Lynda Hurst and Allan C. Hutchinson both have different thoughts about the topic of surrogates. Their articles consist of stylistic techniques that are used to attract readers from two dissimilar audiences: Lynda’s audience is directed towards the average person, where as Allan’s audience targets a more higher educated reader. Both authors use different types of diction, structure and reasoning to capture their intended audiences. Lynda and Allan both use two distinct choices of words in order to attract their different target audiences.
Lynda uses informal diction as well as simple language in order to create an emotional appeal to her readers. An example of this would be, “[t]he recommendations make many of us shiver in distaste” (Hurst, Lynda. 23). Lynda connects with her audience using words that they can relate to emotionally by using the pronoun “us” as in the example above to make the audience feel connected to the text. The language within her piece is simplistic, making it easier for her readers to understand.
This appeals to her target audience as it is in terms that everyone could relate to and comprehend. Allan on the other hand uses complex word choices that has an intellectual appeal to his audience. This type of diction makes Allan’s tone more informative, serious and impersonal. He does not connect himself with the topic as he relies on laws and facts about surrogates. An example of this is; “[a]lthough there was a powerful dissent, the majority of the law reform commissioners maintained that, as a matter of public policy, surrogacy ought to be permissible “(Hutchinson, Allan. 4).
This appeals to his higher educated audience as it is more intricate and has language that is more in depth. The audience would not feel threatened by his vocabulary and instead would enjoy its complexity. His use of word choice might not have as much appeal to the average reader. Each author employs a different type of structure in order to captivate their desired target audiences. In Lynda’s article she uses sub-titles and has an informal layout to intrigue her readers.
One example of her use of sub-titles is the following, “[t]elevised Battle: Keane, the couple.. (23). Lynda’s use of subtitles cuts her writing into sections in order to draw the audience’s attention to her major points. She uses shocking sub-titles in order to engage her audience in what her opinion is about surrogates. This structure appeals to her audience as it is simply telling them what her major points are instead of them trying to figure them out themselves, thus using a simplistic style in order to appeal to her target audience. Allan on the contrary does not use sub-titles and has a more formal editorial approach when trying to attract his audience.
As seen in the following quote Allan looks not just at surrogates but at the bigger picture, “[a]ny improvement must begin with opportunities for women to reclaim and redefine their sexual roles and responsibilities”(25). Allan’s structure flows nicely and is structured like an essay as he clearly states a thesis and does not use personal pronouns. He outlines his facts to support his thesis and has a generalized conclusion. This structure appeals to this type of audience as it is more organized, succinct and laid out in sequence linking to the facts that he provided.
His scope of the topic was a lot larger and more multi layered and presented more dimensions to his argument. Both authors use contrasting types of arguments in order to interest their two diverse audiences. Lynda uses inductive argumentation in order to persuade her readers onto her idea of surrogacy. For instance, she states her theory at the end of her article; “I think that Canada should follow the lead of Britain and state, without qualification that the bearing of children for commercial gain simple isn’t on”(24). Inductive argumentation is going from empirical truth to broader generalization and then to theory.
This is precisely what Lynda did in her article as she starts her article with examples of surrogacy in Britain and then connects it back to what she thinks about surrogacy in the end. This type of argumentation connects with the audience she is reaching out to as they can base their opinion on the examples Lynda first provided. This appeals to her audience as it connects to them in a simplistic personal level. The examples she used are familiar to her audience, making them easier to identify with her writing and her way of reasoning.
Conversely Allan chose to use deductive argumentation in his article in order to engage his audience. Deductive argumentation is starting with a theory and then proving that theory. Allan definitely uses this approach as he states his theory as his thesis right at the beginning, “[t]he report’s recommendations for legal reforms make good sense”(24), and throughout the rest of his article he uses facts in order to prove his side of the argument on surrogates. This appeals to his target audience as it induces a higher level of thinking and knowledge of the topic which can evoke broader ideas about the impact of surrogacy.
Allan stating right away what his opinion is on surrogacy can captivate his audience as it makes them think more about his proof and judge it based on his arguments from both perspectives. Allan gives a more two sided approach versus the one sided approach presented by Lynda. In conclusion, both Lynda and Allan use different types of diction, structure and argumentation in order to captivate their two dissimilar audiences on the topic of surrogates. Lynda’s target audience is the average person and Allan’s target audience is that of a more educated reader.