Anda di halaman 1dari 15

DIALECTICAL AND RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF DEMENTIA CAMPAIGN

ANGHEL ALEXANDRA, MASTER MCPE,

ANUL I

Around November 2011, the Dementia campaign appeared as an attempt of NHS to spread useful information about a medical issue, that became a national priority due to its tremendous proliferation and lasck of reaction form citizens. This deliberately release around Christmas period, marks a desire of aligning the tendency of the people to behave better with the people they have in their doorstep, to exhale a feeling of solidarity especially among those who are forceless in a fight with a problem with the Alzheimer care support. This overall campaign was a result form the desire to attract a wider audience toward this critical point, which could not be diminished early by different local actions and more cases of undiagnosed Alzheimer were discovered. Acting as an awareness campaign there is no doubt the appeal to emotions is a strategic step and that the difference of opinion is easier to direct in favor of the initiator, as the examples ar from a daily basis, are situations anyone can relate to. Actually was a 2 million campaign, a material cost whose efficiency was prerequisite for an improvement in the medical management and in the early treatment and support provided for Dementia patients. A smaller price if we consider that only one hospital spends 6 million excess for Alzhimer pacients that were not diagnosed in time. The social context show as a useful resource to understand where the difference of opinion appeared and why the diagnose of the Alzheimer disease cand be extremely tricky, the cure has not yet found, the severe symptoms and the rapid development depicts a type of disease with serious implications. Except all these, people still live under the assumption that forgetfullness is a normal step in the ageing process and pay no attention to this deviations and mental changes. Patients with Alzheimer suffer more that simple memory lapses, evolving in time and transforming in incapabilities to perform the daily routines and to liv a normal life ahead. Who are the society behind this campaign? The Alzheimer Society and NHS (abbreviated from National Helpline Society), a continuing healthcare institution, whose aim is to help people fight with the disease they experience, to improve their life. Then, the difference of opinion is carefully reflectef in the starting point, which esentialize a common belief that is absolute natural to forget something, while the protagonist speaks from the expert position and brings evidences and assure that only by a medical diagnose one would know what is his diagnostic. In the case of the campaign initiated by NHS against Alzheimer disease we deal with an argumentative discourse, whose dominant determination was to spread a sense of awareness to the citizens who may have encountered or would might be put in front of a delicate issue like this. Figures showed that an activism driven campaign was required as long as 6 from 10 people with Dementia go undiagnosed and although this disease is not curable, being found
2

on time due to an appropriate medical diagnose, could mean a real improvement in the life of the subjects and in the life of the family around him/her. We deliberately bring into discussion the life of the family as an unseparate concern for one particular reason, the receiver of the message is not the person affected, but those who are around such cases. The structure of the discourse blend three different types of deixis(personal pronouns): We the Department of Health, You- people responsible for the life of those suffering of Alzheimer and They the subjects. The analysis will prove that this is a complex argumentation, channeled in two directions and multiple argumentation, because it gathers two concerns and two answers without questions: Is memory loss a sign of Dementia? and Can really help the medical support?. These propositions are assigned to only one standpoint, which will require a separate type of approach with their own set of unexpressed premises and their own dialectical implications. The campaigns that stands for the cause of the Alzheimer society, continuing healthcare, invoked trivial examples, like the bath, the smoke or the car to deliver signals of worries among the citizens, who must understand what is the essential difference between forgetting random, useless things and simply not remembering more important ones, like the color of the car. The voice of the campaign embodies the voice of the antagonist, who refuses to accept the general tendency of people to deny the evidences and to extend subjects agony because of their ignorance regarding the real symptoms of Dementia. Whatsoever, an unexpressed positive standpoint is advanced: Old people(that repeatedly forget recent things) should see a doctor. In this standpoint the adjective old is visually enhanced by the three examples presented, emphasizing on the aspect that Alzheimer is a common disease among those once getting old. The antagonist cannot accept the somehow unexpressed standpoint of the protagonist, as we thought this discourse as an answer to some previous lack of reactions from people, visible in the increased number of Alzheimer untreated cases. Being an awareness intention and taking into consideration the social background (up to 400 000 of British people who do not receive medical support), we tend to believe that this advert urges to reaction from volunteers and functions as an antagonist. Moreover, to sustain our idea, we will point out some statements from the official online publication of NHS, found on their site: Dementia primarily affects older people, but it is not a normal part of ageing or inevitable, as some people might believe. In the UK there are around 10.3 million people aged 65 and over, which means that many millions of older people are not affected1. Even if the intervention of the
1

