(by Maike Wanner) In the following, I am going to analyse how the author tries to convince his readers by analysing the style of text and rhetorical devices. Concerning the style, I am going to take a look at the argumentative structure, as well as language and style in general.
The article deals with the topic of a new method of in vitro fertilization which uses a third persons DNA; while there is a moral debate on whether doing so is acceptable or not, the author is of the opinion that this is not only acceptable, but even close to a miracle.
As for the argumentative structure, the article’s headline already clearly conveys the readers point of view; at first, he puts a controversial question right at the beginning, which he answered with his own opinion right afterwards. Like that, the author tries to give the idea that the topic is not as controversial and, in fact, quite easy to resolve; he wants to make it obvious that his opinion is the one to adopt.
Now, the article itself begins. The author starts off by introducing the topic, so that the reader knows what he is talking about; but in order to also introduce the controversial aspect of the debate, he already implies that there are negative points to be named. Still, the beginning is quite objective, as to quickly guide the reader into the topic without naming his stance on the matter too clearly; this has already been done in the headline and the reader now needs to know about a few aspects of the dilemma. Despite of the reflected and objective character of his first paragraph, the style of writing implies a negative connotation to the points mentioned, but I will focus on this in another part of the analysis.
Now, in the next paragraph, arguments for his opinion are being given. At first, the author mentioned the innovation to have been announced in “apologetic terms” (l.3), but now, he claims that they should “instead have been made with a great fanfare” (l.7). This gives us a quite certain impression of what his opinion is, in addition to what we already know from the title; one can even say that the title is being confirmed in this paragraph, as both expressions mean that this innovation is a positive thing that should be celebrated with a great fanfare. So, the headline is already being included in the article content-wise, in order to make it appear more logical and thought through.
In a next paragraph, the author now focuses on possible counterarguments opposing his stance on the matter; he states his opinion and gives evidence for it by providing examples, which gives the reader the impression of the arguments being well-chosen and convincing. Like that, one is easily being brought onto his side: To think that the counterarguments are not as convincing as those that he has to offer, and that this new kind of IVF is, in fact, to be seen positively.
When naming the last possible counterargument, the author does not even name real arguments against it, but only claims this point to be a silly one, when referring to creationism in the bible. By stating that this argument is “particularly silly” (l.23), he wants to belittle the opponent’s point of view, to make them appear childish and naive in their thoughts and to thus let the reader adopt his own opinion, that those babies created with a third person’s DNA are a real miracle.
This is what he claims in the last part of his article. He appeals to the readers conscience by naming the possible and horrible consequences for a child born with a disease that could have been prevented with this new method, and, like that, manipulates the reader into adopting his opinion. Since in fact, nobody would want such a “difficult and […] awful life” (l.27) for their child, the reader feels addressed and understood; this, again, leads to him adopting the imposed opinion more easily.
With the very last words, optimism and hope for parents with heritable diseases is being spread: In addition to what he said before concerning the horrible life of a genetically diseased child, the author now mentions the idea of such a disease being a “ban on parenthood” (l.28). This might surely affect those readers that feel addressed by this statement; just that with his last sentence, he spreads hope by saying that this is not the case anymore, that now anybody can get children ,no matter their genomes, and that such a heritable disease is no longer an argument to prevent people from getting children. This leads to especially those people that do suffer from such a problem feeling spoken to and positively surprised; they will now quite certainly adopt the opinion that this is a good thing, which is the author’s aim.
As a next part of my analysis, I am now going to focus on both the language and the rhetorical devices employed in the text.
Firstly, the register is a formal one, no colloquial terms are being used and instead, the whole register seems to be quite fitting to the text type of a newspaper article. As for the language, it is, despite of its text type, quite subjective and emotional, thus manipulating and thoroughly convincing. Although this surely is a positive aspect for an article aiming to persuade the reader into thinking that one’s opinion is the one to believe, this does not actually fit the text type. A newspaper is supposed to be objective and free from personal opinions; but now, it is also possible that this is some kind of column or comment.
As another aspect, the syntax is mostly quite complex, with many subclauses and hypotaxes; only when talking about creationism and everybody being derived from Eve, the syntax becomes strikingly easy. Like that, the author wants to further impose the idea of those people being childish and naive. In general, one can assume that the author’s target group that will read the newspaper consists of people who are not too involved in the topic, as the article does not give insight in complex scientific details; because of that, the syntax and also the language in general are quite fitting, as they are not too easy, which would rather be fitting a newspaper for children or teenagers, but not too complex, so that all the readers will be able to understand what is said.
