The Right Word is a very aptly named poem as it is ostensibly about the poet trying to find the truest word in order to describe the person who is at their door. Imtiaz Dharker describes this person and their action from the perspectives of different people and this approach helps highlight how changing words slightly can massively affect their context and points to the power that simply playing with phrase can have.
Form and Tone
The Right Word is quite serious in tone as it looks at people’s perspectives and looks to challenge the labels that are put on people by society. The poem is divided into 9 stanzas. The patterns of the stanzas help to delineate the narrator’s emotions as they struggle to right what they consider to be the black and white truth. When the narrator reaches a sense of clarity in what they are saying the stanzas return to three lines long. This is how the poem starts, the different length stanzas, therefore, represent uncertainty.
You can read the full poem The Right Word here.
Analysis of The Right Word
First Stanza
Outside the door,
(…)
is a terrorist.
This first stanza of The Right Word is very impactful. It is sharp and to the point. Taken in isolation we could assume from this opening line that the poem itself might just be about terrorism. What is also interesting is that Dharker uses the word shadow in this stanza. The shadows comes into play often in the poem as you will see as the poem progresses.
Second Stanza
Is that the wrong description?
(…)
is a freedom fighter.
Here we see the narrator question their first stanza, the effect of asking this question of themselves is to extend the stanza to a further line. It’s as if just questioning what has been said can contort what was thought to be true. The narrator then once again tries to describe the scene honestly. This time the character is taking shelter in the shadows rather than lurking in them and they are not referred to as a terrorist, but a freedom fighter. This is an interesting change in description, if you flip your perspective could a terrorist be classed as a freedom fighter if their cause was one that you believed strongly in. the narrator is forcing the reader to look at things from more than one perspective.
Third Stanza
I haven’t got this right.
(…)
is a hostile militant.
Still, the narrator feels they haven’t got the description correct. This repetition gives the impression of a writer that is really struggling to get the description that paints the most honest and legitimate picture. Although the description of the person in this stanza seems far more harsh, more of a character assassination if you will, the description of their actions seems less harsh, they are not considered to be lurking, as in the first stanza, but waiting, although this still certainly has negative connotations it is not as sinister as the first description.
Fourth Stanza
Are words no more
(…)
is a guerrilla warrior.
Still, the narrator struggles with finding the correct words to describe the situation. They postulate “are words no more than waving, wavering flags” flags are often associated with nationalities and the idea of one wavering is a play on words. A flag might physically waver, but I think the suggestion here is that different nations viewpoints are quite often flawed and these lines suggest that is the case Once again the description of the character and their actions are very different. This time they are watchful and are described as a guerrilla warrior. Is this complimentary? It seems more positive than being a terrorist and a hostile militant, but not as kind as being a freedom fighter. If you ever get the opportunity, you can play a game where you get a list of adjectives that all mean the same thing and put them into order of which is the most powerful, for instance angry, upset, livid, raging, and miffed. You could almost do that with the descriptions of the man in The Right Word.
Fifth Stanza
God help me.
(…)
I saw his face.
In this stanza, we see that the narrator has become so frustrated with their plight that they are literally praying to god for help. This raises the importance once again, from being an issue relevant to nations to one of being worthy of gods consideration. The man this time isn’t described as hiding in the shadows, but defying them! This is an interesting concept. What does this mean? That the man is clearly well defined and easy to see despite the shadow? Here the narrator actually sees their face. The person is described as a martyr. Once again this is like a terrorist, just seen from an opposing point of view. This subversion of meaning is present throughout The Right Word.
Sixth Stanza
No words can help me now.
(…)
is a child who looks like mine.
In this stanza, it would appear the narrator has given up trying to find the words. The use of the word “now” In the first line of this stanza brings a sense of immediacy to this part of The Right Word. The character is described as lost and a child that looks like the narrators. Describing the person as a child instantly brings forward the idea of innocence, having been described as everything from a martyr to a militant this description offers a nice contrast and highlights in some ways that every terrorist, or indeed freedom fighter is somebodies son or daughter.
Seventh Stanza
One word for you.