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/government-Dementia-campaign-learn-symptoms.aspx, last accessed 21.06, 22.00

protagonist is not explicitly expressed in this particular argumentative structure, the social context helped us reflecting on the status of the protagonist, due to the fact that a difference of opinion arises when two parties do not fully agree on a given standpoint. In our case we speak about an implicit difference of opinion, as we considered the first sentence: Many people suffer from memory loss, as not functioning as a proper standpoint advanced by the people, but just a general belief to be further contradicted. Though, the theoretical frames guide our analysis toward the idea of seeing this Alzheimer society/NHS as a protagonist, not solely an antagonist, because by countering the standpoint of the initial thought protagonist : Many people suffer from memory loss with an opposing standpoint: Old people that forget should see a doctor, the antagonist becomes a protagonist of his own standpoint, having its own attempt to convince. So, from now on we will name the Alzheimer Society as the protagonist of the argumentation, because the first sentence acts only as a social frame, a starting point that gives us a hint about this national problem. The difference of opinion arises from the contradiction between the memory loss as an imminent trait of the senility and the memory loss as a symptom of Dementia. As far as the sub standpoints are concerned, there are three deriving from the advanced standpoint, on the one hand Memory loss could be a sign of Dementia ,on the other hand that refering to the signs as a barometer to detect a possible disease: Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment coordinated with an expected outcome: And you get to keep the person you know and love a bit longer. They reflect two directions toward the argumentation is conducted, as the protagonist anticipates a further doubt from the people, the symptoms and a necessary forehand diagnose. This broader approach means that NHS official position should not be further more questioned and the defense of this party should be understood in terms of rational and real arguments. The burden of proof remains in the hands of the protagonist, who proceeds in favor of his position with a multiple perspective toward the standpoint. The overall advice that turns out to be the standpoint: Go see a doctor if you have repeatedly experienced memory loss is connected and relates to more than one proposition. This is why we are speaking about two directions (the memory loss as a potential sign of Dementia and preventing the evolution of Dementia just by spotting the signs) involved to sustain the standpoint expressed by NHS party, therefore it is a multiple type of argumentation. Alzheimer is a complex and tricky issue and people have to stop playing with the life of the ones around them. What the protagonist argues is that an overspread negligence and a hollow judgment according to which memory loss is nothing but a natural outcome of ageing with no need to worry and consequently to
4

react is wrong and people should take attitude. Moreover, after establishing there is a multiple difference of opinion, the next step is to provide the reasons why this is a non-mixed argumentation. Firstly, only one party exposes his arguments to justify an opinion and secondly, only this party is committed to defend the standpoint, no other voice interferes in the advancement of the argumentation. All three messages are constructed in a multiple nonmixed difference of opinions, where the initial protagonist manifests a compliance with the idea that many old people suffer from memory loss, but then comes the NHS position as a counteraction toward this general rumor, showing by example the contrary. A critical discussion is required to establish whether the standpoint and the sub standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not. In the case of the Alzheimer campaign we cannot speak about a certain way of solving this difference of opinion, that memory loss is or is not a sign of Dementia, because only the future actions from the volunteers and people will prove if the implementation of the NHS standpoint succeeded. Moreover, we are not dealing with an ideal model of critical discussion, therefore we will find out that some stages are not explicit, their omission is usually motivated by the fact that some stages are taken for granted. We are obviously referring the staring stages. Proceeding to the first stage of the argumentation discussion, we are analyzing the confrontation stage. This is the moment that triggers doubt and uncertainty among the parties involved. They realize that their points of view collide. In this non mixed difference of opinion the implicit standpoint (the general opinion in regards to Dementia and the visit to a doctor) is not immediately accepted by the NHS. even though the position of that party, which gathers a mass conception, is not explicitly expressed, we still have to take it into account, as the opposed party of this difference of opinion. Otherwise, we would not have spoken about an argumentative scheme. The clear image of the old lady and men contrasted to the blurred background signifies that NHS points out potential doubts and objections. Additionally, by advancing a starting point, a general aspect, an idea you agree beforehand, like Many people suffer from memory loss when they get older means that there is a common ground to start from. The adjectives many and old entail the essence of yet still unexpressed verbal friction. Also, this first sentence can be analyzed as being the opponents perspective, the mass conception which is brought to be debunked by NHS. After, comes on the stage the protagonist (NHS-the initial antagonist, who did not agree with the mass conception and became the protagonist of his own standpoint), whose point of view disjoints from the general judgment. We are now reaching the opening stage, when the two roles are exchanged, divided and the protagonist opposes his belief with the help of a coordinative conjunction, but, which adds a nuance of contrast to these two jointed
5