What also catches the eye when looking closely at the language is the usage of different kinds of vocabulary. When naming the positive aspects of this new method, Grayling employs a war or battle vocabulary; words such as “victory”, “battle” or “suffer” (ll.8f) imply that this is a war to be fought, which can probably, if not even only be won through this new innovative method. This gives the reader the impression of something of utter importance having been achieved, like a war which has been won, and again leads to him rather being persuaded into adopting his opinion.
The exact contrary is the case in the next paragraph: Here, several negatively connotated words are being used, such as “protest” (l.11), “dire” (l.12), or “unintended consequences” (ll.12f). This serves the exact same purpose as the war vocabulary used beforehand: To lead the reader to adopting the author’s opinion and to not make him believe what the author’s opponents are saying or believing. With the word “ignorance” (l.15), he again tries to belittle this opposing side and to make them appear naive; I already analysed the effect of this.
Concerning the rhetorical devices, I will now focus on a few that I find particularly important. Although it is not completely obvious, irony is being used (cf.ll.10-12); calling it a sign of an extremely bad society that in an “intellectual culture” (l.10) too much airtime is being reserved for “moral conservatives and religious lobbies” (l.11) appears ironic, as especially religion is often believed to be a sign of a modern and thus normally intelligent society. By opposing those aspects, this society is implied to not be as intelligent as claimed, which gives the whole statement an ironic and somehow funny connotation.
Another rhetorical device which can be found is the metaphora of “slippery slopes” (l.13); in addition to the words sounding quite similar, which makes them catchy and easy to keep in mind, this metaphora is being used to reinforce the idea of those problems being hard to overcome. Firstly, slopes are steep and difficult to climb, and secondly, they are even more so when slippery. This might appear strange, as the author wants to not make the reader believe that this method is linked to problems – but because of the somehow funny sound of those similar sounding words, one does not really take them too seriously, which also gives them some kind of ironic effect, at least to a certain degree, and leads to the reader rather not adopting the opposed opinion.
Furthermore, a simile can be found when Grayling talks about all kinds of medicine being unnatural (cf.ll.16f). By opposing something completely natural, or even more, even directly associated with the positive aspects, health and beauty of nature, with horrible and life-threatening diseases like cancer and pneumonia, the author creates a surprising effect. One would normally never compare cancer to roses. Despite of that, it helps him to reinforce his idea of medicine being unnatural, especially because of the surprise, as like that, the reader reads the sentence more closely.
Moreover, a personification is to be found in the same paragraph (cf.l.20). The “conventional view” is supposed to be blind, which means that everything that we found to be normal and usual up to this day is blind to innovation, or is not able to see it. Like that, the author wants to strengthen his idea of this new method being more positive than most people might assume, and as he tries to convince even the most opposed readers, he needs to call his conservative view blind. It does not see the positive aspects of this new method, which leads to the reader again rather believing what the is saying.
Lastly, there is a paradox statement at the end of the article. By claiming that “the choice itself is no choice” (l.28), he gives the reader the idea of actually not having a choice; by juxtaposing this to the new idea that with this new method, one does, in fact, have a choice, this creates hope, as I already mentioned, and causes the reader to want to believe and in the end really adopt the author’s stance.
As for the style in general, it is striking that the Grayling makes use of several quotations when naming counterarguments. Although this could possibly cause those points to appear more convincing, in this certain matter, however, it rather lets them sound ironic and naive. It somehow creates the idea in the reader’s mind of those arguments being silly and not even worth to be further elaborated. In this context, it is important to say that the use of irony, as well as the systematic belittling of the opponent’s arguments is an aspect which leads the reader through the whole text. I already mentioned the purpose and effect of this, it just appeared important to me to also mention it in relation to the style in general.
Adding up all those points, we can conclude that the author uses his style, as well as rhetorical devices in a convincing way, as he manipulates the reader into thinking of the opponent’s ideas as childish and of the author’s own point of view of a more convincing one. This is well achieved through the use of specific vocabulary, as well as rhetorical devices, but also the line of argumentation.
