People often use different language styles to undermine and create authority and solidarity in their speeches ( Mesthrie, 2011). Whorf in his long-standing article written in the 1940s titled Science and Linguistics argues that every average individual, especially at past infancy, can talk and carries particular immature but deeply rooted thought about conversation as well as its connection to reasoning. Based on natural logic, Whorf believes that every individual has often communicated effortlessly since childhood, a factor that makes everyone his own authority following how he/she talks. Most languages, including English, have grammars that act as standards for communication. Using this background, this paper primarily aims to analyze how Ryan and Biden during the famous 2012 Vice Presidential debate use language to align themselves with some groups and distance themselves with others as well as establish their authority and undermine others.
Arguably, as masters of the English language, both Biden and Ryan use different phrases and paralinguistic elements in their utterances to stamp their authority and portray the other as inferior. The first phrases both use in their statements are pronouns. For example, Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, categorically uses the personal pronoun “they” to refer to the ayatollahs, the Iranian or Muslim leaders (The New York Times, 2012). Ryan repeatedly uses the pronoun “they” to undermine the decision of Iranians and other Muslim nations to quickly opt for nuclear weapons because of the suctions America is imposing on them as opposed to other peaceful measures. Ryan specifically says, “Let’s look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration…” Biden also on his side uses the personal pronoun “I” to indicate how he well comprehends the reasoning of the ayatollahs as well as Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli leader.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Besides personal pronouns, Biden and Ryan's interview follows an unstructured narrative dimension allowing both the respondents to narrate their sides of the story using their own words, with prompting from interviewer Raddatz. In these narrative-based informal interviews, the interviewer has a specific set of subjects or issues that he/she wants the respondents to discuss. For example, in this particular session, Raddatz wants the two vice-presidential aspirants to talk about how to control the nuclear weapon ambition of the Iranians, how this is connected with Israel, and what role the U.S. can play to stop these aspirations. The benefit of unstructured narrative form is that the interviewee can ultimately gather all information based on the topics identified (The New York Times, 2012).
Another main language element significantly used in the discussion is a presumption, an important fact often made without the assistance of evidence or proof. This critical language component can fundamentally shift the burden of proof from one respondent or party to the other. Biden’s statement that the Iranians “are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon” is a good example of a closing presumption that does not need any evidence to substantiate. Both Ryan and Raddatz agree than truly Iranians are planning to produce nuclear weapons. Joe Biden also evidently uses direct speech in the discussion at the closing stages of the interview to show how well he understands Iran’s involvement in nuclear weapon idea. He quotes the loose talk about them that "All they have to do is get to enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon."
In conclusion, it is evident that language plays a very big role in defining an individual. The right language style can be used to achieve different purposes. People chose a given alignment of language to help them convey different types of messages. The paper has succeeded in showing how Biden and Ryan have used different phrases and paralinguistic elements to win over their audience and appear the best. Through the choice of words, one can help show the level of authority that they possess. Roght choice of words in most cases as shown does not require an evidence of proof.
References
Mesthrie, R. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The New York Times. (2012). Biden v. Ryan: Complete vice presidential debate (Election 2012). YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3roG09O6T4
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technological Review, 42 (6), 229-231, 247-248.
