Genetically Modified Language: The Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food

by Guy Cook

The GM debate is a war of words, which will be won as much by persuasive argument, as by action in the lab, field or supermarket. As the argument intensifies and the voices on all sides get louder, Genetically Modified Language cuts through the confusion and controversy to unpick the issues and ideology at the heart of the debate.Examining the particular discourses of the key players in the arena, from the media to politicians, NGOs to Biotech corporations and research scientists to farmers, Guy Cook presents a critical analysis of the language of the GM debate, and how it influences policy and opinion. Each perspective has its own discourse and this can lead to misunderstanding and disagreement. Participants whose opinions are based around scientific, commercial, ethical or political concerns adopt differing styles of argument, metaphors and analogies, phrases and single words, and these can have quite different effects when they cross discoursal boundaries.Written in a clear,

Genres: Ebooks

176 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 2004

About the author

Guy Cook is Professor of Language and Education at the Open University, UK. He was formerly Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Reading (1998-2004) and head of TESOL at the London University Institute of Education (1991-1998). He was co-editor of the journal Applied Linguistics 2004-2009. He is current Chair of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, and an academician of the UK Academy of the Social Sciences. He has published extensively on applied linguistics, discourse analysis, English language teaching, literary stylistics, advertising, and the language of environmental debate. He has been an invited speaker in over 30 countries.

Reviews

[Elaine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm almost 79. and I find myself doing less and less of what I "ought" to but see no real reason to do otherwise. I guess that's part of getting old, "letting yourself go!" So, I haven't been reviewing anywhere near all the books I've been reading. But, this book demands a review. In fact, I think every literate person should read it. English classes should make it required reading both for analyzing the language used in the book, and to show how easily we are manipulated by language use itself.

Guy Cook is a linguist who specializes in discourse analysis. So do I, but my work is with psychotic discourse. How I missed this book, I don't know. It was published nine years ago I read it today, November 10, 2013. I mourn the lost years since this was published and I found it. Good Lord! I sound like a hymn singer! Well, when it comes to language use, I am virtually a religious person.

Oh, I've read--and written--about the ways we are manipulated by language use. But this taught me even more. I, who supposedly am an "expert," was reminded to read more closely and critically.

Guy Cook has analyzed the language used by "the scientific community" in the UK and how they convince people that what's "scientific" is per se the right thing to believe. He shows that it is enough to present an idea as "scientific" to convince the public it is right. He shows that scientists, when dealing with the public, do not put forth evidence that genetically modified foods are good--or at least harmless. To the contrary, they just equate naysayers with illiteracy, fundamentalism, conservatism and other outcasts in our societies The equation is easy. If you agree, you are a scientist. If you don't, then you're stupid, governed by instinct and irrationality. This charge is leveled even at scholars who disagree and at people who ask very intelligent questions. In short, at anyone who dares to challenge the opinion of "scientists" who are promulgating the idea that genetic modification carries no problems for people, for the environment, for the world's food supplies. Even worse, these scientists are quoted by such politicians as Tony Blair as justification for bankrolling GM.

What I've said here is suggestive, but reading the book itself is--or should be--required for every citizen in a supposed democratic society.