"Who Cares?" - The Importance of Addressing the Reader
“Who cares?” is always a good question to ask when you are asked to do, believe, or commit to something. It is also the central question to ask when you are putting together a piece. It is absolutely necessary for any writer worth his salt to know who they are addressing and how they are to be made to care. In his essay “Free Reading” Stephen Krashen demonstrates mastery over this strategy by expertly constructing a narrative in support of sustained silent reading (SSR) in a way that would get his audience – teachers of all stripes – to care for this new method he is advocating. He does this mainly by following stylistic choices that highlight the benefits of the method, while disparaging its alternative. The bottom-line is, he gets the reader to care not merely with what he says, but also – and especially – how he says it.
The Benefits of SSR: Underutilized and Underappreciated
In the essay, Krashen had many good things to say about SSR which, according to him, is both underutilized and underappreciated. And yet this method, allegedly, could singlehandedly and universally improve children’s literacy, and he proceeds to cite multiple studies toward this conclusion. He also tackles several hindrances to its wide-scale application, and repeatedly ensures that the method is thoroughly backed by research and grounded on learning realities, which he appeals to as an expert on the subject. But, of course, there is more to the essay than meets the eye; it is not a simple top-down giving-of-the-facts by an expert on a particular learning method. If anything, it is a thought-out, even methodical rhetorical piece designed to get teachers over the fence and adopt this new technique.
Stylistic Choices and References to Research
At first glance, Krashen’s essay has the look and appeal of a typical piece one would find in a literary journal. Interspersed throughout are references to studies carried out on the effectiveness of SSR in between explanations of how the method works. He makes reference to “research” multiple times, noting that “there’s a huge amount of research that supports the importance of free voluntary reading,” referring to the SSR, and that “research strongly suggests that free reading is the source of our reading prowess and much of our vocabulary and spelling development, as well as our ability to understand sophisticated phrases and write coherent prose” (emphasis added) (Krashen, 2006, p. 42). He also cites the NRP study that is effectively a counterargument to his position on SSR, and he responds it by making counterclaims. In fact, one could say that the entirety of his logos appeals to this voluminous body of work on the effectiveness of SSR, part of which he cites on his essay.
The Dearth of References and Deliberate Word Choices
That being said, there are two things I would like to bring attention to here, which is 1) the actual dearth of references in the paper despite its appeal to the scientific and 2) his “odd” choice of words in certain segments. To be honest, the essay sounded so expert in laying down the facts and foundations of SSR as a method that I almost failed to notice that there are no citations to the majority of his claims! While he makes multiple appeals to a nebulous body of “research” and claims that “eight out of 10 studies” that ran SSR programs long-term proved his point, he only makes direct reference to a whopping three studies that purportedly prove his point. And did they? Going by his descriptions alone, these studies did make reference to the effectiveness of free reading, but they did not, in any way, insinuate that “free reading is the source” of our literacy – a peculiarly audacious claim for a paper that supposedly relies on research.
Deliberate Rhetorical Strategies to Sway Opinion
Which brings me to my second point: his “odd” choice of words in particular areas of the essay. In the passage I quoted above, he uses exaggeration to make his point by including adjectives like “huge” and “strongly.” What is more, he uses highly emotional statements in key areas, such as the beginning of the article, which reads: “If there were a surefire way to help kids become more literate, would you ignore it? …It’s called free voluntary reading, and it may be the only way to help children become better readers, writers and spellers” (emphases added) (Krashen, 2006, p. 43). Notice the direct reference to the reader, as if to put him/her on a moral dilemma: “if you were to decide, will you allow this to happen on your watch?” This is the only place, in fact, where the reader is referred to as “you,” which highlights the intended emotional impact of this opening statement. Notice also the use of exact language and strong adjectives, such as “surefire” and “the only way.” Of course, we later learn that he supports this “surefire” method with only three handpicked studies that showcase his point, which makes it debatable at best, and that the National Reading Panel suggests there are other ways (more on this later).
