Double Language Analysis
Double Language Analysis Katie White Recent shark attacks in Western Australia has raised controversy about how to solve the issue. “Stem the carnage” is a letter to the editor written by Sam Forsythe appeared on the 18th April 2007, Forsythe argues that the only solution is to kill the man-eating monsters with a genuinely concerned tone. In response to “stem the carnage”, James Whitt wrote a letter, in a somewhat condescending tone, contending that killing the sharks is a ridiculous suggestion to the issue.
Forsythe attempts to magnify the size of the issue by suggesting that the only solution to solving the number of attacks is to kill a number of sharks reducing the species population. He uses statistics of “seven attacks in the last 4 years” to encourage the reader’s support. This positions the reader to view the writer’s argument as more convincing because it appears to be objective and reliable. The writes also identifies the fact that Australia’s tourism industry may fall due to unsafe waters. Forsythe is appealing to Australia’s long traditions of safe waters and mentions that Australia’s tourism industry is “heavily dependent on it”.
This encourages readers to resist change , and to feel that the links with the past should be retained. Furthermore, Forsythe seeks to evoke the reader’s sense of fear and insecurity by saying that not culling the sharks could “endanger a whole way of life”. This pressures readers to feel that solutions are needed urgently and should agree with the proposals. It also persuades the reader to believe that the writes has their best interests at heart by wanting to protect them. Conversely, “love thy neighbour,” contends that sharks should not be killed simply for human convenience.
Whitt argues attacks Forsythe’s contention urging that it is wrong and appalling to kill one of the “planet’s most glorious marine species” just for human fear. Forsythe reasons that killing a few sharks will not achieve anything, this attempts to position the reader to accept the writer’s viewpoint as objectively true because it is not just a personal opinion. It persuades the reader through a well-argued case that can stand up to scrutiny. The writer argues that the sharks should not be killed because humans are in their territory and they are there “entirely at their own risk”, and the sharks should not be killed because of this.
Whitt appeals to readers’ common sense and this pressures the reader to agree by implying that anyone who disagrees lacks practical intelligence and cannot see what is self-evident. Whitt is critical of Forsythe’s accusation that the Australian tourism industry relies on safe waters. The writer argues that the tourism industry relies heavily on the “vast array of marine species our beautiful waters have to offer. ” Whitt also approaches the issue with a rhetorical question asking readers what people message of Australia if “we blow all of them [sharks] out of the water because we are scared of them? Use of a rhetorical question implies an obvious answer and condemns readers to rethink their initial thoughts on the issue and pressures them to agree with the writer’s viewpoint. Overall, Forsythe and Whitt use a variety of effective persuasive techniques that aim to intensify each of their arguments. “Stem the carnage” and “love thy neighbour” are two articles that address the issue of the Great White Shark, however, in very different ways use persuasive devices to prove their case.
