Using Language to Persuade … process is KING!
DB’s famous-Amos analysis process …
Step 1: WKOWII?*
- what (persuasive) expectations does this result in?
- are they met? Not? Some yes, some no?
- How is the writer trying to “position” me?
Step 2: What does the writer want me to think or feel (about this issue)?
- What (main) strategies are (most often) used to achieve this?
Asking these questions “unpacks” the article. You work out your general expectations (Opinion piece? Letter to the Editor? Editorial? Feature article? Report?) Knowing what kind of article it is helps to establish a rough idea of what to expect: letters have FAR more emotionalism than an Editorial (usually!); Editorials typically strive for tones of reason and wisdom; Feature articles are written by people whose expertise is intended to make them an authority … And so on.
But this doesn’t tell you enough. From looking at this general picture, and knowing what to most often expect, you turn to who the writer is (or, for an Editorial, which paper). You consider what the issue is – The Hun is MUCH “stronger” (read: simplistically judgemental!) on “Laura Norder” issues than The Age. And you look closely at the article to see if those expectations are met.
You consider: HOW does this writer want me to “see” this issue? Whose “side” does HE (or SHE!) want me on?
And then, you try to find the main strategies that the writer uses to get you in that “position”.
- Main strategies like the TONE of the piece. Does it “sound” angry? Is it written in a nostalgic way? Is it sarcastic, and/or mocking? Does it sound authoritative?
- Main strategies like imagery – is there an image or idea that the writer uses to generate the attitude he wants you to have? (For example, in the WikiLeaks practice SAC, one article tried to portray Julian Assange as a “cowboy”, and wild rider … it was there in the caricature that accompanied the article; it was there in the headline “slipshod”, and it was there in the language that the writer used.)
- Main strategies like structure: does the piece move through several different stages? Or moods? Or does it use dot-points?
- Main strategies like statistical (or other) evidence …
Each of these – that you find – you will want to tie into your overall view about the writer’s attempt to give you a particular perspective on this issue. This needn’t be mechanical. If I was trying to generate distrust, I might use mockery, I might use statistics, I might use imagery … and each would contribute in some way towards my overall aim, but they’re not all “aiming to make the reader distrustful”.
And NOTE: no writer can “make” you think or feel anything … all they do is try, and that’s all they do!
So YOUR analysis structure should look something like this:
Intro: [U/st] – what kind of writing is it/what’s its aim/what strategies … [1,2,3 …]
And a concluding thought …
… this should seek to make some observation about the way that the strategies have been done. DON’T say whether they “work” or not … Because who knows? Your conclusion might relate to your overview about where the article “sits” in relation to that paper’s usual approach to that issue. Or perhaps in relation to your view of that paper’s regular readers … Or perhaps you might just conclude by noting something like the writer’s personal stance (particularly if it’s someone well-known, like, well, He-who-must-not-be-named. OK. Andrew Bolt. Oops.)
*What Kind Of Writing Is It?
