Xor is it difficult, with the help of grammar, to ferret out the appraisers. But it is difficult, at times, to find the incitive language. More often than not, the incitive content is more implicit than explicit. And sometimes it is totally omitted. But people use signs because they want something. The purpose is there, whether the user is conscious of it or not; whether he states it or not.
It is important to know what the user of signs wants. Why does he write? Why does he speak? The answer to this question is, probably, our only clue to his value system. Let me quote again from Cousins:
And it is precisely the boiling and churning of the unpredictables that make it necessary today to bring the weapons of mass destruction under control, to define new relationships among the nations, and to make these new relationships work under enforceable law.
This is explicitly incitive language. Cousins chose pre-scriptors, thus to elicit a specific action response:
1. Bring the weapons of mass destruction under control!
2. Define new relationships among the nations!
3. Make these new relationships work under enforceable law!
Here we have the imperatives of explicitly incitive language. But who is expected to respond by specific action? Are these prescriptors merely rhetoricaldirected to the four winds? No, here it is:
For the President has previously stated that any ban on nuclear testing must be tied to a ban on nuclear armaments. If, therefore, we now insist on continued testing, it can only mean that disarmament itself is doomed.
This incitive language is directed to the President of the United States. The readers of The Saturday Review are