Diction 1) In John Kennedy’s speech, many words are abstract because he’s appealing to the audience’s pathos, and abstract words such as freedom, poverty, devotion, loyalty, and sacrifice are used so that the audience will not oppose because they are hooked emotionally; these words also keep the tone appropriate for the circumstance they are being used in. 2) In the speech there are formal rhetorical tropes such as metaphor and personification. Some examples of this would be “Now the trumpet summons us again”, and “And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion”. 3) Kennedy uses many figures of speech that may be considered cliches. The fresher metaphors are the ones he uses when he’s speaking about the future of the United States.
His speech reached the people, and made them listen. It makes you believe what he says because of the way he presents it and it does its job. The speech is a persuasive one to make the population see the charges in a new way and understand what the money in question was used for. He gives them information to change their opinions on the matter which is exactly what a persuasive speech is designed to do. Nixon begins his speech by stating that he will not lie, or deny the charge brought against him without going into specific detail.
Success Through Success Ever pay attention to the manipulation of words used by presidents when giving a speech? Until reading “A Nation of Victims” by Reanna Brooks, and “Why JFK’s Inaugural Succeeded” by Thurston Clarke; the manipulation of words were subliminal. Brooks presents the audience with an analysis on President George W. Bush’s manner of speech. Brooks feels that despite his verbal blunders and linguistic stumbles, his words are purposely selected to hide certain issues and to negatively frame opposing view points. Also, Brooks says that Bush’s speeches are emotionally charged, “dependency-creating” and thus provoking fear amongst his listeners.
One can always refute anything they’d like, but to be effective, one needs to have appropriate facts for back-up and a dominating style that brings it all together. Dave Barry has done a great job tying his hyperboles and humor to appease the audience. His constant joking and exaggeration kept the audience content and involved in the writing. His diction level being informal keeps the audience up to date with Barry’s latest issues and lets them relate to it with the visual types and personification that he presents throughout it. Together, they reflected his purpose and brought about a negative, mocking tone to the piece and displayed to the free world that kitchen appliances and remote controls may be too complex someday, if they aren’t
He touches his audience by listing local problem. McKibben uses this emotional appeal to personally relate to his audience. McKibben also uses facts in this common sense. He overwhelms his audience with negative facts associated with global warming to persuade his audience. This bombardment of overwhelming facts work to change society’s habits.
He uses this reference to introduce how guys enjoy tinkering. This approach to expressing a point is found to spark interest in the read because when you think of guys you know, or if you are a guy, tinkering is a relatable typical occurrence. Granted that the use of a dramatic example such as this is an incredible leap of faith in regards of offensive writing, but it seems as if this way of thinking resonates in a manor that brings even the most brilliant of scientists on a normal level. The evidence of these national events and its relation to “guyness” is questionable, but Barry reassures the reader by stating “ Every statement of fact you will read in this book is either based on actual laboratory tests, or else I made it up” (414). This is an interesting form of support for an argument fact and fiction being used to back up the main point.
Abramson does not have any forthright biases, but subtly shows his support for the ending of the laws by using a change in tone. The author uses fact versus opinion by using quotes from each side to show a direct thought from opponents of each side. His diction is primarily formal, but still relatable. The connotation behind the words that he uses make you feel contemplative, optimistic as well as determined to stay updated on the progress of the law and whether it gains more
The words, “I Have a Dream,”(542). produce a reassuring impression for the dissatisfaction he feels toward the sufferance him and his fellow negros have endured. Instead of opening each argument exhibiting antagonism and frustration, King transforms the function of each statement by simply adding layer after layer of tranquil words that change the way the statement might have been indignantly taken. Rather than lead his audience into bitter understanding and resentment, King earnestly instills hope with his argument in a persuasive manner with words that many relate to, gentle, optimistic words that one would commonly give interest to when perceived. Kings statement, “I Have a Dream,”(542).
Through out both of these letters tone is created by what type of message is being created. In Mr. Herbert’s letter to Mr. Seaver a professional tone is seen through the use of intelligent and polite language. Where as Mr. Seaver takes a satirical stance on the issue at hand to prove that he understands violating copyright laws is a serious offense but at the same time he expresses his understanding of his freedom of speech. Each of these men attempts to show their authority and place in this argument through the use of inductive reasoning. Much of Mr. Herbert’s authority comes from his companies’ accomplishments in marketing such as previous marketing campaigns that had been successful.
‘Burke is a conservative thinker and therefore opposed to change.’ DISCUSS ‘We must not attempt to fly, when we can scarcely pretend to creep.’ The words of Burke himself seem almost apt for describing the caution with which one must to approach this essay title. At first glance Burkes championing of the prejudices of his forefathers combined with he’s fierce criticism of the French Revolution, seem damming evidence to support the view that he was a strong opponent of change. However, this conclusion seems to be unjust. Robert Peel suggests conservatism can be described as ‘changing what you have to in order to preserve what you can’. If we accept this premise we can disregard the conclusion that Burke was of not of the opinion that change must be avoided altogether.