There is no "what" without the "how"
in speech. The same written sentence
becomes two diametrically opposite ideas,
given opposing inflection and accompanying
voice-effect. "He stood in the front
rank of the battle" can be made praiseful
affirmation, scornful skepticism, or simple
question, by a simple varying of voice and
inflection. This is the more unmistakable
way in which the "how" affects the "what."
Just as true is the less obvious fact. The
same written sentiment, spoken by Wendell
Phillips and by a man from the Bowery
or an uneducated ranchman, is not the
same to the listener. In one case the sentiment
comes to the mind's ear with certain
completing and enhancing qualities of
sound which give it accuracy and poignancy.
The words themselves retain all
their possible suggestiveness in the speaker's
just and clear enunciation, and have a
borrowed beauty, besides, from the
associations of fine habit betrayed in the voice
and manner of speech. And, further, the
immense personal equation shows itself in
the beauty and power of the vocal expressiveness,
which carries shades of meaning,
unguessed delicacies of emotion, intimations
of beauty, to every ear. In the other
case, the thought is clouded by unavoidable
suggestions of ignorance and ugliness,
brought by the pronunciation and voice,
even to an unanalytical ear; the meaning is
obscured by inaccurate inflection and
uncertain or corrupt enunciation; but, worst
of all, the personal atmosphere, the aroma,
of the idea has been lost in transmission
through a clumsy, ill-fitted medium.
Pages:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35