http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/new-hope-on-immigration.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
In New Hope on Immigration, the author primarily communicates a point addressing the President and government to act on immigration reform while many opponents are softening their position. Techniques such as word choice, detail, and figurative language are used to strengthen the author's argument and to create a more compelling editorial. He/she gains supportby influencing the reader's decision with the techniques without outright telling them that certain things are right or wrong.
Out of the three, diction is used most extensively throughout the editorial. The editorial opens using the words "unauthorized immigrants" in lieu of illegal immigrants which is a clever move as "illegal" sounds a lot worse to a reader than "unauthorized." Later on, the author uses the word "undocumented" in place of "unauthorized" and then refers to the same people as "Americans-in-fact". A slow progression is made to a completely positive connotation by the end of the editorial so that a reader will convince his/herself unconsciously that illegal immigrants are nominally different from any other citizen. This progression is made subtly enough so that a reader will not notice and so the article seems more objective while describing illegal immigrants.
Detail is used in the editorial to support the author's position through deliberate choice of only facts supporting his/her side. In the second paragraph, the author says, "[Asians] rejected Mitt Romney by 3 to 1, according to exit polls," to make it seem like the Republican party is becoming more irrelevant. This, in effect, persuades to reader to also reject the Republican opinion because statistics reject it. One cannot argue numbers or facts so a statistic favoring the author's opinion strongly creates an effect of persuasion. The author goes also on to provide details that blow up immigration reform to appear to be a very important issue on the agenda. It is specifically mentioned that there "11 million" undocumented immigrants and "400,000" deportations which gives the author a tangible sense of how many people are affected by immigration reform.
Finally, figurative language is used to ridicule and deprecate the Republican party. Readers will not want to associate with the Republican voice thus creating support for the author's opinions. In the first paragraph, the author writes, "Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who once bravely supported bipartisan reform but slunk away late in the last Bush administration, are scratching at the door again, as if the last five years never happened." These opponents of immigration reform are made out to look pathetic and wishy-washy in the reader's eyes with the image of some kind unwanted dog back "scratching at the door again." Later, fair-weathered bipartisan Republicans are again described as changing with the times: "But the election did scare some of the immigration opportunists back onto the bipartisan bus." The "bus" is a band-wagon.
The author's diction, figurative language, and deliberate inclusion of details are all used to gain support for the author's opinion. These techniques are subtly used so the reader will side with the author unconsciously.
I think this was your best post! Each paragraph had good details and examples from the article. The only thing I can really find that might help you is to find more examples for diction. You had a few good ones, but they all related to the same thing. Maybe try to find different examples to further improve your argument.
ReplyDeleteHi Santos,
ReplyDeleteGreat job on this essay! You write very maturely (if that's a word). I really liked this article and that you talked about the author subtly using techniques to "so that the reader will side with the author subconsciously." I think that was a unique take on this analysis. The evidence you included supported the claims very well and I liked how you picked more than one example to show the reader effectively how the author used the techniques. I think you could explain the diction a little more. What was the point of the author saying "Americans-in-fact"? What does that mean? Overall, this is a well-written essay. Keep it up!
Santos,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great response to the article. I disagree with Brinna about not having enough examples of diction. You did a really good job explaining why the author used that diction that he/she did and how that affected the piece as a whole. Your explanation about the first detail was fantastic, but in comparison the analysis of the second example of details was lacking. Since they were just two numbers they can be hard to elaborate deeply on them so I would recommend either using a different example or adding one more example. You picked great examples of figurative language and did a great job of explaining them. The conclusion feels a little rushed, and you could make it have a little more meaning by explaining how the piece being an editorial affected the diction, details, and syntax.