independent clauses. We have previously mentioned the starting point and so we step out from the introductive section to the argumentation stage, where only the NHS perspective is explicitly promoted. In this particular moment, the Alzheimer society brings into stage some sub standpoints to assess the validity of the standpoint: Memory loss could be a sign of the early stages of Dementia. We deal with a visual iteration as well. We see in the add only old people and we instantly understand the indirectness due to some semiotic elements, that accelerates the efficiency of the linguistic signs. First of all, the easiest decoding channels our scrutiny to the lost sight of the people shown, who simply gazes with no reason, a blight face expression mirroring their inner sufferings and problems. Secondly, following this path, there is another decoding to be made. The overlap of the images with the car, the sink or the oven is deliberately puzzled, portraying the clear and lucid left side of the brain, while the right is blurred. This particular hemisphere of the brain is responsible for processing the information in a non-verbal way, simultaneously, intuitively, non-linear and atemporal. All these aforementioned features describe the new illusionary mechanism of thinking that seizes the world of Alzheimer subjects, who stop having a holistic outlook of every action they make and start to forget relevant aspects, such as the color of the car, the run of the bath, the pan on the oven. The images emphasize that, after a clear distinction is laid on the line, the protagonist would not accept defeat with such good arguments and the understandable distinctions between a harmless, transient incident of omitting common things and the manifestation of Dementia. People suffering from Dementia generally face a decline in the function of the judgment abilities and we include here memory, thinking and speaking. Although, the symptoms may be similar to memory loss, an atrophy of the brain cellular tissue should trigger an alarm even if it initiates to older people. What also emphasize the pictures is that Alzheimers subjects begin to exhibit a difficulty in remembering recent events, but not events occurred long time ago. The concluding stage cannot be integrated in an awareness campaign, whose real goal, besides the dialectical and rhetorical ones of winning the difference of opinion, is to see changes and to call the volunteers to action, to give medical aid to Alzheimer people. We have understood that the formulation of the argumentation proceeds its strategies of defense in three directions, bringing a specific feature of multiple type of argumentation. These are of equal weight, each of them could concretize into a defense, enough to stand alone and support the standpoint. We have analyzed the standpoint as Old people, that forget recent things/experience repeated memory loss, should see a doctor. Afterwards the three main sub standpoints from this multiple argumentation are:
6

(1.1)

Memory loss could be the early stages of Dementia (1.1) ;

(1.1.1) Adding the bubble bath is easy to forget/ To forget a birthday or leave the front door open/ Forgetting where they put a car is one thing (1.1.2) Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place could be a sign of something more serious/ Or nearly burn the house down/ Not being able remember whether is blue, red, silver or white is another entirely. (1.2a)Spotting the signs early means getting them the right support and treatment (1.2b) (With the right treatment) you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer The Alzheimer society advanced two arguments (1.1 with all the examples different for each ad and 1.2) that can be understood as reasons given for reasons, the interpretation must be directed toward a subordinative type between them, because these standpoints resemble a defense formed layer by layer. Also, there is a coordinative argumentation established between 1.2a and 1.2b. The difference between these 2 strategies is that the first relationship established, namely subordinative is different for each campaign, it provides the examples with the bath, the car and the smoke, while the common arguments for all the three commercials connect in a coordinative argumentation that functions as a single attempt to solve the difference of opinion. The protagonist anticipated that the sub standpoint of memory loss as a sign of Dementia could be easily contradicted and he advanced another sub standpoint, reinforcing that the early discovery brings the right treatment and support, therefore a qualitative lengthen of the Alzheimer subjects life. Additionally, each sub standpoint has an unexpressed premise: People should make a difference between memory loss and Dementia (1.1.1) Memory loss is one of the Dementia symptom (1.1.2) A visit to the doctor gives you the right diagnosis (1.2a.1) Doctor is the only solution (there is no cure, only treatment). (1.2a 2) The treatment really functions (1.2b 1)

