Analysis of two articles 

Using language terminology when possible, comment on the techniques used which help the texts achieve their purpose(s) and to influence the audience.

In this essay, I will be focusing in depth and detail on how the language techniques used by the writers of two different texts help them to be successful in terms of achieving their purpose(s) and achieving how they are implying/would like to influence their target audiences. 

   The first text I will be analysing is called ‘Halloween costumes – what not to wear’ by Rhiannon Cosslett. The text has a strap line at the top which reads; ‘Bye bye pagan roots, hello a world of fancy dress stress. Here’s how to get it right by avoiding blackface and Slutoween’. The use of a strap line makes the purpose clear that it is a persuasive text because persuasive texts use strap lines to specify what they will be speaking about and promote a specific, key point. In this strap line, Cosslett uses neologism in using ‘Slutoween’. This is blending of the words ‘Slut’ and ‘Halloween’ and would draw the reader’s attention into finding out what point she is trying to make. The ‘Here’s how to get it right’ also clarifies a second purpose being advice, due to the use of the word ‘how’.

Firstly, ‘E-number quaffing, eggy neighbour-bothering, and fatuous readymade Miley Cyrus costume wearing, a trend for which we can only blame those pesky Americans. So, what to wear?’ This sets the tone of the text for the reader through Cosslett stating the bouts of modern Halloween night in a relatively humorous way. This is to grasp the audience’s attention and interest throughout the text which brings me onto its third purpose which is to entertain. The use of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ interacts with the readers because she is stating them and her combined ‘as one’. She includes the reader’s further through using the rhetorical question ‘what to wear?’. This question makes them look back on their personal experiences of Halloween and is effective in gaining their interest.

Furthermore, Cosslett shows the purpose of advice through the use of imperative sentences such as, ‘Forget your mum cutting holes in a sheet’ and ‘don’t bother with those plastic witches’ hats with the fake green hair attached’. This persuades the reader more because it seems more implied/forceful and a ‘must’ due to Cosslett being direct through using verbs at the beginning of the sentence in order to make them imperative. She has also used the pronoun ‘your’ which makes it sound more direct, as if she is speaking to the reader.
  At the end of this paragraph, it says; ‘That is so 90s, babes’. This is an extremely informal use of lexis. This is because of the ‘90s’ written in statistic rather than word, and the use of slang; ‘babes’. Cossletts intention here probably was to make the readers feel relaxed and comfortable as well as being entertained by her wittiness through using the slang. It also gives a hint of her target audience, which I think is probably teenagers and young adults because of her use of slang to ‘get down with the kids’ as such.

Throughout the most of the piece, Cosslett uses subheadings such as ‘Know how soon is too soon’. The use of subheadings clarifies certain sections of writing, and is further evidence into proving that one of the purposes of this text is to advice because advisory texts structure involves the use of subheadings in most cases. Cosslett puts these subheadings in bold font so that they are salient. These capture attention of the readers due to the fact that they are salient. Also, not only are the subheadings Cosslett uses declaratives, but she also uses imperative subheadings such as ‘Don’t disrespect other people’s cultures’ and used an interrogative subheading; ‘Dress your baby up, they’re too young to be embarrassed so who cares?’ . This is effective because it gets the readers involved, and the point is a clearly obvious one, which may be seen as a general point of view. This would mean the readers will be more likely to agree, which makes this piece relatively successful in use of persuasive techniques.

In addition to this, she uses a lot of exclamatory sentences; ‘Look! It’s a baby! Dressed up as a lobster! In a pot! For the entertainment of adult!’. This captures attention of the reader’s because it is rather sudden, and it is direct at the beginning by using ‘Look!’ because it makes them wonder. It is also quite clever because it is open to interpretations. This is because it is hard to tell whether she is using sarcasm in terms of pragmatics or whether she isn’t.  

Cosslett’s use of humour is exceptionally emphasised at the beginning of the text under the subheading ‘Don’t disrespect other people’s cultures’; ‘Can’t you just put down that native American headdress? (I can see you. Put. It. Down.)’. Here, she uses an interrogative sentence which is effective because it begins with a imperative beginning and is quite humorous in terms of what object she chooses to highlight. However, the most effective part of this quote is the part in the brackets. This is because it is extremely imperative, and it is emphasised on imperativeness through it being segregated out into several minor sentences. This is another way that she emphasises her humour using the minor sentences because it makes it sound like she is actually talking to you. Therefore, it is more direct, and uses colloquial lexis. The purpose of persuasion is successful here because she is using a mix up of imperatives and interrogatives making the reader think they’ve got a choice, when they haven’t in terms of what she is asking them about/to do.

The use of pronouns is wide in this piece. This is because Cosslett ranges between ‘you’ related pronouns, ‘we’, and ‘I’ related pronouns. The ‘you’ related pronouns I understand that she has used to be direct towards the reader’s. She uses ‘we’ once or twice. This is an inclusive pronoun which is very effective especially when used in persuasive text. But, the most used pronouns in which Cosslett uses are ones relating to ‘I’ such as ‘I’ , ‘Mine’ , ‘I’m’ and ‘I’ll’. This emphasises on the purpose of persuasion because it makes the piece very opinionated and related to herself. Also, most of her sentences are complex, but she uses simple or compound sentences occasionally. This is varied sentence structure which interests reader’s, and works well in persuasive texts as well.

Finally, Cosslett uses the technique of cohension near the end. This is effective because she is using her own experiences to back up her points, which is extremely successful in persuasive texts because it makes what she is saying more reliable. Also, in the very last mini paragraph she states; ‘Freedom lies in having options’. This is an emotive use of lexis, and I feel that it is very powerful and meaningful and would get the reader’s thinking. It is also a declarative, so even if it is her opinion, it is stated as fact which is effective in persuasive text because people think it’s a fact.

In conclusion, Cosslett used a variety of very successful techniques to live up to her purposes and influence her audience in the direction she was pointing towards. I think that her piece was relatively successful because she used a clear discourse which was needed for her purposes, however it did have quite a few drawbacks that kept it from being any better. The main issue with this piece is that there was no register as such. Cosslett’s piece was not very appropriate to achieving its purposes because she only used second person throughout the entire piece (words such as ‘you’). This is ineffective in persuasive texts because it is not inclusive. By using the word ‘we’ makes it a lot more powerful. The context is also inappropriate because it focuses on size zero models being a negative influence on teenage girls; ‘You should not be influenced to diet just because,... Don’t pay attention to it’. By doing this, Cosslett is creating a distance between herself and the reader’s which is ineffective because it will allow them to develop a separate opinion rather than agree with her own.

The final text I will be analysing is called ‘A man’s perspective on why engagement rings are a joke’ by Tauriq Moosa. The title already suggests it’s going to be very opinionated and possibly sexist through using ‘A man’s perspective’. Also, it’s stating it as if it is every man’s opinion. 

This text have a strap line too, which reads; ‘ ‘A diamond is forever’ is genius marketing with no basis in relationship reality. My love isn’t proportional to a ring size’. This is opinionated, and quite powerful because Moosa uses emotive lexis by saying his ‘love isn’t proportional to a ring size’ which I believe most male reader’s would agree with, however I believe this text is mainly aimed at women because he is trying to make a point against them. This is because most women these days tend to agree with the purpose of engagement rings, whereas most men don’t really see the point in them, especially when you’d give each other wedding rings not very long after.

Firstly, Moosa starts his text stating; ‘Most of us are adult enough to know magic doesn’t exist’. This suggests that his text target audience is adults. This starting sentence is effective because by using the inclusive pronoun ‘us’ it immediately grasps the audience, and gets them involved in the text. 

Also, ‘fat rings are fairy-tale items which somehow “secure” another persons love, one step away from a “happily ever after”’. This is a clever technique that Moosa has used because by using the words in inverted commas, it creates a tone that it is a stupid concept and that he is being sarcastic. This affects the reader by making them think about how stupid it sounds. Also, it is a powerful way of persuasion because sarcasm can be humorous, especially when describing the expensive rings as ‘fat rings’.

Moosa uses the technique of metaphorical language to express his opinions; ‘We’ve turned into zombies, hungry for all things red and supposedly lovely dovey’. This is a powerful use of emotive lexis in a creative way. It captures the audience’s attention because it may be a concept that they were never opened up to before because it is a relatively unique metaphor. It is humorous so it entertains the reader, and it is also a declarative because it says ‘We’re’ at the beginning, which shows that there is no choice in the matter. This is stating opinion as if it’s fact and through basic psychology, it makes the reader believe it is an actual fact. This makes them more likely to agree, and therefore make Moosa more successful in his language techniques.

‘Engagement rings – specifically expensive diamond ones – are often prime examples of this unthinking mindset’. This uses ‘-‘ which represent mini pauses/links between sentences. This is effective because it slightly varies the sentence structure to look like 3 sentences, so that it doesn’t look like a massive piece of rambling. It keeps the readers interested because when reading, in their minds they can imagine how it would be being said to them if it was in real life. ‘Unthinking’ puts more emphasis on the fact that the readers may not have noticed what he has, which persuades them even more into agreeing with him.

Furthermore, Moosa uses factual evidence to back up his points; ‘large diamond mines were discovered here in South Africa around 1870, ... They would need to create a demand via (the illusion of) scarcity and pretend worth’. This is a powerful way to live up to his purpose of persuasion because he has knowledge. When there is knowledge involved in a persuasive argument, it increases the probability that the reader’s will be persuaded because it reassures people that the writer (in this case, Moosa) is in the know about it all and have done their research. As well as this, ‘the illusion of’ makes the reader’s read between the lines of what he is saying and realise where Moosa is coming from with his point of view due to thorough explanation of his point through using actual facts.

Then, Moosa continues to emphasise on the pointlessness of these rings; ‘convincing women to expect love in the form of a shiny stone’. Here, alliteration is used; ‘shiny stone’. The fact that a diamond is described just a pathetic ‘shiny stone’ emphasises pointlessness, and worthlessness to the reader which persuades them to agree, because of the description he has provided. 

     Moreover, Moosa uses even more evidence to back up his points; ‘And guess what? The prices keep going up, as if we are really loving more and deeper these days. ... engagement ring cost $5,200. If you think that’s bad, consider that nearly 12% of US couples spend more than $8,000 for an engagement ring’. The rhetorical question makes the reader’s automatically interested in what he is about to say, and gets them interacted with the piece again. The use of the inclusive pronoun, ‘we’, means that the reader is getting involved, and gives the sense to the reader that the writer and themselves are all on the same level or ‘all as one’. This gives a united feel, and some sort of connection between the writer (Moosa) and the reader’s, and because it says ‘we’ it makes the reader think “Oh I should think like that too then I guess”. Therefore they will be easier to persuade. In addition to this, he uses sarcasm near the end to create a little bit of light entertainment, whilst also stating factual statistics. Again, by using factual statistics, Moosa is gaining the trust of the reader in believing those statistics to be true (which they probably most likely are). Not only this, but Moosa specifically chose particularly shocking facts. This was to shock the reader into agreeing with his points about it being overrated, and make the reader’s more clear with where he is coming from with his ideas.

Near the end of the text, Moosa states; ‘Pointing to tradition means pointing to the mistreatment of different races and sexes, human sacrifices and so on.’ This is a declarative, and is stating his views/interpretations of life upon his readers as facts. This is effective because it makes them think about it, and because of the information provided here, makes Moosa sound like a very intelligent person who would know about that sort of thing. Also, it emphasises, and possibly exaggerates on the point a bit to make it more dramatic in order to persuade the reader to agree.

Finally, the last sentence of the text; ‘If you need a ring to prove your love, it’s not your lack of having a ring that’s the problem.’ This is a declarative because it just states a point. I feel this is a really powerful way to finish because it leaves the reader’s thinking, and it makes them feel like they should agree with Moosa because here he is basically saying that if you don’t agree with him, then you have a problem and obviously people wouldn’t want to have any problems/things wrong with themselves. It is a genuinely quite an open way of finishing which makes the reader’s think they’ve got a choice, when in reality, he isn’t really giving them a choice of disagreeing with him.

In conclusion, I think that this text has been really effective, and really well written and fit to its purposes and audience targets by Moosa. This is because he has been really efficient, and clearly taken time to think about how he can subtly psychologically manipulate people into agreeing with him through many persuasive techniques such as using plenty of declaratives and factual evidence. Moosa’s use of emotive lexis, and repetition of points also helped because it would have made it stick into the reader’s minds. I believe that he was particularly clever in the use of rhetorical questions because he didn’t really use any until near the end; ‘Why can’t a beautiful home be a symbol? Why can’t long-term investments be a symbol? Indeed, would it not be more impressive to show off a house than a finger rock?’ This chain of rhetorical questions would get the reader thinking consistently. The repetition is effective because it gets the reader thinking of other “why can’t something else be a symbol?” which means that the persuasion is working. Also, the description ‘finger rock’ is quite a humorous way to describe the ring, and makes it seem like a silly thing to own, which points the reader’s even more towards the point. But, what makes this overall successful, is the amount of involvement of the reader’s and the register use is incredible.