When every single word in a short phrase is punctuated by a period (full stop BrEng), what effect does this produce in the reader? He or she is forced to pause before moving onto the next word. So, yes, I would call this form of writing, and speaking a rhetorical device, because it creates an effect on the audience.
This (for want of a better expression) “period emphasis” is similar to how we might place a word, or short phrase in italics, bold, “scare quotes”, or in block capital letters, i.e. CAPS. Ultimately, in the quotations cited by the OP, the journalist's aim is to grab the reader's attention.
Punctuating a short phrase in this manner is an economical way of adding pathos, levity, and/or tension to any news or piece of communication. A way to highlight a moment of mock drama; e.g. Janice Litman from F.R.I.E.N.D.S and her catchphrase Oh. My. God!; extreme levity (Best. Party. Ever.) or even a powerful way to emit a threat (You. Will. Die).
What's it called?
All The Tropes has a page dedicated to Punctuated! For! Emphasis! and provides these examples from the Harry Potter series among many others from different movies and books
"Life. Isn't. Fair."
"Don't. Lie. To me."
"You. Don't. Know."
"Don't. Call. Me. A. Coward!"
"Mr. Potter... Our. New. Celebrity."
Preterition may fit. Here is the definition in Dupriez, Bernard Marie, and A. W. Halsall (translator). A Dictionary of Literary Devices : Gradus, A-Z. U of Toronto, 1991 (quote from p. 353.):
"A figure by which summary mention is made of a thing, in professing to omit it" (OED). See also Lanham, Lausberg, Littre, and Morier. Both Quinn (pp. 70-1) and Fontanier (p. 143) add that such a declaration of omission is in fact a way of emphasizing the allegedly omitted material.
In each of your examples is something quite similar - summary mention of a thing in professing that a speaker omitted it, in order to emphasize the allegedly omitted material. To use your first example:
- Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” (Gospel of John 4:27; ESV)
Stating the omitted questions has the effect of emphasizing them. No one may have said them, but it suggests that others in that situation would have asked, or that these questions were seen as reasonable if a wise man like Jesus talked with a woman. Similarly, the other two examples further qualify the response of the two men to the day and the response of the angry man.
The main oddness here is that examples of preterition are usually in first person rather than in third person. However, nothing in the definition forbids its application to third-person narration.
Possible synonyms include include paralipsis/paralepsis or occupatio, though note that at least one scholar has disputed that preterition should be called that (Kelly, H. A. “Occupatio as Negative Narration: A Mistake for ‘Occultatio/Praeteritio.’” Modern Philology, vol. 74, no. 3, 1977, pp. 311–315.):
Quite clearly, then, preterition [and not occupatio or occultatio] is the appropriate term for Chaucer's usual practice of negative narration [...] (p. 315)
Best Answer
There are several possible descriptive terms for this rhetorical device. The most appropriate seems to be:
The others are:
But what exactly is a rhetorical device? According to Wikipedia:
As a celebrated statesman of the 20th century, Dag Hammarskjöld demonstrated astute oratory and writing skills by choosing words, building phrases and designing sentences in a logical framework that appealed to the powerful pathos and ethos of his audience. He would have made a sufficient impact if he had simply applied the rhetorical device of metaphor:
Regardless of the word order, he applied the literal terms broken and whole to the relational dynamic of forgiveness. He could have increased the impact of that statement by simply adding a second metaphor with the rhetorical devices of repetition and parallelism:
His repetition device can be further classified into three separate repetition devices: Anaphora, Epistrophe, and Mesodiplosis. Apparently, he wished to multiply the impact of his statement with the specific emphasis of a fourth rhetorical device of chiasmus:
Accomplished authors, like Dag Hammarskjöld, choose to employ the flexibility of English semantics and syntax to make an intentional logical and emotional impact on their audiences, who often enjoy the impact without ever recognizing the author's devices. We enjoy discovering and discussing their techniques with relish.