Consequently, we thought that there are three types of argumentation, a multiple due to the many sub standpoints advanced, a subordinative found in the enumeration of the examples step by step, which means that accepting one constraints you to accept the other also and a coordinative argumentation visible at all the three ads. The two coordinated sub standpoints are also connected at a syntactic level by the conjunction and., a grammatical sign that reinforces on the idea of dialectical solidarity. The complexity of this argumentative structure

can be translated as a condition to win the difference of opinion, regarding an issue which attracted a lot of controversy and questions without answer. According to Roland Barthes, the visual and the linguistic structures are cooperative, while still having their own identity and elements. So, we should stop our investigation to a dual interpretation of the message, based on words, grammatical design and on visual traits: lines, surface and shades. As, aforesaid, both the images and the messages participate together as an united form of argumentation, meant to support the standpoint. In advertising, an image is never neutral, it captions the verbal point of view, in a state of complementary character that helps in the interpretation of the overall rhetorical orchestration. It is almost like an intertextuality found at the verbal level, a claim from the picture, which is positioned in a way to divert the understanding of the reader toward a certain path. The term anchorage reflects a theory based on which the main function of an image is to tell how to read a text and it can attract a different perception of the message due to the visual frame. Then, the language comes to elucidate the purpose of the image and only after we continue our decoding of the non verbal signals in the language area. There are also many ways to interpret the pictures with the old people, but the anchorage points out a specific meaning. In the three advertisements of the Alzheimer society the anchorage answers to our doubts: what is memory loss? Memory loss is when you forget things. Why should i worry if it is only this? Because it could be a sign of Dementia. Is everyone affected irrespective of age or gender? No, take a look at the picture, both men and women are affected and figures showed that two thirds of people with Dementia are women and that one in three people over 65 will develop Dementia. Then the text is anchored to the image of the sink, car, smoke, showing straightforwardly that any kind of irregularities in brain cells can lead to Dementia or Dementia-like disease. Anyhow, this increasingly symptom is well worth talking to a doctor and see if there are truly or not some potential risks to endanger your mental wellbeing. The notion of relay describes the relationship between text and image as a cohesive functionality, cooperating to send the same message. In our case, the old people over 65 years old form the images emphasize on the aspect that Alzheimer develops at an advanced age, that the actions of the patients have alarming consequences and that they are a danger for themselves and for the people to whom the enter into contact: smoke as a sign for fire, the abandoned car as a sign of forgetfulness, the overflown bathtub as a sign of flood. Driving a car and causing an accident is anytime feasible, a fire also could imply death, injuries. Therefore, we are talking about the caption and the illustrative use of the images in an advertorial context, where the discourses purpose is to establish a cohesive proportion
8

between the image itself and its verbal description. The commercial message loses its potential ambiguity and fully participates to the argumentation, revealing lack of rambling, omission or contradiction, that could be further signaled by the opponents as invalid arguments. Leo Groarke also discussed about the idea of visual and verbal arguments, about that the illustrations play an argumentative role in the verbal scheme in which they are attached. We cannot deal with visual argumentation without recognizing visual meaning1. This dispute between memory loss and Alzheimer is a reflection of either the lack of information available, the ignorance of the people the manifestation of indifference. Therefore, the attempt of the these ads is to give some medical, reason-based arguments to solve this difference of opinion. In advertising, all images have an inherent purpose, so that we must not value them from an aesthetic point of view, but rather construe form their symbolic perspective, in this way we are going to add also a disambiguation contribution to the verbal argumentation: They are not haphazard visuals2. All the dialectical strategies function concomitantly in order to assure the power and the validity of the advanced standpoint. the reasoning employed by these three commercials works as a symptomatic type, implying that the standpoint is defended by citing in the arguments either a sign, a symptom or a particular feature of the idea claimed in the standpoint. For instance, the general idea that memory loss could be a sign of Dementia is transferred into a symptomatic scenario, in which an example is introduced. This particular case consists of the three cases described in the ads: Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place is a sign of something more serious, Not being able to remember whether is blue, red, silver or white is entirely different, To forget a birthday, leave the front door open or nearly burn the house down. Some critical questions that arise in this very moment are that Can memory loss really be a sign of Dementia?, Arent there other types of diseases that have the same symptom of memory loss?. The symptomatic structure is as following, based on a common structure in which we included the arguments, Y is true of X, Z is true of X, Z is symptomatic of Y: 1. Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia. Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place is a sign of something more serious. Therefore, not remembering they ran the bath in the first place is symptomatic of Dementia.
1

Leo Groarke in Frans H van Eemeren- editor, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic-Sat, Amsterdam, 2002 , chapter Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual arguments, p.142. 2 Idem. p.148.

