Unit 8 · Topic 8.2

8.2 How diction and syntax shape a writer's credibility

The words and sentence structures a writer chooses shape how readers see the writer: informed or careless, fair or biased. Readers who trust the writer are more likely to accept the argument. Loaded or slanted word choice can reveal bias and cost a writer credibility, especially with readers who aren't already on their side.

Key terms

diction
syntax
credibility
ethos
bias
loaded language

Credibility comes from choices

Ethos, the appeal to the writer's character and credibility (2.2), isn't only about credentials. It's built sentence by sentence. Precise words suggest that the writer knows the subject. Fair descriptions of opponents suggest honesty. Careful, varied sentences suggest a thoughtful mind.

Diction choices that affect credibility include:

Precision: exact terms ("a 12% rise in rent") versus vague ones ("rents went way up").
Register: formal or informal language that fits, or doesn't fit, the occasion and audience.
Technical vocabulary: it can show expertise to specialists but shut out general readers.
Loaded language: words with strong emotional connotations, such as "scheme" instead of "plan" or "handout" instead of "aid."

Syntax shapes perception too

Long, balanced sentences that weigh both sides can make a writer seem fair and reflective. Short, blunt sentences can make a writer seem confident, or, if overused, aggressive. Questions can make a writer seem curious or open-minded, while a series of rhetorical questions can feel like an attack. Qualified sentences ("in most cases") suggest care; absolute ones suggest certainty that may or may not be earned (7.2).

Bias in word choice

Word choice can reveal a writer's bias, even when the facts are accurate. "Protesters gathered" and "a mob descended" can describe the same crowd. Readers who already agree with the writer may enjoy loaded language, but readers who disagree will notice it and trust the writer less.

That's why credibility depends on the audience. A fiery speech to supporters can succeed with loaded words that would ruin an editorial aimed at undecided voters. When you analyze a writer's diction, ask how this particular audience would hear it.

Analyzing credibility in a passage

When a reading passage or rhetorical analysis prompt asks how a writer builds trust, look for moments where the writer could have been harsher or more certain and chose not to be. A writer who credits opponents' good intentions, admits what they don't know, or uses exact figures instead of round exaggerations is choosing credibility over easy applause.

Also look for the opposite. If a writer's word choice tilts heavily, ask who the intended audience is. A speech to loyal supporters may not need to win over skeptics, so loaded words can be a deliberate choice to energize the base rather than a mistake.

In your own writing

On all three essays, write in a confident, measured voice. Describe opposing views in terms their holders would accept, avoid insults and slang, and use precise vocabulary. This doesn't mean flat writing; strong verbs and vivid examples are welcome. It means your word choice should make readers trust your judgment.

Worked examples

Try each one yourself first, then open the solution.

Example 1
How Hamilton protects his credibility in Federalist No. 1
In October 1787, Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Publius" in a New York newspaper, opened a series of essays urging New Yorkers to ratify the proposed Constitution. After suggesting that some opponents had selfish motives, he continued (public domain; text from The Federalist Papers, Project Gutenberg): "I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions." (Disingenuous means insincere; to resolve opposition into interested views means to explain it away as self-interest; actuated means motivated.) Explain how Hamilton's diction and syntax affect his credibility with readers who were still deciding.
Show the solutionHide the solution
1. Step 1: Notice the move: Hamilton has just questioned opponents' motives, then he pulls back.
2. Step 2: Look at the diction: "disingenuous," "candor," "upright intentions." These are words about honesty and fairness, and he applies them to himself and to his opponents.
3. Step 3: Look at the syntax: the parenthesis "(merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion)" admits the weakness in his own earlier hint, and "even such men may be" uses qualifiers instead of a sweeping charge.
4. Step 4: Consider the audience: undecided New Yorkers, some of whom respected the Constitution's opponents. An all-out attack would alienate them.
5. Step 5: Connect to purpose: by showing he's fair to the other side, Hamilton makes readers more willing to trust his arguments for ratification in the essays to come.
Answer: Model paragraph: Hamilton protects his credibility with undecided readers by using the language of fairness to restrain his own attack on the Constitution's opponents. Having just hinted that some opponents act from selfish motives, he admits it would be "disingenuous" to dismiss everyone on the other side that way, and he calls on "candor" to grant that they "may be actuated by upright intentions." His parenthesis concedes the flaw in his own insinuation: suspicion based "merely" on someone's position isn't proof. The qualifiers "may" and "even such men" replace a sweeping charge with a careful one. For New Yorkers who respected some of the Constitution's critics, this restraint signals that Publius is an honest guide rather than a partisan, which makes them more willing to follow the long argument he is beginning.

Common mistakes

Saying a writer "builds ethos" without pointing to the specific words or sentence patterns that do it.
Treating loaded language as automatically bad. Explain how it works with this audience: it may rally supporters while alienating others.
Using sarcasm or insults about the other side in your own essays, which costs you credibility with the reader.

On the exam

Reading questions may ask how a word or phrase affects the reader's view of the writer. Look for answers about fairness, expertise or bias that match the actual connotations.
In the rhetorical analysis essay, credibility makes a strong claim when you tie it to specific diction and to what the audience needed to believe about the writer.

Connected topics

Videos

AP English Language: Introduction to Diction
Marco LearningWatch on YouTube (opens in a new tab)
How to Write about Diction | AP Lang Tips | Coach Hall Writes
Coach Hall WritesWatch on YouTube (opens in a new tab)
ETHOS: The Most Trustworthy Rhetorical Appeal
TolentinoTeaching (Resources for English Teachers)Watch on YouTube (opens in a new tab)
Diction: Explanation, Effects, Example | AP Lang Rhetorical Strategies
Ms. Peer EditorWatch on YouTube (opens in a new tab)
Ethos: Explanation, Effects, Example | AP Lang Rhetorical Strategies
Ms. Peer EditorWatch on YouTube (opens in a new tab)

Check yourself

3 questions on 8.2 How diction and syntax shape a writer's credibility. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.

[. . .] The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.

[. . .] I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connexion with Great-Britain, that the same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

[. . .] Small islands not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet, and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of nature, it is evident they belong to different systems: England to Europe, America to itself.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776), from the section "Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs." The pamphlet, written for a broad colonial readership, argued for independence from Great Britain. Original spelling kept; ellipses mark omitted text.

Question 1 of 3

In paragraph 1, Paine's statement that he offers "nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense" mainly serves to

Question 2 of 3

The phrase "I answer roundly" in paragraph 3 contributes to Paine's credibility mainly by

(1) Most ninth graders aren't thinking about saving money for the future, and that's understandable. (2) But the earlier you start saving, the more your money can grow on its own. (3) The reason is compound interest. (4) Compound interest is defined as the addition of interest to the principal sum of a deposit, such that interest is earned on previously accumulated interest.

(5) For example, if you put $100 in an account that earns 5 percent a year, you'll have $105 after one year. (6) The next year, you earn 5 percent on $105, not just on the original $100. (7) After ten years, your $100 will have grown to about $163 without your adding another cent. (8) Compound interest is like the logistic growth curve in a population ecology model. (9) So even a small amount saved now can matter later.

Written for this practice set: a student's draft of an article for a newsletter read by the school's ninth graders. The interest example assumes the interest is added once a year.

Question 3 of 3

The writer is considering revising sentence 9 to read: "So anyone who doesn't start saving today is making a huge mistake." Should the writer make this change?

0 of 3 answered