The Mastery of Rhetoric and the Role of Pathos
At this point, we have established enough to know that Krashen’s phraseologies are not at all “odd” – as in accidentally informal within a formal scientific treatise – but are deliberately strong constructions to sway the reader’s opinion to his side by tapping into their emotions. But what I found to be Krashen’s most interesting way of using pathos is the way he describes SSR in relation to the NRP, which takes up over half of the essay. After vaguely explaining how thoroughly “research” supports his position on SSR, he begins the next paragraph with this: “The federal government disagrees” (Krashen, 2006, p. 44). This one, carefully placed sentence tells us much about Krashen’s mastery of rhetoric. This sentence of a mere four words changes the entire mood and direction of the essay, and insinuates at least four important ideas in relation to the rest of the article: 1) the federal government disagrees with “research;” 2) besides linguists who line their pockets with federal government pay (i.e. NRP researchers), consensus is on the side of SSR; 3) the federal government has fixed the game and stacked the cards against the average teacher – possibly because they have more to gain from traditional instruction than from free reading (which costs nothing but the price of books) – and that adopting SSR is a way of fighting back; and 4) the federal government is trying to throw its weight around on state and local governments and individuals by prioritizing its interests, rather than what is good for students.
Establishing Authority and The Role of Ethos
All of that in just four words! This, of course, is thanks to Krashen’s unique execution of style, which he demonstrates still in relation to the NRP research. Remember the three sources he cites? The only reason why he refers to their findings specifically was so he could rip the NRP while he was at it! He begins each reference with the following statements: “One seminal study that should have been included,” “NRP also skipped over a 1983 study,” and “Another key study that NRP’s report omitted.” This way, the NRP is effectively painted in a bad light whenever the organization’s name is brought up. In hindsight, this much ought to be expected granted that the people who published this article, School Library Journal, is – surprise – not at all a peer-reviewed journal, but a magazine that specializes in book reviews.
Maintaining Authority through Rhetorical Strategies
But how does Krashen remain authoritative in his approach despite appearing in a glorified library magazine? Because he is authoritative, just not on the subject he covers in his essay. A great deal of the article hinges on the fact that he is the Stephen Krashen, noted developer of the input hypothesis for second-language acquisition. He is an established figure in linguistics, and he has a large volume of work exploring second-language acquisition. However, SSR does not have anything to do with all of that, save for a tangential reference made in one of his three citations, where he says that free reading helps SLA learners acquire their target language better. And because he has that well-established ethos as leverage in addition to his masterful use of rhetoric, he can get away with murder when casual readers skim through his piece.
Conclusion: The Power of Rhetorical Strategies
Despite my criticism here, I still think that this employed excellent rhetorical strategies that I would not have detected had I not come in for the purpose of analysis. As things are, it is still unclear to me what Krashen’s motive was for writing this essay. Someone who disagrees with what I have written above may argue that I am merely overthinking this; that Krashen is not actually advocating against the government and his tirade against the NRP was just incidental to his purpose. S/he might also claim that Krashen’s style here is deliberate in light of the nature of the publication, and that may well be the case. S/he can also argue that the SSR is actually an effective method for increasing literacy, and Krashen merely supports this because he deeply believes in it. I have no qualms with that. What makes me doubt the veracity of his claims is the absence of citations, save for the NRP study, which contradict his claims that are, more often than not, blow out of proportion.
The Masterful Use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos for a Convincing Piece
A useful quote I picked up a few years ago says this: “not all statements by scientists are facts of science.” Sometimes they make claims that go beyond their realm of expertise, and it takes discernment on part of the reader to tell the difference between scientific fact and scientists’ opinions. But that task may sometimes prove difficult, especially if you read someone like Krashen, who is obviously a talented rhetorician, at the very least, in print. That much is demonstrated in his command of ethos, logos, and pathos and how he tied them together with his style to produce a piece that is convincing and easy to read.
References
Krashen, S. (2006). Free reading: Is it the only way to make kids more literate? School Library Journal, 52(9), 42-45.
