Statistical analysis: Alliteration + Intentional Fallacy

[biochem]

So some of the things I have read about, research beyond just reading, talks about trying to state if alliteration was intentionally used in a certain piece. so like something along the lines of, if alliteration appears within Scarlet letter more closely together, or in smaller proximity, then farther away. This analysis would indicate if the author wanted to purposely use the emphasis of alliteration or if the chances in language are just coincidentally there. Also, i was wondering if this was something important enough to mention in a oral. Lets say, you see alliteration within scarlet letter passage you get - and you want to mention that while alliteration is coincidentally present in other parts of the book, in this particular passage it is extremely influential on the reader's perspective and notion of diction.
Just a little sprinkle I want to add in order to give the examiners something new to listen to and spark their interest.


and can someone explain to be the use and presence of the intentional fallacy in orals. I heard its one of the biggest mark downs.

for those who dont know, means: we as students, for example, pin down the author's purpose for maybe using the dark imagery in previous chapters of the Scarlet Letter in order to introduce the "SNAKE in the garden" of the next chapter with somber biblical reference. While, in all certainty, there was no such intention.

[SharkSpider]

If you want to avoid intentional fallacy, simply discuss the effects of a literary device, and how it changes the interpretation. Focus on what it does, as saying the author intended to do so is opening yourself up for unnecessary criticism. If you want to relate it to the author's life or philosophy or movement, simple show why the piece fits in to the greater set of pieces and philosophies.

IE.

"The use of synechdoche is because the author wanted to show that Joe was being objectified for his ability to work. The author wanted to show how the corporations of our materialistic society reduce peoples' individuality, so he referred to Joe by his hands when Joe was at work."

Gets slammed, but has the same logic as:

"The author's use of synechdoche allows the reader to get a sense of the purpose of Joe's life. By seeing him referred to by his hands, we see that the materialistic values of society have reduced Joe to the state of a mindless working machine, and the negative connotations of this event suggest that we cannot derive meaning from capitalism and materialism, but from freedom and individuality."

I BSed all that, but you can see why you can't hammer the second one for intentional fallacy.

[Hyperbole]

I had never heard of the intentional fallacy before; quite interesting! (Now I'm even more nervous about my oral commentary...)

Anyway, about the alliteration thing. Personally, I think it would be a [i]very[/i] good thing to mention it, if you're sure you can do it in a good way albeit briefly. You shouldn't allow it to take even half a minute - you need that time for other things! But showing that you really know the novel is key, and by mentioning this feature you certainly do that. But do make sure that the alliteration you're referring to really is intentional before you say it is - although you certainly could mention that there is coincidental alliteration if that's what it is; it's still a feature present in her work which you should know if you've studied it.