(…)
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
This is the last stanza to have more than three lines, but the tone appears to suggest a revelation for the narrator: like they have discovered something. They describe the character as looking like your son, suggesting that despite this character, with eyes that are “too hard” being of undetermined decency it could easily be your son at the door.
Eighth Stanza
I open the door.
(…)
Come in and eat with us.
This stanza simply describes the narrator’s actions. They are indiscriminate as the person is invited in to eat.
Ninth Stanza
The child steps in
(…)
takes off his shoes.
It would appear that this small act of kindness has reduced the freedom fighter/terrorist back to their innocent child-like state. The wider picture here is that peaceful action beget peace. Just by showing kindness to this man from the shadows he becomes like a boy again. Unspoiled and polite, with the suggestion being we should all be less quick to judge, and then people won’t have to live up to the labels that we give them.
About Imtiaz Dharker
Imtiaz Dharker is a Pakistan born poet. She lived most of her early life in Glasgow, but married a Welshman and (despite her husband losing his battle with cancer) She now divides her time between London, Wales and Mumbai/ Her poetry is varied but often concerns itself with themes such as feminism and as is the case with this poem displacement.
‘Are words no more / than waving, wavering flags?’
Imtiaz Dharker explores how words create our understanding rather than objectively reflect reality – and the effect this has on our relationships with people unlike ourselves.
Outside the door,
lurking in the shadows,
is a terrorist.
Is that the wrong description?
Outside that door,
taking shelter in the shadows,
is a freedom fighter.
I haven’t got this right.
Outside, waiting in the shadows,
is a hostile militant.
Are words no more
than waving, wavering flags?
Outside your door,
watchful in the shadows,
is a guerrilla warrior.
God help me.
Outside, defying every shadow,
stands a martyr.
I saw his face.
No words can help me now.
Just outside the door,
lost in shadows,
is a child who looks like mine.
One word for you.
Outside my door,
his hand too steady,
his eyes too hard
is a boy who looks like your son, too.
I open the door.
Come in, I say.
Come in and eat with us.
The child steps in
and carefully, at my door,
takes off his shoes.
Analysis of ‘The Right Word’
The word ‘terrorist’ creates a complex set of expectations. We believe that we understand how this person will act; we may even think we know who they are, what they represent, their motives, even their appearance, just from this one word. ‘Lurking in the shadows’ further suggests that they are a hidden threat waiting for the moment to attack. Dharker creates tension and mood in just these three opening lines.
However, Dharker deflates these expectations when in the next stanza she asks ‘Is that the wrong description?’.
The ‘terrorist’ is recast as a ‘freedom fighter’ which immediately sets up a whole other range of expectations. In contrast, Dharker now describes the person as ‘taking shelter in the shadows’, seeking safety against an oppressive enemy. Even a subtle change in word choice significantly alters our interpretation.
Dharker continues to highlight that there are many ways to frame and reframe a situation. This same person also becomes a ‘hostile militant’, a ‘guerrilla warrior’ and a ‘martyr’. The speaker demonstrates uncertainty as they struggle to find the right words, asking ‘Is that the wrong description?’ and worrying that they ‘haven’t got this right’. Unable to settle on a satisfying description, the speaker asks: ‘Are words no more / than waving, wavering flags?’. Like flags, the meaning of words can waver, become partial or obscure. Words aren’t concrete and stable, objectively capturing the essential truth.
This means that the same person can be called a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on the views of the speaker and – crucially – the response they wish to invoke in others. Is this person brave or merely violent? Should we respect them or fear them? Each term provokes a different reaction.
However, the lurking figure is finally recast as simply a ‘child’. He is a ‘boy who looks like your son’, suggesting for the first time a familiarity, a fundamental sameness. In the penultimate stanza, the speaker even ‘open[s] the door’ and invites the child into the intimate family space to ‘Come in and eat with us’. Only once the figure on the outside is recognised as a child, rather than being described in alarming language, can the door open to them.
The image of the door returns throughout the poem. A wall simply divides two sides. Yet a door can open, providing an opportunity for the two sides to connect. One side must take the risk and reach out, opening the door to the other and welcoming them in.
