Free Essay on Persuasive Language Used in Legalizing Abortion Articles

All writing is made up of literary devices; this is whether the reader realizes it or not. Literacy devices are used by writers to guide the readers in a particular direction and make them able to interpret their words the way they want them to. There are different kinds of literacy devices used by writers; these literacy devices are pretty simple. For this particular assignment, the aim is to analyze two provided articles, look at the literacy devices employed by the two different authors in the two articles, and make a comparison of the two articles based on the used literacy devices. The paper looks at the ways the two texts use varying literacy devices to convey the author’s opinion or emotions on the subject of legalizing abortion.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Simply put, the aim is to look at how the two authors try to persuade the readers that their views are the correct ones. One of the articles is titled, “Abortion Bill Introduced as hundreds protest outside NSW Parliament,” this article is written by Alexander Smith (Smith, 2019). The other piece is titled, “Huge numbers attend a pro-life rally in Sydney” Marilyn Rodrigues wrote this (Rodrigues, 2019).

Comparison of the Literacy Devices Used In the Two Articles

One standard literacy device is diction. Diction refers to the choice of words or option of the style used by writers in their literature to convey their message. Diction refers to the way the writer wants to write to his or her audience. Diction is present in every literature, and the two provided articles are no exception. In the two articles, the authors have chosen different styles. The article written by Smith uses a formal diction; the choice of words is more formal or can be considered high class (Smith, 2019). The writer referrers to the MP who introduced the abortion bill in parliament in a more formal manner; he refers to him as Mr Greenwich. Throughout the text, he uses a more formal tone (Smith, 2019).

On the other hand, Rodrigues, in his article, chooses informal diction; an informal diction is whereby the choice of style cannot be considered formal or high class (Rodrigues, 2019). The choice of words and technique used by Rodrigues is not official; the writer seems to recognize the fact that his audience is the everyday people. The writer uses expressions such as “with people packed shoulder to shoulder.”

Rodrigues, in his article, makes use of hyperbole. He says that thousands of people protested against the bill. He claims in the report that, the crowd was so large, which even forced security to create pedestrians to pass through (Rodrigues, 2019). Hyperbole is an exaggeration, meant to show the significance of the actual meaning of a statement. Comparing the claims made by Rodrigues with those of Smith, Rodrigues is employing hyperbole. Smith claims that the crowd number was in hundreds rather than in thousands (Smith, 2019). Another difference also where, while one author uses foreshadowing, the other writer employs flashback. Smith employs flashbacks in his narration. Flashback is when the narrator goes back in time for a particular scene in his narration to provide more context for the story. One instance where Smith uses flashback is where he brought up the landmark ruling in 1971; the legislation relates to the abortion bill (Smith, 2019). On the other hand, Rodrigues uses foreshadowing in his story. Foreshadowing is when the writer provides elements that predict what will happen in the future. Rodrigues claims that “...the decision means the legislation will not be voted on until the next sitting week of parliament.” (Rodrigues, 2019). He foreshadows that to be voted on, the legislation will take time.

Rodrigues also employs symbolism in his article. Symbolism is whereby the writer uses a situation or an element to represent an idea, a concept, or a more significant message. Rodrigues states that “Tsunami of opposition needed” (Rodrigues, 2019). By saying this, he is referring to Government MLA Davies calling for people to galvanize and voice their dissatisfaction in unison. He has used Tsunami to symbolize people expressing their displeasure in unison.

On the other hand, at no point does Smith employ symbolism in his narration; this again shows the authors’ choice of different literacy devices in their narration. Furthermore, Rodrigues uses anastrophe, while Smith does not employ anastrophe. At one point, Rodrigues says, “this then followed, they said...” (Rodrigues, 2019); this in a standard sentence structure should read, “they said this was followed by...” Anastrophe in literature is wherein there is the reversing of the traditional structure of a sentence. Lastly, while there is the description of the MP who introduced the abortion bill in parliament as a protagonist by Alex Smith, he is depicted as an antagonist by Rodrigues. The protagonist is the “good guy” in a story while an antagonist is the “bad guy” in a story.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper, as stated in the introduction part, was to make a comparison of literacy devices used by the two authors Alexandra Smith and Marilyn Rodrigues. The two writers use varying literacy devices in their texts to convey their different opinions and emotions regarding the abortion bill. While Rodrigues employs many other literary devices and makes the story more engaging, Smith chooses to keep the story simple and use only a small number of literacy devices. Furthermore, Smith keeps the choice of words more formal compared to Rodrigues. From the tone used by the authors, the readers can tell that Rodrigues supports the protestors and is against the abortion bill, while Smith does not support the protestors or instead thinks the bill should stand.

References

Rodrigues, M. (2019, August). Huge numbers attend pro-life rallies in Sydney. The Catholic Weekly. Retrieved from on 29th August 2019. www.catholicweekly.com.au

Smith, A. (2019, August). Abortion bill introduced as hundreds protest outside NSW parliament. NSW. Retrieved from on 29th August 2020 www.smh.com.au