Introduction
In the U.S., more than half of all marriages end in divorce. Divorce is never pleasant, even when both parties agree it is the best. In terms of mental health in the U.S., divorce is one of the leading causes of depression and stress. One of the key points worth repeating is that the laws for marriage and divorce are different in all 50 American states.
One authoritative figure to address this issue was Elizabeth Marquardt, an affiliate scholar with the Institute of American Values. She posted her article in The Washington Post in November 2005. Even though the government is aiming to address the issue, there is still a need for speeches that address the significance of the problem using a variety of appealing rhetorical techniques.
Analysis of Rhetoric Strategies
Anadiplosis
The primary strategy used in Marquardt’s speech is anadiplosis, a stylistic figure consisting of a sound or verbal repetition of the final part of one speech passage at the beginning of the next. It enables a chain of reasoning to continue to the following concept, encouraging the audience to follow your point. Repetition allows the audience to follow the progression of one’s ideas.
Marquardt structures each sentence based on this device in her article to show how one action affects another. For instance, in the paragraph where she describes The Washington Post story about Eli and Debbie, each sentence contains the idea from the previous one (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 77). It serves as a triggering hint urging the nation to address the issue of divorce as it adversely affects children.
Allusion
The other rhetorical strategy implemented in Marquardt’s narrative is allusion. An allusion is a reference, an allusion to a well-known fact, a work, or a catchphrase. With the help of this device, the authors fill their works with new meanings, rethink mythology, history, literature, and philosophy, or enter into a polemic with the past. In the beginning of her text, she alludes to the movie “The Squid and the Whale.” This film tells the story of a 36-year-old man struggling while recollecting his parents’ divorce (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 74). By referring to the plot, the author attempts to remind the audience that even if one’s parents separated long ago, there is still a haunting thought of being betrayed.
Repetition
Repetition is another device utilized by Elizabeth Marquardt. His primary goal is to create a public appeal to those suffering from the consequences of divorce. For instance, in the last paragraph, she repeats “collaborative justice” several times (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 78). By using repetitive imperative phrases, she encourages the nation to act against divorce propaganda to ensure the country’s prosperity in the future.
It is desirable to repeat the most important provisions one way or another. Thoughts repeated twice are much better absorbed, even if no one is distracted. In addition, the repetition of any thought contributes to its consolidation in listeners’ minds and allows, if used correctly, to make the speaker’s speech more convincing. In other words, this device can be called anaphora – a turn of poetic speech consisting of repeating identical words, expressions, and sound combinations of sentences.
Rhetorical Question
A rhetorical question is also used in Elizabeth Marquardt’s speech. It is a question whose answer is known in advance or is given by the questioner himself. This turn should be used only when the audience fully shares the speaker’s opinion. Otherwise, the effect will only be negative.
She claims that divorce is an ordinary thing nowadays, and then she poses the following question: “Sure, there may be some discomfort, but doesn’t childhood stay the same?” (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 76). It signifies that a child bears the severe trauma of abandonment while experiencing the divorce of their parents. This question does not need to be answered as it is evident that separation is devastating for a child. Here, a rhetorical question performs two functions: attracting attention and activating thinking.
Call for Action
A call for action is a very common rhetorical device involving addressing the audience with an appeal to something. The call works well if listeners have a positive attitude toward the speaker’s personality and his ideas, but it is recommended to use such a technique sparingly. In her address, Marquardt indirectly implies that divorce may be inevitable, but children should not suffer from it (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 75). She does it by discussing the “good” divorce and that kids should know about this process.
Research Evidence
What is more, Marquardt’s rhetoric is propped by the research evidence. After witnessing her parents’ divorce and not knowing what she felt, Elizabeth decided to study how stressful one’s life was after checking out that their parents were separating. Such a device is beneficial as a rhetoric strategy because it enables the audience to believe in numbers. In addition, it boosts the author’s reputation and creates a sense of credibility, which is vital since convincing is one of the most challenging parts.
Antithesis
The antithesis is one of the most effective ways to make the narrative more expressive and vivid. This stylistic device consists of contrasting directly opposite images, properties, or actions. It enhances the expressiveness of speech and more accurately conveys thoughts and feelings.
For example, “’good’ or a ‘bad’ divorce are possible outcomes of whatever process may be employed to resolve the legal issues arising on marriage breakup” (“Just Whom Is This Divorce” 78). Here, the author introduces the notions of two opposite concepts by using two antonymous adjectives to emphasize the difference. It is beneficial to use such a strategy when one term is controversial or perceived differently by individuals.
Pathos
The general emotional appeal to the public should not be underestimated. Marquardt’s use of emotionally colored phrases such as “emotional havoc,” “waxing and waning cycles of adult unhappiness,” and others (“Just Whom Is This Divorce”) helps shape the image of divorce as a national problem that needs to be solved. Otherwise, parents are not recommended to involve kids in their separation processes while gently informing them about it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Elizabeth Marquardt’s main rhetorical strategies are figurative devices such as anadiplosis, anaphora, etc. He vividly incorporates several rhetorical questions to address the gravity of a divorce for a child—a young individual who has nothing to do with parental problems. The author’s credibility is propped by her research, which makes the reading more intriguing. Implementing emotional appeal to the public is incredible as it calls for action.
Work Cited
“Just Whom Is This Divorce ‘Good For?’.” Family in Society: Essential Primary Sources, edited by K. Lee Lerner, et al., Gale, 2006, pp. 74-78. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Web.