Activity Questions 1.2

Based on the sources and our conversation history, the figure of speech used in the lines:

“Who knows why the cold wind blows, Or where it goes, or what it knows.”

is Personification.

Here’s why:

• Personification is defined in the sources as a literary device where a thing or an idea is given human attributes or emotions. It helps establish a deeper connection and can create a poetic expression.
• In the lines provided, the cold wind (a natural phenomenon, a ’thing’) is described as something that “knows” things (“what it knows”) and “goes” somewhere with a degree of intent (“where it goes”) and has a “why” behind its action (“why the cold wind blows”). The act of “knowing” is a distinct human cognitive ability.
• By attributing the ability to “know,” “go” (with intent), and have underlying reasons (“why”) to the wind, the lines give this inanimate entity human-like qualities or actions. This aligns directly with the definition of personification as giving human attributes to a thing or idea.
• The sources provide examples of personification such as treating books as “companions” or saying “the stars winked at us”. Attributing “knowing” to the wind is a similar application of this device.

Other figures of speech mentioned in the sources, such as alliteration (repetition of initial sounds), simile (comparison using ’like’ or ‘as’), metaphor (implicit comparison), paradox (conflicting but true statement), oxymoron (contradictory words together), antithesis (opposing ideas in parallel), irony (opposite outcome than expected), pun (word with double meaning), synecdoche (part for whole), metonymy (related name for another), litotes (negative for positive), hyperbole (exaggeration), or euphemism (polite phrasing for taboo) do not fit the structure or meaning conveyed in the given lines.

Based on the information from the sources and our previous discussions, the figure of speech prominently used in the lines:

“Tyger Tyger, burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

is Personification.

Here’s the breakdown, drawing on the sources:

• Personification is a literary device where a thing or an idea is given human attributes or emotions. Its function is to establish a deeper connection and create a poetic expression.
• In the lines, the focus in the latter part is on the “immortal hand or eye” and its ability to “frame thy fearful symmetry” [Source lines]. The act of “frame” here implies shaping, creating, or crafting something complex, which is a distinctly human-like action [Source lines].
• By attributing this creative ability to an abstract or divine concept represented by the “immortal hand or eye” (which refers to a creator or creative force), the poem is giving a non-human entity a human-like capacity for intricate creation [Source lines, 119, 120]. This aligns with the definition of personification as giving human attributes or actions to a thing or idea.
• While the lines also contain metaphorical language (e.g., “burning bright” comparing the tiger’s intensity or colour to fire without using ’like’ or ‘as’, and “forests of the night” using the imagery of forests to describe the night’s darkness or density), the question about the creator’s ability to “frame” the tiger’s symmetry stands out as a central element and a clear instance of attributing a human-like action to a powerful, non-human entity [Source lines, 119, 120].

Considering the phrasing and the impact of the question about the creation, Personification captures the essence of attributing human-like creative power to the immortal entity.

Based on the information from the sources and our conversation history, the figure of speech used in the sentence “The robber was pickpocketed” is Paradox.

Here’s the explanation drawing on the sources:

• A Paradox is defined as “a situation or statement that is true but sounds impossible or conflicting”. It is also described as a construction that “consists of two contrasting facts or characteristics”.
• The sentence “The robber was pickpocketed” describes a situation. This situation involves a person who is typically defined by their act of stealing from others (“robber”) [Source does not define ‘robber’ but the common understanding is theft/taking]. This person is then subjected to the action of being stolen from (“was pickpocketed”) [Source does not define ‘pickpocketed’ but the common understanding is having something stolen from one’s pocket].
• The conflicting elements lie in the contrast between the inherent characteristic or role of a “robber” (one who takes) and the action they experience (“was pickpocketed” - having something taken from them). This situation, where the perpetrator of theft becomes the victim of theft, is true but sounds conflicting or involves contrasting roles within the same entity, fitting the description of a paradox.
• Examples of paradox from the sources, such as “I must be cruel to be kind” or “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”, demonstrate how contradictory ideas or characteristics are presented together to create a thought-provoking statement. While “The robber was pickpocketed” is a description of an event rather than an abstract statement of contrasting ideas like the examples, it embodies the core concept of a situation that is conflicting due to the roles involved, aligning with the definition of paradox as a conflicting “situation or statement”.
• While the situation described could also be considered ironic, as it involves an outcome opposite to what might be expected (a robber being robbed is the opposite of a robber robbing), the sources’ description of paradox specifically highlights the presentation of a statement or situation that “sounds impossible or conflicting”, which more directly addresses the contradictory nature inherent in the description itself.

Based on the information from the sources and our conversation history, the figure of speech used in the lines:

“We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air…”

is Anaphora.

Here’s why, drawing on the sources:

• Anaphora is defined as a literary device involving the technique of repetition of a word or sequence of words in the beginning of a clause, a phrase, or a related clause. It is explicitly distinguished from alliteration, which is the repetition of initial sounds.
• The sources note that Anaphora is often seen in advertising and poetry.
• The example provided in the sources to illustrate Anaphora is “Stay home stay safe”, where the word “Stay” is repeated at the beginning of each phrase. Another example shows the repetition of “and” at the beginning of lines in a poem.
• In the provided text, the sequence of words “We shall” is repeated at the beginning of consecutive clauses (“We shall not flag or fail”, “We shall go on to the end”).
• Furthermore, the phrase “we shall fight” is repeated at the beginning of several subsequent clauses (“we shall fight in France”, “we shall fight on the seas and oceans”, “we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air”).

This clear repetition of identical words and phrases at the start of successive clauses precisely matches the definition and examples of Anaphora provided in the sources.