2.

Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia. Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is entirely

different. Therefore, Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is symptomatic of Dementia.

3.

Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia. Nearly burn the house down

Therefore, nearly burn the house down is asymptomatic of Dementia.

Regarding the main body of the adverts we have analyzed it as assigning a causal relation and the scheme was realized as following: X IS TRUE OF Y Z IS TRUE OF Y X LEADS TO Y Spotting the signs early means the right treatment You get to keep the person you love more due to the right treatment Spotting the signs leads to keep the person you love more.

The critical question that arises in this type is: Does always the right treatment lead to prolong the life of the people you car? Besides the pragma-dialectical framework in which we find an accurate relationship within the methods of effectiveness in respect to the argumentation and the defense of the standpoint, in this dispute come into light another attempt to solve the difference of opinion in the favor of the protagonist. To understand why both dialectic and rhetoric are intermingled in an attempt to persuade the audience, Professor Eugene Garver proposed a distinction, one being responsible for excellence, while the other reacts in the name of the victory. The commitment to make an effort of convincing people that repeatedly memory loss is a sign of Dementia required a thoughtful cooperation between these two levels. The expectations of making the standpoint defensible against any doubt or criticism derive from the rational norms and the arguments proposed. For example, Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser pointed out that Dialectic establishes norm instrumental in achieving this purpose ( resolving difference of opinion) maintaining certain standards of reasonableness and expecting others to comply with the same critical standards.1. This idea is continued by Eugene Garver who adds that
1

Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser in Eugene Garver, Comments on Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma- Dialectical Framework: the Case of R. J. Reynolds, U.S.A, 2001, p.309.

10

These norms by themselves never determine what anyone will say. They allow a certain freedom and within that freedom lies in the rhetorical opportunity to solve the difference of opinion in their own favor1. We can justify the presence of both due to their dissociate way of action toward the same goal of solving the difference of opinion, because the rhetorical aims enable a sort of relationship between the speaker and the receiver, like a charitable alignment to the peoples needs and set of expectations. The main difference rely on the stress put upon the persuasive weapons used by the dialectic strategy, which is trying to find the best, unbeatable arguments just for the sake of reasoning. Dialectic means an opponent, a person whose views have to be changed with the help or the dialectical arguers/cognitive approach (standpoint, sub standpoints, unexpressed premises, the linkage), while rhetoric implies an adaptation of the message to the audience, to what they want to hear and to how you cover the message. A strategic maneuvering directs any attempt of the protagonist to the ultimate task of winning, otherwise he would not have set out an argumentation. The point is that the rhetorical dimension appears in all stages of the argumentative discourse, following the attempts of conciliations and of showing through cognitive tools and proofs the validity of the standpoint due to the dialectic implication. Within the rhetorical perspective we ought to speak about three elements: topical choice, audience and the rhetorical figures. Foremost, the concept of audience needs further consideration, because it became the participant of the discourse, it is the focus point, the one intended to adopt a position, to engage in this simultaneous scroll of arguments. The intention of this awareness campaign was to increase the adherence of the members from the audience, to win their consent regarding a future change and this is why the tone of the message is personal, sympathetic, it gathers emotions (keep the person you love). The argumentative structure abounds in rational reasons. Though, pathos is elevated here, does not take control over logos, does not became a sloppy message. The receiver should empathize with the people from the images, should share pity and consequently should take action and go to a doctor. This is the only solution given, anyhow there is no cure, and the receivers who experience at home similar cases must not deprive the subjects from the guaranteed chance of a right treatment and an improved life. Here we deal with a merging of logos and pathos, invoking emotion of solidarity, which will further be the basis for the concrete gesture of paying a visit to doctor and advising others to do the same. It implies the power of example.

Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser in Eugene Garver, op.cit.,U.S.A, 2001, p.309.