Dharker argues that words can create an artificial barrier between people, hiding our similarities and emphasising – or imagining – fundamental differences. But the right words, like a door, can open up new spaces for friendship and understanding.
Essay by • September 12, 2015 • Essay • 497 Words (2 Pages) • 4,220 Views
Page 1 of 2
In both ‘The Right Word’ by Imtiaz Dharker and ‘At The Border, 1979’ by Choman Hardi, they use repetition to present attitudes to differences in people. However, they both also use different language techniques to highlight the differences.
In ‘The Right Word’, Dharker uses repetition to present attitudes to differences in people. This is suggested when it states ‘ his hand too steady, his eyes too hard is a boy who looks like your son, too.’ This suggests that the boy has seen too much of the war even though he is young. The word ‘hard’ suggests that she has seen too much and no longer shows emotion to the war because he has grown up around it and is used to it. The word ‘too’ suggests that every thing he does, he does to an extreme to protect himself.
Similarly, in ‘At The Border, 1979’, Hardi uses repetition to present attitudes to differences in people. This is suggested when it states ‘The autumn soil continued on the other side with the same colour, the same texture.’ This suggests that there was no difference between the countries but the ‘people [are] much kinder.’ This suggests that people are only kind to their own people even if there isn’t much separating them. The word ‘continued’ emphasises the lack of difference between the countries yet people still want to cross the border so badly.
In ‘The Right Word’ the poet also uses rhetorical questions to present the attitudes to differences in people. This is evident when the poet states ‘Is that the wrong description?’ This suggests that the speaker is confused because she doesn’t know who is outside the door, it could be anyone from ‘a terrorist’ to ‘a martyr.’ She is also questioning herself and showing doubt about her description. It also suggests that she doesn’t know who the good ones and the bad ones are anymore. The word ‘terrorist’ suggests the speaker has used very strong words to show us who he is. A terrorist is seen as a very bad person and as she calls him that without knowing him shows that she quick to judge a stranger. The fact that she also calls him a ‘martyr’ shows that she drastically changed her mind when she still hasn’t seen him.
In contrast, in ‘At The Border, 1979’, the poet uses oxymoron to present attitudes to differences in people. This is evident when it states ‘The land under our feet continued divided by a thick iron chain.’ This suggests that the same strip of land has been divided into separate countries by a chain, which can be easily crossed. The word ‘divided’ shows separation which suggests that people may have different attitudes to the people on the other side.
To conclude, ‘The Right Word’ by Imtiaz Dharker uses repetition and rhetorical questions to present attitudes to differences in people. ‘At The Border, 1979’ by Choman Hardi
…
…
Only available on AllBestEssays.com
(2015, 09). The Right Word. AllBestEssays.com. Retrieved 09, 2015, from https://www.allbestessays.com/essay/The-Right-Word/59326.html
«The Right Word» AllBestEssays.com. 09 2015. 2015. 09 2015 <https://www.allbestessays.com/essay/The-Right-Word/59326.html>.
«The Right Word.» AllBestEssays.com. AllBestEssays.com, 09 2015. Web. 09 2015. <https://www.allbestessays.com/essay/The-Right-Word/59326.html>.
«The Right Word.» AllBestEssays.com. 09, 2015. Accessed 09, 2015. https://www.allbestessays.com/essay/The-Right-Word/59326.html.
Finding the right word was a lifelong quest for French novelist Gustave Flaubert:
Whatever you want to say, there is only one word that will express it, one verb to make it move, one adjective to qualify it. You must seek that word, that verb, that adjective, and never be satisfied with approximations, never resort to tricks, even clever ones, or to verbal pirouettes to escape the difficulty.
(letter to Guy de Maupassant)
A perfectionist (who happened to have an independent income), Flaubert would spend days worrying over a single sentence until he got the words just right.
Most of us, I suspect, don’t have that kind of time available. As a result, we often have to be «satisfied with approximations» when drafting. Near synonyms and almost-right words, like temporary bridges, let us move on to the next sentence before a deadline arrives.
