Linguistic Analysis, Essay Example

Arguments

Passages number two and three contain arguments, because they contain multiple statements, a premise and a conclusion. The detailed analysis of the passages will follow. Supporting statements (premises) are background information that is believed to be true. A conclusion follows the premise, and is a logical consequence of the premise. The below examples’ structure might be different, however, they both contain the three elements that make them an argument.

Passage Two contains an argument.

A commonly accepted statement “Diplomatic relations are built on trust” starts the passage. This is the premise that the conclusion can originate from. If we, as readers all believe that trust is needed for diplomatic relations, indeed it is a basic, fundamental element of diplomacy, a conclusion can be drawn from this premise. The conclusion, which is a logical consequence of the above statement is that if trust is lost, it is harder to maintain diplomatic relations. A simple logical map of thought is drawn up below:

1. Trust is needed for good diplomatic relations
2. America lost its credibility
3. America’s position to maintain its diplomatic relations is problematic.
4. Lack of trust can result in loss of influence, alliances and failed trade agreements.

As a simplifed version of the same statement, without the premise, the authors could have made the sentence shorter, however, the logical trail would have been harder to follow. If the article said: “America will lose its allies and influence because of the Snowden-case, the readers would have assumed that they are reading a personal opinion, and the author has no intention to convince them. With the premise in place, the argument is made logical and “makes sense” for the readers. One premise, however, is hidden and not stated. This is the premise that “trust in international relations creates greater level of influence and better international trade agreements. However, the reader does not need this premise, as it is a logical consequence of the first premise.

Passage Three also contains an argument.

The third passage’s statement has a reverse order for premise and conclusion. The conclusion is that “Snowden has revealed nothing that was really unexpected.” the author later explains why they think this is true: because it was common knowledge in the international world. Therefore, to make the argument simpler and reveal the logic of the sentence, we are providing a simplified version of the passage: “The international institutions were aware of the US monitoring activity. (premise) This means that Snowden did not reveal anything new”. (conclusion). This passage’s premise, however, is weaker than the one in the previous example. The sentence is carefully crafted; instead of stating that people knew about the US activities, it states that “most experts already assumed” it. Therefore, one can argue the believability of the statement and question: who knew and how much did they know? Further, does the knowledge of international experts indicate that the public anticipated the news? If not, there is a logical error, and this argument is easier to attack than the previous example. It is also possible that this link between the knowledge of experts and public anticipation is an unstated premise, however, the reader might not find a logical connection between the two.

Language Issues

Language issues make sentences (especially written text) hard to interpret. Ambiguity and vagueness make the logical meaning of the sentence less defined. In some cases, readers or listeners feel like they need to ask further questions or seek clarification from the authors. In many cases, details and important background information are missing.

Passage Four

There are two vague and unexplained expressions in this passage: “reasonable suspicion” and “reasonable attempt”. These are likely to be defined by law, and the text of the legislation should have either included the definition of the expressions or a link to the appropriate passage of the order. Therefore, either the explanation and description/criteria of reasonable suspicion and reasonable attempt should be present (in brackets), or a link to the passage that explains these. Paraphrase 1 would be: “reasonable suspicion, determined by the immigration law passage x:y”. Paraphrase 2 would be: reasonable attempt, described in the policy document”. Vagueness is, therefore, relevant to the whole passage.

Passage Five

The expression “officer-involved shooting” is vague and does not provide enough information. It also represents ambiguity, as it can have two different meanings. It can mean that the officer shot a demonstrating person(or somebody else), or that he got shot by somebody. We do not know who Charles Hill is. The passage should certainly need to be paraphrased to be correctly interpreted. Paraphrase 1 should say: “an officer’s accidental shooting of Charles Hill”. Paraphrase 2 would involve the beginning of the passage and state: “The protest of July 11^th was triggered by the unfortunate event of a police officer shooting Charles Hill”. Further, the sentences do not tell the reader whether Charles Hill died or not. Euphemism is used. Instead of “killing”, the author uses “officer-involved shooting”.

Passage Six

There are several expressions that need clarification within this passage. First, the expression of “fierce resistance” is vague. The adjective is based on a subjective judgment. What is considered “fierce” by one person is possibly normal for military personnel fighting in Afghanistan. Paraphrase 1 would say: “fierce response with automatic weapons and explosive grenades thrown at the French soldiers”. Ambiguity and vagueness is also represented by the expression: “tentacles”. The reader does not know exactly what the author means: influence, third party ties,  territory, military base. Therefore, this expression needs to be clarified accordingly. Further, the redundant expression of “extremist groups” does not tell the reader which ideology/religion the groups belong to. Therefore, this sentence would benefit from clarification, too. Paraphrase 2 would say: “resistance from Fundamental Islamic extremist military groups”. There are also some phrases that are put into the sentence intentionally to make the reader react emotionally. The mentioning of “extremist groups” is a labeling action which correlates with previous wars of the NATO. The mentioning of Afghanistan, even if it is just for the purpose of providing an idea of territory is also present to create an emotional response.

Passage Seven

The passage provides little information and the reader would like to immediately ask questions. The vagueness of the sentence leaves several questions unanswered, such as:

1. Are they military ships?
2. What is the purpose?
3. Are they ships from America or belong to an international operation?
4. In response to what do the ships go there?
5. When does this happen?

Paraphrase 1: “American military ships are heading to Syria this morning to monitor the shores leading to the country”.

Paraphrase 2: “American humanitarian cargo ships are heading to Syria to deliver essential goods for the population.”