For this analysis, I once again review Steven Duin's article about the scrutiny of community in the United States today. This time around, I'm focusing on his language and the way he uses his words to get the message across.
In short, Duin wrote a column for a Portland, Oregon newspaper, detailing his thoughts of some of the public's views on President Obama's actions when dealing with the community. He views their thoughts to be unreasonable for this particular time in our nation's history, and argues that focusing on the community rather than the individual is what is best for our country. When readers begin his article, they have their own take on whether the individual is more important than the community or vice versa. The way Steve Duin writes, however, makes you feel as if his view is the only view that can be deemed acceptable. This is accomplished through very intricate uses of language tools.
One such vastly apparent tool is Duin's use of imagery and figurative meanings. Statements like "this train of thought rumbles out of the right-wing noise machine" (par. 3) works to not only identify which group thinks that individualism is more important than community, but also discredits the source. Duin could have written that right-wing citizens hold this view, but he decides to include statements like these -- ones that Duin obviously deems "radical" or "irrational" -- happen all the time and that right-wing perspectives are always just seeking attention. A statement like this can, however, hurt his audience, especially those that have the views of Duin’s “right-wing noise machine” (Phoebe has already addressed that perception, if you want to read a more in-depth look).
Immediately following this segment, Duin continues to write things such as "Unions do the devil's work" (par. 5) to give samples to the readers of why right-wing views are drastic and excessive, and that his view on the argument is fairer. The usage of imagery runs rampant in this article.
Another language tool Duin uses lies near the end of his writing. Keeping with the same tone present throughout his paper, Duin's final message is to leave a few questions in the mind of his readers. Using rhetorical questions like, "[A president who believes] in the sacrificial giving that serves those who cannot fathom your prosperity? I would hope so" (Par. 18-19) Duin words the situation to be favorable to his argument. No one wants to admit to prioritizing greed over humanitarianism, especially in a president, so of course the reader will want to agree with Duin's statement. Ending articles with statements like these proves to make Steve Duin's argument all the more powerful.
"Ending our Splintering Isolation" uses numerous other language tools, such as allusions and definite tone, to get Duin's point across. The article -- in its entirety -- is an amazing representation of what shaping the words and context of an argument to your benefit can do.
Good points! Such a well-recognized columnist would have to use these language tools fluently, especially a man of such "credibility"! It is true Duin is very dramatic with his words, and it works out in his favor. I would also discuss the negative effects this may have (like I talk about how he loses audience members because of his dramatic statements.) If you include just a short recognition of this, I think you'll be golden!
ReplyDelete