Nonetheless, converting inexact words to precise ones remains a critical part of revising our drafts — a process that can’t be reduced to one simple method or clever trick. Here are 10 points worth considering the next time you find yourself in search of the right word.
1. Be Patient
In revising, if the right word is not at hand, run a search, sort, select process through your mind to see if you can find it. (Even then, a word may be elusive, refusing to emerge from the mind one day only to arise from the subconscious the next.) Be prepared to rewrite today what you revised yesterday. Above all, be patient: take the time to select words that will transfer your exact thought to the mind of a reader.
May Flewellen McMillan, The Shortest Way to the Essay: Rhetorical Strategies. Mercer University Press, 1984
2. Wear Out Your Dictionary
Once you have a dictionary, use it as much as possible.
When you sit down to write and need a particular word, pause to consider the key ideas you want to convey. Start with a word that’s in the ballpark. Look it up and go from there, exploring synonyms, roots, and usage notes. Many’s the time a usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary has led me to the word that fits, much as the right jigsaw puzzle piece slips into place.
Jan Venolia, The Right Word!: How to Say What You Really Mean. Ten Speed Press, 2003
3. Recognize Connotations
Do not be fooled into thinking you can substitute one word for another simply because a thesaurus groups them together under a single entry. The thesaurus will do you little good unless you are familiar with the connotations of possible synonyms for a given word. «Portly,» «chubby,» «chunky,» «heavy,» «overweight,» «stocky,» «plump,» and «obese» are all possible synonyms for «fat,» but they are not interchangeable. . . . Your task is to select the word that conveys most accurately the precise shade of meaning or feeling you intend.
Peter G. Beidler, Writing Matters. Coffeetown Press, 2010
4. Put Away Your Thesaurus
Using a thesaurus will not make you look smarter. It will only make you look like you are trying to look smarter.
Adrienne Dowhan et al., Essays That Will Get You Into College, 3rd ed. Barron’s, 2009
5. Listen
[B]ear in mind, when you’re choosing words and stringing them together, how they sound. This may seem absurd: readers read with their eyes. But in fact they hear what they are reading far more than you realize. Therefore such matters as rhythm and alliteration are vital to every sentence.
William Zinsser, On Writing Well, 7th ed. HarperCollins, 2006
6. Beware of Fancy Language
There is a difference between vivid language and unnecessarily fancy language. As you search for the particular, the colorful, and the unusual, be careful not to choose words merely for their sound or appearance rather than for their substance. When it comes to word choice, longer is not always better. As a rule, prefer simple, plain language over fancy language . . . Avoid language that seems stilted or unnecessarily formal in favor of language that sounds natural and genuine to your ear. Trust the right word — whether fancy or plain — to do the job.
Stephen Wilbers, Keys to Great Writing. Writer’s Digest Books, 2000
7. Delete Pet Words
They may be more pests than pets. They are the words you overuse without even knowing it. My own problem words are «very,» «just,» and «that.» Delete them if they’re not essential.
John Dufresne, The Lie That Tells a Truth. W.W. Norton, 2003
8. Eliminate the Wrong Words
I do not choose the right word. I get rid of the wrong one. Period.
A.E. Housman, quoted by Robert Penn Warren in «An Interview in New Haven.» Studies in the Novel, 1970
9. Be True
«How do I know,» the sometimes despairing writer asks, «which the right word is?» The reply must be: only you can know. The right word is, simply, the wanted one; the wanted word is the one most nearly true. True to what? Your vision and your purpose.
Elizabeth Bowen, Afterthought: Pieces About Writing, 1962
10. Enjoy the Process
[P]eople often forget that the sheer joy of finding the right word which expresses a thought is extraordinary, an emotional rush of an intense kind.
Playwright Michael Mackenzie, quoted by Eric Armstrong, 1994
Is the struggle to find the right word truly worth the effort? Mark Twain thought so. «The difference between the almost-right word and the right word is really a large matter,» he once said. «It’s the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.»
Ic method
The
method is based on the fact that a word characterised by
morphological divisibility (analysable into morphemes) is involved in
certain
structural correlations.
