Comparison of Two Articles' Arguments - Case Study Example

Comparison of two articles’ arguments In the two articles "Pact with Japan must be welcomed" (Article and "For some, wounds will never heal" (Article 2), the authors offer their views on the treaty signed by the Australian and Japanese government to share their military training resources. In Article 1 the author offers the argument for the treaty while the author of Article 2 is against the treaty. In modern discourse the logic of argument is flexible and seems to tally the personality and mood of the writer. This is clearly evident from the different approaches to the same topic that the authors of the articles have followed. In Article 1, the author presents his thesis at the beginning of the article, and follows the Aristotelian persuasive discourse of logos. Logos refers to plea or argument leading to conclusion, or thesis, or ground of argument. What is particular about logos is that it follows a range of diverse arguments, and structures the arguments on composition of logical and coherent value arguments (Cockroft & Cockroft 1992, p. 9). This is evident in Article 1. The writer first sets out to state the thesis, which is supported by point-by-point evidences of earlier historical pacts between Australia and Japan. While the paragraphs in Article 1 do transition neatly from evidence to evidence, it does not offer variety which is essential in persuasive discourse writing (Davis and McKay 1996, p. 98). Nevertheless, Article 1 could be said to follow the Hallidays concept of ideational function. Ideational function refers the "expression of ideas about the real world" (Cockroft & Cockroft 1992, p. 13). It also reflects what Bakhtin refers to as "the dialogic of rhetoric" which refers to discourse which anticipates "echoing other voice and anticipating rejoinders". Clearly in Article 1, the author aims to convince readers and oppositions to "welcome" and regard the agreement as "another step in the long normalisation of the two countries relations." The author very convincingly uses the similarity model (Cockroft & Cockroft 1992, p.65) to list various pacts such as Agreement on Commerce, Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, and Australia-Japan Partnership to point to the readers that each of these has been stepping stones for the normalisation of the two countries relations. Indeed, more convincing has been the fact, according to the author, the booming trade between the two countries.Having established these evidences, the author of Article 1 then closes his/her inductive reasoning by summarising the success of the relationship between the two countries. However, this adjunct does not serve the purpose of solidifying his/her argument. Instead, it crumbles in the face of the weak conclusion the author makes. Instead of offering the reader some thought for reflection as identified by Davis and McKay (1996, p.102), it merely offers the authors own brief opinion in one statement. On the other hand in Article 2, the author bases his stance on pathos or emotional engagement. According to Aristotle persuaders can engage the audiences attention by orienting them to emotional appeals (Cockroft & Cockroft 1992, p. 9). By linking the emotional experience through imagination, the persuader can influence the audience towards the ethos or stance. This is clearly identified in Article 2 whereby the author creates convincing imagery through the description of his experience at Changi PoW camps. He makes his stance clear from the first sentence and influences his audience to read about it in these words "Changi PoW took my youth, my dignity and my health" (Venables 2007, p. 42). These words set the tone for the rest of the article. However, as one reads through it, it seems that Venables has thought his experiences would convey his stance on their own. He does not offer factual evidences to relate to the political and historical signing of the agreement between Japan and Australia. He does not offer his political stance either. His emotional personal narrative therefore seems to be out of context of situation. Context of situation, as Halliday and Hasan (1985) identify is an essential for social-semiotic discourse. Even though in a sense, Venables created a convincing environment against signing of the treaty, there is no context of his emotional journey back to Changi PoW camp. In context of situation, an argument must have participants, action, relevant features of situation and effects according to Firth (in Halliday and Hasan 1985, p.8). With only himself as the participant, there is least inclination of action, or effects that one could wield from the description of his experience. It is a weak mode of argument according to Reinking and von der Osten (1999, p. 160) unless supported by other evidences. The author’s personal experience does emotionally appeal to the reader but it does not offer factual or even political evidence required to convince the reader of the argument. Despite these aspects, one must appreciate the convincing pathos which Venables uses to establish his grounds for arguments. Words like "trust", "nearly died", "starved, bashed and very sick" and "hurt" appeal to the universal emotions of the readers. Universal emotions refer to positive emotions which are experienced by individuals and common to humanity in general (Cockroft & Cockroft 1992, p. 41). The consistent reference to his young age at the time he had been taken as PoW also adds to the emotional appeal of the reader. The direct quotes of communication between the Japanese and himself from personal recollection though add drama to the situation; it also puts the audience off as being unreal and made-up. The conclusion too seems to be distracted by addresses to different audiences. For example in one sentence he seems to address the general readers with the statement "Our Prime Minister..." while the statement "I am not in favour of our Government..." seems to be a personal mission. The second last statement "For me and my fellow PoWs, the memories run deep" demonstrate that Venables is addressing a specialist group of individuals (Venables 2007, p. 42). These and the ending statement create chaotic conclusion to the whole article. If one compares Article 2 with Article 1, then it would seem that Article 1 has a stronger argumentative structure with defined layout, structure and supporting evidences. According to Davis and McKay (1996, p. 88), effective argument need to have an introduction, supporting arguments/evidences, conclusion arranged in logical order to reflect the flow of thoughts and arguments. In Article 1, one can detect this logical flow which is perhaps why, reading through it had not been such an effort. However, in Article 2, though the writing flows smoothly, the structure of the argument is a bit difficult to follow. