickery of language can be hidden and the speech can preform as intended, without a slip in communication.

In terms of Bahktin's speech genres problems, the sentence may be nothing without the utterance, in that a sentence needs a speaker to be given meaning, to be uttered. But an utterance is also nothing without the sentence, in that the sentence provides the content for communication. (This comparison isn't exact, but it's close enough) Thus is the dependent style/content dichotomy, both necessary in creating persuasive language/speech and creating sublimity.