11

As far as the topical choice is concerned, even though we are speaking about a complex disease, whose manifestation generates all sorts of other symptoms, the initiators of the campaign chose to put an equal sign between Alzheimer and memory loss, in order to give people a simple but still proper definition of Alzheimer. We are again confronting with the same idea that is an awareness campaign, that is actively concerned with the wellbeing of the citizens and wants to inform them as much as possible. The discourses promote a certain social bound, outlining a call for reaction The message of the images must be analyzed, the images carry connotations and persuade the audience indirectly with the visual aid. There is no use of color, the low-sensory modality invoke the gravity of the situation, which has two ends, a victorious one due to the right treatment and a tragic one, when the Dementia subjects have to endure a life of disorientation, confusion, a distorted reality with no turning back. The models do not look at the viewer, they refuse to have an eye-contact, which means they search somewhere for help, in someone who is willing to listen to their problems and to support them. Also, the images invite the audience to enter in their intimate cadre (house), to stop being an outsider and manifest concern toward their sorrow. The juxtaposition of the images, resembling a panoramic perspective suggest the double identity, the double state of minds of the Alzheimer subjects, who may now be lucid and think clear and in one second lose their judgment and be incoherent. The images takes us into a private scene, into the inner reality of the people. The close-up reinforces also upon the ideal of proximity, we see them, the difficulties they face and we must empathize with them once we are translated into their bodies. It is like an exchange of lives between the antagonist, the watchers of the ad and the subjects. All these attempts, both visual, rhetorical and dialectical prove the intention of the party to really win this whole difference of opinion. This is why he committed a fallacy, in the sense that we stated the initial standpoint, that caused the difference of opinion, as being that general conception, Many people suffer from memory loss. Then, this is not the standpoint contradicted by the campaign, but the fact that memory loss is an early stage of Dementia. Therefore, the party violates the standpoint rule, only because a derailment would provide the frame for the actual speech meant to be transmitted to the citizens, to inform them about the symptoms of Alzheimer. The statements proposed by the protagonist to support the standpoint must be accepted due to the construction of an easy analogy, a comparison between the significance and therefore the manifestation of memory loss (forgetting a birthday, to put bubble bath) and Alzheimer (forgetting the color of the car). The arguments carry logical, relevant examples, that
12

facilitates the understanding of the message and a further acceptance. But things would not have advanced so smooth without a further proceeding to more arguments, as the sub standpoints received more arguments. This argumentation did not stop at the starting levels, because it could have implied an immediate negative feedback. The critical problem of Dementia was not presented as a medical issue in technical terms, but rather a disease with recognizable symptoms. The reasoning is logically valid, the individuals who experience some collapses in the mental functions and that have severe implications and affect the performance of the daily routines should go to the doctor. It is an advise that cannot harm anyone, so both the symptomatic and the causal argumentative relationship function together to invoke the importance of behaving precautionary. Regarding the causal relationship between the arguments 1.2a and 1.2b we deal with a pragmatic type, because adopting idea of the right treatment and support impose somehow the inclusion of the life

lengthen/improvement, a favorable consequence expected only by acting in the way the standpoint recommends you. Acting in the direction mentioned, making a to diagnose, means getting the right treatment and consequently some years added to the patients life. Who could say no to such a fruitful proposal? In conclusion, the soundness of this argumentative discourse is logically valid and even though the concluding stage is not explicitly expressed we believe that the difference of opinion should be solved in favor of the protagonist.

13

Argumentation structure Advertising 1 1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor. 1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia. 1.1.1 People should make a difference between memory loss and Dementia. 1.1.2 Memory loss is one of the Dementia symptom. 1.1.1 Adding the bubble bath is easy to forget. 1.1.1.1. Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place could be a sign of something more serious 1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment. 1.2a.1'A visit to the doctor gives you the right diagnosis 1.2a.2Doctor is the only solution (there is no cure, only treatment) 1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer. 1.2b.1 The treatment really functions.

Advertising 2 1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor. 1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia. 1.1.1. They forget a birthday, leave the front door open. 1.1.1.1. (They forget) nearly burn the house down. 1.1.1.1.1 Burning th house down is something serious 1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment. 1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer

Advertising 3 1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor. 1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia. 1.1.1. Forgetting where they put a car is one thing. 1.1.1.1. Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is entirely different. 1.1.1.1.1 If you forget th color of the car you should chck the doctor. 1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment. 1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer

14

Reference: 1. Eugene, Garver, Comments on Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma- Dialectical Framework: the Case of R. J. Reynolds, U.S.A, 2001. 2. Frans H van, Eemeren, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic-Sat, Amsterdam, 2002. 3. Frans H van, Eemeren, Strategic maneuvering in Argumentative discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2010. 4. Frans H van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, A. Francisca Snoek Hnkemans, Argumentation. Analysis. Evaluation. Presentation., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. 5. Theo Van Leeuwen, Carey Jewitt, Handbook of Visual AnalysisSage Publications, 2008.

Internet source:
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/government-Dementia-campaign-learnsymptoms.aspx

15

Anda mungkin juga menyukai