Breaking
a word into its immediate constituents we observe in each cut the
structural order of the constituents (which may differ from their
actual sequence). Furthermore we shall obtain only two constituents
at each cut, the ultimate constituents, however, can be arranged
according to their sequence in the word: un-+gent-+-le+-man+’ly.
AIMS
AND PRINCIPLES OF MORPHEMIC AND WORD-FORMATION ANALYSIS
If
the analysis is limited to stating the number and type of morphemes
that make up the word, it is referred to as morphemic.
For
instance, the word girlishness
may
be analysed into three morphemes: the root -girl-
and
two suffixes -ish
and
-ness.
The
morphemic classification of words is as follows: one root morpheme —
a
root word (girl),
one
root morpheme plus one or more affixes —
a
derived word (girlish,
girlishness), two
or more stems —
a
compound word (girl-friend),
two
or more stems and a common affix —
a
compound derivative (old-maidish).
The
morphemic analysis establishes only the ultimate constituents
that make up the word.
A
structural
word-formation analysis
proceeds further: it studies the structural
correlation
with other words, the structural patterns or rules on which words are
built.
This
is done with the help of the principle of oppositions,
i.e.
by studying the partly similar elements, the difference between which
is functionally relevant; in our case this difference is sufficient
to create a new word. Girl
and
girlish
are
members of a morphemic opposition. They are similar as the root
morpheme -girl-
is
the same. Their distinctive feature is the suffix -ish.
Due
to this suffix the second member of the opposition is a different
word belonging to a different part of speech. This binary opposition
comprises two elements.
А
соrrelatiоn
is a set of binary oppositions. It is composed of two subsets formed
by the first and the second elements of each couple, i.e. opposition.
Each element of the first set is coupled with exactly one element of
the second set and vice versa. Each second element may be derived
from the corresponding first element by a general rule valid for all
members of the relation.
Observing
the proportional opposition:
girl
child woman monkey spinster book
girlish childish womanish monkeyish spinsterish bookish
it
is possible to conclude that there is in English a type of derived
adjectives consisting of a noun stem and the suffix -ish.
Observation
also shows that the stems are mostly those of animate nouns, and
permits us to define the relationship between the structural pattern
of the word and its meaning. Any one word built according to this
pattern contains a semantic component common to the whole group,
namely: ‘typical of, or having the bad qualities of. There are also
some other uses of the adjective forming ‘ish,
but
they do not concern us here.
In
the above example the results of morphemic analysis and the
structural
word-formation
analysis
practically
coincide.
There are other cases, however, where they are of necessity
separated. The morphemic analysis is, for instance, insufficient in
showing the difference between the structure of inconvenience
v
and impatience
n;
it classifies both as derivatives. From the point of view of
word-formation pattern, however, they are fundamentally different. It
is only the second that is formed by derivation. Compare:
impatience
n
=
patience
n
=
corpulence
n
impatient
a
patient
a
corpulent
a
The
correlation that can be established for the verb inconvenience
is
different, namely:
inconvenience
v
=
pain
v
=
disgust
v
=
anger
v
=
daydream
v
inconvenience
n
pain
n
disgust
n
anger
n
daydream
n
Here
nouns denoting some feeling or state are correlated with verbs
causing this feeling or state, there being no difference in stems
between the members of each separate opposition. Whether different
pairs in the correlation are structured similarly or differently is
irrelevant. Some of them are simple root words, others are
derivatives or compounds. In terms of word-formation we state that
the verb inconvenience
when
compared with the noun inconvenience
shows
relationships characteristic of the process of conversion. Cf.
to
position where
the suffix -tion
does
not classify this word as an abstract noun but shows it is derived
from one.
This
approach also affords a possibility to distinguish between compound
words formed by composition and those formed by other processes.
The words honeymoon
n
and honeymoon
v
are both compounds, containing
two free stems, yet the first is formed by composition: honey
n
+
moon
n
>
honeymoon
n,
and the second by conversion: honeymoon
n>
honeymoon
v
(see Ch. 8).
The
treatment remains synchronic because it is not the origin of the word
that is established but its present correlations in the vocabulary
and the patterns productive in present-day English, although
sometimes it is difficult to say which is the derived form.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #