Essay on analysis of three texts

How is language used in the texts to persuade readers?

In persuasive texts, there is a vast variety of different techniques that can be used. These can be either subtle, or direct. Subtle ways of persuasion include pragmatic ways of getting ideas across for example, using “would you mind” at the beginning of the sentence is expecting the answer “yes” when you ask them it. A direct way is when it is more abrupt. For example using words such as “do not”. These are used in everyday life. However, when it comes down to professional persuasive texts, way of persuading people is not as simple. In comment articles in newspapers for example, people emphasise their own opinions in a subtle, clever, and powerful way. The art of persuasive text is very broad as there are so many different types of ways of perceiving it. Whether it be humorous, serious, or personal, all of those people are trying to do the same thing; simply change the way people view a certain topic, or the way that they act. In this essay, I will be analysing the persuasive language and techniques from three different comment articles from the Guardian newspaper and comparing the pieces to see which I believe is the most effective.

The article I will first be looking at is called “Brownies swap god for gobbledygook by a journalist named Victoria Coren. The context of this piece of text is that the Brownies organisation recently made a decision to remove a reference to “God” in the pledge made by their members and Coren expresses her opinions on this. This response is written in the humorous tone of persuasive writing.  

Firstly, the title is eye catching and makes it sound interesting because of her use of neologism with the word “gobbledygook”. This attracts readers because it makes them suspicious as to what the text is relating to, and what sort of opinion it is of the situation in hand. Also, it shows an element of hilarity through the use of such a silly neologic word, which would invite people whom enjoy comedy texts to read. It would possibly make them ponder what is meant by the word “gobbledygook”. So, it makes the reader want to read further into it. 

        Immediately from the beginning of the article Coren has already got her readers involved by asking; ‘Which words or phrases would make your top five list of the worst linguistic horrors in modern English?’ This is effective on the readers because she has used the interrogative technique of rhetorical questions to really grasp the readers interest in what she will be writing about and to get their minds active. Coren then follows on from the question listing her own answer to the rhetorical question (referring to her opinion of the word “chillax”); ‘I know for certain that people say “chill” to mean “relax”, having heard it with my own ears (which still shiver occasionally of their own accord, like two spaniels remembering a car crash), which is very nearly as bad’ Here, Coren uses personification when describing how much she doesn’t like the sound of the word. She then follows it on with the simile ‘like two spaniels remembering a car crash’. The technique she is using here is used to emphasise her point of her hatred for slang and it is effective because it is very expressed and opinionated. This also tells the reader that the text is going to be humorous due to the humorous tone created in this list. 

Furthermore, this humorous tone of writing continues throughout this piece of text; ‘I should be relieved that... for all the little girls all over the country, is not “I promise I’ll chillax over a glass of poo, or maybe a swift hald, which would be totes amazeballs”’ Sarcasm is used here to create a humorous line. The sarcasm works well here because it backs up her previous point very well in the same sort of tone, and it really exaggerates on what she hates about modern day language. This sentence is more of a complex sentence because it involves more than two clauses. This creates an emphatic impact. Coren uses slang such as “amazeballs” and “totes” to make the reader aware of how ridiculous it sounds. This is persuasive because it may make the reader think “why do I say that? It’s so stupid”. 

As the piece continues, Coren gets even more into her opinion by asking rhetorical questions but in an anaphoric way; ‘was there really no better alternative? Could they not have looked for something like “higher power”, which alcoholics anonymous allows so cleverly to stand, in the minds of atheists, for cycles of nature, the universe, time, society, or anything that helps a person to realise they are part of something bigger than themselves and behave with accordant responsibility?’ I feel that this paragraph is particularly effective. This is because the sentence is very complex, yet it is very cleverly done. She used short snappy wording ‘universe, time, society’ and many rhetorical questions in a row which may leave the reader feeling interrogated. This is exactly what she is trying to do. The pragmatics of her technique she has used here is to interrogate the reader to get them thinking about what she is thinking, therefore persuading them to think the same way and make them realise certain concepts. ‘was there really no better alternative’ persuades the reader to agree with her point, that she is making that there is other alternatives but they don’t realise. The readers would be persuaded to agree to this by the word “really” used as it emphasises that word due to its position in the sentence. 

Coren uses a lot of emphasis on her points and I think that’s what makes her a good writer of persuasive texts, along with her humorous charisma of course. In one of the final paragraphs she states “Although, I repeat, it doesn’t mean anything at all, it certainly carries a suggestion of something utterly individualistic. It’s the language of the X Factor. It feels stubborn, self important and faintly aggressive’. The phrase ‘I repeat’ followed by ‘it doesn’t mean anything at all’ in italics has a grave effect on the reader.  This is through intense emphasis of her point through not only repeating it, but mentioning that she is repeating it which makes it kind of pushy. Also, the italics make her point stay out beyond anything else because nothing else is in italics. This means the readers think that the point she is making must be more valid and important. Coren uses adjectives such as ‘stubborn’ and ‘aggressive’ to emphasise on the bad influence of the X Factor, and how the slang used on that programme influences youngsters and the way people behave. People may agree with this as it is described in such a way that most people would agree with it anyway. 

In addition to this, Coren makes a reference to her very own experiences; ‘ Every time I messed about in class because I didn’t like geography. Every time I pulled my friend Danielle’s hair because I was jealous of her Barbie collection. Every time I claimed my brother hit me. True to him? No. True to my own believe that he was being mean and should be nicer to me? Oh yes.’ In this quote, I have noticed that Coren has used the triadic structure (otherwise known as the power of three) by repeating “every time” in three consecutive sentences. This is effective because it puts huge prominence on the point she is making about being ‘true to yourself’ and how self centred it seems to be. Not only does she use this clever technique, but she also uses an imperative and very abrupt way of answering her rhetorical question for the readers before they could even think of an answer by using the simple sentence ‘No.’ Also, the fact that she uses a personal experience makes it a whole lot more persuasive because it is personal to her, and a real experience that actually happened.  

Finally, Coren uses the technique of counter argument and followed by discredit; ‘Perhaps I misunderstand the phrase. Perhaps it is not a way of promoting self-centredness to a moral position. If I am misunderstanding, though, it’s because of the loose, weedy incomprehensibility of the term’. The counter argument is the part which is for the point she is arguing against. So she makes the point of misunderstanding. Coren emphasises on this by repeating the word “Perhaps” twice imposing that she is trying to make a point that she actually believes she isn’t misunderstanding – irony. She then batters it into the ground through her analytical way of describing the term of what the Brownies policy is saying by using adjectives such as “weedy” and “loose”. Overall, I think Coren’s way of persuading is very interesting because it is not all that pushy, she uses many subtle techniques by taking advantage of using the humorous “way-in” and I think it works very well for her.

The second text I will be looking at is a text of my own that I found called “The problem with education? Children aren’t feral enough” by a journalist named George Monbiot. This is about his opinions of why education is a problem relating to his experience of taking 10 year old Londoners’ to Wales to prove that ‘a week in the countryside is worth three months in a classroom’.  This is a personal comment article, and more controversial than humorous when compared to Coren’s article on Brownies promise. 

First of all, similarly to Coren’s way of starting, Monbiot also begins with a rhetorical question; ‘What’s the best way to knacker a child’s education?’ In the same way that Coren got her readers interested in her writing through this technique, so would Monbiot. Monbiot also follows the question with a response just like Coren did, except in a different way. Instead of listing an answer using comedic language to entertain the readers, Monbiot is a lot more serious of the matter; ‘Force him or her to spend too long in a classroom’. This is a more abrupt way of answering and shows the reader that the article is going to be very opinionated and not of the humorous tone. He says it as if he is telling the readers to do it, and exaggerating in a sense that he is implying that it is against the childrens’ will through the verb “force”. It is a compound sentence because there is only one clause. 

Instead of presenting his ideas in a exceptionally personal, and non-relaxed format, Monbiot not only talks of his experience, but also uses scientific/researchers evidence to back up his arguments; ‘ Fieldwork in the countryside, a British study finds, improves long-term memory.’ , ‘Teenage girls taken on a three-week canoeing trip in the US remained, even 18 months later, more determined, more prepared to speak out and show leadership, and more inclined to challenge conventional notions of femininity.’, ‘The Wilderness Foundation UK, which takes troubled teenagers into the mountains, found that their self-control, self-awareness and behaviour all improved.’. These quotes all show the evidence in which Monbiot provides throughout his entire article. This is very powerful to the reader because it shows that Monbiot seems very knowledgeable about the subject he is talking about, therefore the readers are more likely to end up agreeing, or follow his points better due to the fact that they feel they could trust him in a sense that he is speaking the truth when stating these factual pieces of evidence. Monbiot also only focuses on the positives of what has happened on all of these projects promoting “less time in the classroom” therefore of course it would persuade people to agree due to all of the positive effects it appears to be having compared with negative effects.

 In addition to this, he mentions his own experience alongside these factual points; ‘Last week I saw the evidence myself. With the adventure learning charity WideHorizons...Many had never been to the countryside before and had never seen the sea’. This persuades the reader to agree with him because of the adverbial phrase confirming he personally saw the evidence. Now, normally this may not be enough to persuade them because he might of been lying, but the fact that he mentioned what charity he was working with, shows that he mustn’t of been lying otherwise he wouldn’t of been able to provide that information effectively. The repetition of the word ‘never’ puts emphasis on the sad fact he is pointing out, and makes the readers feel sympathy for the kids who have not been given these opportunities. This makes them agree with his point more because if they agreed, it would mean agreeing for the children to get more experiences like these. This is different to Coren’s way of persuading because she uses non-evidential, and more daft experiences in her article and so as a result, are not as effective as Monbiot’s. 

Finally, he reinforces his opinion through things that people are doing wrong as proven in his previous points through evidence he has either collected himself or found from others; ‘Instead of being encouraged to observe and explore and think and develop, children are being treated like geese in a foie gras farm.’ Monbiot alike Coren, uses a simile here referring to the treatment of someone. He follows on to say; ‘Confined to the classroom, stuffed with rules and facts, dragooned into endless texts; there could scarcely be a better formula for ensuring that they become bored and disaffected’.  Monbiot is comparing the treatment of children to the horrible, ghastly conditions in which animals who are being slaughtered go through. This shows the reader that what the children are going through is intense. He uses the abstract noun “dragooned” to express the extent of which children are put through and how tough and unfair it is on them due to them being of such a young age.  

I find his final paragraph particularly effective; ‘literally, in the natural world: surely by these means you discover more about yourself and the world around you than you do during three months in a classroom. What kind of government would deprive children of this experience?’ I found this compelling, and extremely effective for his persuasion of getting his point across to the reader because again, he repeats the same fact as he did at the beginning about ‘spending three months in a classroom’ which emphasises the point even more, and shows that he won’t allow the reader to forget about it. But the thing that really makes this piece of persuasive text effective is something that is different to how Coren ended her text. Where Coren ended on a summary styled basis, Monbiot has ended on a rhetorical question; ‘What kind of government would deprive children of this experience?’ This is extremely interactive, it gets the readers very involved, and not only for the duration of reading this article, but because the question was at the end, it would stay in their heads making them try and figure out what their answer would be to that question. The pragmatics of this question from Monbiot is that he would like to get the readers to agree with his idea of the government being “evil” to not extend pupils learning as much as they could outside of classrooms. He even uses the intransitive verb “deprive” which emphasises on negativity being formed in the readers’ minds about that particular subject. 

Overall, I believe that out of the two texts I have analysed so far, Monbiot’s argument about children’s treatment when it comes down to education is by far the most powerful and effective text. I believe this because he has used many stronger supported points than Coren has, and I found his more interesting due to his use of language and subtle persuasion, and his deep personal experiences.

My third and final text I will be analysing is a response article arguing against the open letter in which was originally formed on a blog by Sinead O’Connor about how outraged she is by Miley’s behaviour, and debating about whether Miley should use her “sex appeal” in her “wrecking ball” recent video. This response article is by a journalist named Melissa Bradshaw and the text is quite similar to Monbiot’s in that it is quite serious about a really recent controversial issue that has been on-going for quite a while.

 Firstly, unlike the previous journalists using rhetorical questions as a starting point, she uses the technique of counter argument followed by discredit but in a very manipulated,  clever way; ‘ Sinead O’Connor’s open letter to Miley Cyrus isn’t entirely helpful to women. While O’Connor’s warnings about young artists being exploited by the music industry should be taken seriously, the implication is that naked, or other sexual images of women inevitably entails the woman being the victim. Why should this be the case?... There would be no celebration of the immense power of sexuality’. This quote shows that Bradshaw has made her point, but controversed it making a point about how ineffective the letter would be due to reasons in which the women being sexually exploited are under no control of. She also used a rhetorical question of “why should this be the case?”. Due to her starting on a point of her own, this really gets the reader thinking but in the direction of which she is thinking herself because she mentioned it before she asked the question. It really gets the reader interested and involved.

 Bradshaw explains an extremely valid point and digs deep to explain points of which no one may have ever considered before; ‘Similar rhetoric to that of the No More Page Three campaign. A quote on its website for example, states that the page 3 image is “a sex object” and then immediately with no other nuance, relates this to “300,000 women being sexually assaulted and 60,000 raped each year”. Perhaps you can already see the problem here. It is not women’s bodies or images of them that cause the exploitation of women or violence against women. The perpetrators are to blame’. This is powerful because Bradshaw has used evidence of statistics and quotes to back up her points which persuades the reader because they are real facts – similar to how Monbiot persuades his readers. The simple sentence “The perpetrators are to blame” is very direct, and shows she is not considering other points of view by using a direct tone of the word “are” to make her opinion seem like a fact. She suggests it’s the people that produce these images, people who direct these videos are to blame for creating such horrific content. 

Personally, I don’t find this text very effective at all because after reading into it thoroughly many times, I feel that it is a bit too boring. I feel that it is boring because it speaks of no personal experience, and it isn’t very entertaining. This wouldn’t persuade the reader as well as Coren and Monbiot because I think they would give up reading half way through. Not many similes or metaphors are used, and it is quite basic; I think it could have been written better in a way that she uses more rhetorical questions and more persuasive, empowering techniques to keep the readers interest.

In conclusion, I think that Monbiot’s text about educations effect on children was the most powerful and successful persuasive text out of these three texts. I think this because he has used many varied techniques of persuasion. For example, he used rhetorical questions, and he used personal evidence/facts to back up his points. It was more interesting to read because it was more intimate from the journalist and involved more emotion. I didn’t feel Coren was very effective because at times I felt she was trying too hard to be funny. I also felt that it was too much humour in one go for the reader to actually take her seriously. As for Bradshaw, she really lacked in qualities in which made Monbiot so effective in his writing. His use of metaphors, similies, rhetorical questions, power of three etc all paid off because the piece is extremely enticing and the way he did it in a subtle way is even more effective because the reader is not aware that their minds are being persuaded as such because it is in a less direct technique.