Res, verba, and rhetorical relatives
Don’t ask me why, but this phrase struck me in an old NY Times letter to the editor that contained this sentences
... are forever etched in our collective histories and remain as haunting symbols of a land we call America.
That “we call America” bit seemed cliched, but then I wondered, why exactly is that a rhetorical device? Why is using the common noun and then adding a [usually implicit] relative clause with the “we call [Proper Noun]” a tool of rhetoric effect and even reverence? Is there any literary precedence for this as a rhetorical feature?
So I went to my faculty mentor, Chad Engbers. Spake he:
I am not aware of any formal precedents for that construction, but I can see why it’s popular. Several reasons come to mind:
1. Plainly and simply: sentence variety. It just sounds better and more interesting than “symbols of America.”
2. It emphasizes the difference between res and verba (things and words). I.e., What is really America and what we call America might not be the same thing. The sentence you quoted is already dealing with semiotics—it’s talking about symbols—so this might be appropriate. This is a more cerebral rationale than #1, and I suspect it’s not really that common.
3. Easy significance. Whether an author writes “a land called America” or “a land they call America” or “a land we call America,” he or she is signalling that America is something people talk about. It must be important.
4. Ethos. Of the three variations mentioned above, the third one (“we”) creates a bond between author and reader. I call it America; you call it America: -we- call it America. We’re basically the same, at least in this one respect.
Those are my best guesses.
Next entry: Inflections in a Constantinian Forgery
Previous entry: Cubes in Greek and Bears in Hebrew