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the author has tried to take the reader back to the time when he was imprisoned, and then transition to the future, and making his argument in a short article. While the author has been able to effectively describe his personal experience, his trials and tribulations, these evidences do not collaborate with the issue at hand. Emotional engagement and orientation is a difficult technique of building an argument according to Cockroft and Cockroft (1992, p. 48) and should be used when the writer is convinced of his orientation of the issue, and has a command over the persuasive interaction. For fellow PoWs perhaps, Venables article may be a connective communication piece but for the general public, it does not offer any orientation to the issue. Instead, for the general public, Article 2 proves to be a good source of imagery relating to the war eras. Moreover, Article 2 demonstrates an emotional bias and negative ideology. The author is clearly biased against the Japanese regardless of Japanese having normalised for the past decades. This is evidence from his statement "But if I close my eyes, I can see, hear and smell a different Japan - a country I still cant trust" (Venables 2007, p. 42). In using bias language and ideology, Venables perhaps aimed to influence his readers but according to Cockroft and Cockroft (1992, p. 50), bias language create an opposite reaction, by subverting feelings. Given these aspects, perhaps the author might consider improvements on the argument structure. One suggestion could be the use of drafting and crafting the argument structure with main thesis at the beginning, followed by point by point evidences from personal experiences, and connect them with facts. In doing so the author would be more effective in appealing to the reader and influencing their ideology. Similarly, another suggestion for improvement for Article 2 would be to improve on the emotional engagement and orientation. The author need to revise the bias language and emotive ideology, and illustrate to the reader that he is emotional but not bias. Instead of using universal emotions and connect it with personal ones, the author could appeal to contingent emotions of the readers to address them at the individual level. Lastly, the author need to improve on the conclusion which should summarizes his thesis, and offer the reader some opportunity for reflection instead of outlining abstract thoughts of different issues of which have not been discussed in the body of the article. This is by contrast different from the conclusion of Article one which is precise and thoughtful. However, the author of Article 1 needs to elaborate a bit on the conclusion to demonstrate that all of his points have been reflected upon in the course of the discussion. In the article, the author has been creative in presenting carefully crafted argument. The analogies of evidences used to counteract arguments have been well presented. Indeed, aligned with the issue, the author has presented political evidences to present a convincing discourse that the treaty between the two countries Australia and Japan should be welcomed. Each paragraph is a whole idea, and they are related to one another. Words like "step", connected with "each of these steps" and "time to move forward" connected with "those most aggrieved" demonstrate that the author has used rational appeal to the reader. Rational appeal, as outlined by Reinking and von der Osten (1999, p. 157), takes into consideration facts, established truths, authoritative opinions and so on to make a case for an argument, which is what the author of Article 1 has done. Until the very end, the reader is emotional, rationally and logically engaged in the argument. The conclusion however proves to be dissatisfactory and does not offer the bottom-line action which is required for the discourse to be effective. This could be rectified through elaboration. Unlike Article 2, Article 1 effectively uses universal and contingent emotions to connect with those who are emotionally biased towards the issue of Japans normalisation with Australia. It demonstrates that the author is sensitive to the issue, but nevertheless is objective in his arguments for the Australia to join hands with Japan in the normalisation process. By mentioning the sensitive issue of the Bali bombing, and the shared duties in war sensitive areas of the world, the author demonstrate that he is aware of the worlds political situation, and offers a convincing argument why Australias pact with Japan should be welcomed. Overall, Article 1 offers better and convincing arguments as compared to Article 2. Although there are various discourse models available, Article 1 has used and concentrated on the exploration of logos in building and effectively convincing the audience. In article 2, the author has used pathos as the argument model which is usually successful in appealing to the emotions of readers. While this method is usually successful in swaying the opinion of the reader but sometimes its over use can result in reversing the opinions, which the researcher feels could be the case for this article. In relying totally on his personal experience, and using pathos to emotionally appeal to his reader, the author has demonstrated too much bias against the issue and no consideration for the oppositions stance. This insensitivity towards the opposition might not appeal to the readers. References Author not available 2007, Pact with Japan must be welcomed, Courier Mail, 15 March, p. 36. Cockroft, R. and Cockroft, S. M. 1992, Persuading people: an introduction to rhetoric. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Davis, L.and McKay, S. 1996, Structures and strategies: an introduction to academic writing. Macmillan Education Australia Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. 1985, Language, context and text: aspects of language in a social semiotic. Deakin University: Deakin University Press: Waurn Ponds, Vic. Howard, J. 2002, A sadness shared, a determination undiminished, The Australian, Tuesday 26 Novebember, p. 11. Hughes, G. 1990, What is register? English Today, No. 22, pp. 32. Reinking, J. and von der Osten, R. 1999, Strategies for successful writing. Prentice Hall, pp. 156. Venables, M. 2007, For some wounds will never heal, The Sunday Mail, 18 March, p. 42. Read More