Introduction
The current paper is devoted to analyzing the article called Is Google Making Us Stupid? Written by Nicholas Carr. It was published in The Atlantis online journal. The analysis will be centered on the rhetorical means which help the author convey the main idea and attract the readers’ attention to the particular argument. Considering the article’s publicist style, the author’s central aim is to encourage specific thoughts in readers’ minds. The statement, which is highlighted by such rhetorical means as metaphors, wordplay, examples, and ethical questions, is built upon the idea that the internet changes the capacity of the brain-damaging some of the memory functions.
Metaphors and Wordplay
The first rhetorical tool used to strengthen the negative effect of the internet on the human brain is a metaphor. Carr uses metaphors invoking the rhetorical impact of directly referring to one thing while referring to another: “brains as operating like clockwork”. The author highlights that people lose humanity, becoming similar to machines. The author also highlights who is to be blamed for such actions through another metaphor: “…Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church”. This rhetoric tool makes the text more emotional and thought-provoking. The author must cause the particular emotional response of the reader because many of his observations and opinions are personal. Precisely for such an audience’s response, the author allocates another rethorictoolL wordplay. In order to highlight that the author does not try to force his opinion, the following wordplay is used: “So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism”. However, the usage of wordplay also equalizes the author with other people, which makes his position even more reliable. Of wordplay also
Examples
The examples are one of the most effective rhetorical means of helping the author to support the main idea. The author allocates two types of examples: statistical and personal. Statistical examples evolved as scientific and academic support for the author’s main argument. Such a method makes the text more supported by valid s scientific institutes: “according to the Harvard Business Review.” Moreover, besides the statistical and academic examples, Carr builds contact with the reader through personal examples. Not only the author describes his personal experience but also allocates the opinions of famous bloggers: “He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because…”. By implementing such an example, the author notes that the reader, author, and other people mentioned in the narration are united: “I’m not the only one.” As a result of examples integration, the author makes the argument well supported by two different types of data. Such an approach is rational for supporting the argument based on the personal point of view which is expressed in the article.
Rhetorical Questions
Not only the examples can improve the sense of presence and unity for the reader. Another rhetorical tool to attract the audience’s attention to the author’s argument is rhetorical questions. Most often, rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the significance of a statement and draw the attention of the listener or reader to a particular problem. The author, in this context, uses a rhetorical question to highlight key phrases and involve the audience in the process of reflection: “Where does it end?” Moreover, the article’s name represents the rhetorical question. By posing questions, Carr follows the communicative intention of narration: to awaken the audience’s consciousness regarding the changes in the brain caused by the internet. In other words, the provocation within the structure of rhetorical questions strengthens the author’s argumentation, highlighting the problem’s significance.
The Criticism of the Argument
Considering mentioned rhetorical means used by the author, the text can be called appealing. The main argument is well supported by personal, scientific, and observational experiences. The method of narration, which includes various rhetorical means, is thought-provoking, helping the audience to understand the position better. Another function of the rhetoric tools here is the need to establish an emotional connection and unity between the author and readers. The mentioned examples strengthen the argument of the author by improving the supportive basis (examples) and emotional effect (rhetoric question, metaphors, and wordplay).
Conclusion
Concluding the analysis of the article, it can be stated that the author’s argument is well-supported by using rhetorical tools. Metaphors and wordplay were used to create the feeling of unity with the readers and make the text more appealing. The creation of the comparison image makes the text more effective, which helps to achieve the needed emotional reaction from the audience. The examples serve as excellent argumentation bases providing diverse support for the primary author’s idea. The rhetorical question was used by Carr in order to provoke the reader’s consciousness to agree with the author’s opinion. The argument is solid due to the providing many examples and supporting facts, both scientific and public. The only drawback of the article is the lack of structural thought expression. The author provides no highlighted point moving from one theme to another, disturbing the text.
Bibliography
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, 2008.