This article summarizes the new Alabama immigration law and its effects on the state’s populations, both immigrant and native-born.
Diction: The controversial immigration law has many critics, and this author makes it clear through his diction that he stands with them. He says early in the article that the law “is already reaping a bitter harvest of dislocation and fear,” making obvious to the reader his position. These words are moving, and a reader will likely have more sympathy for the immigrants than the government enforcing the law. “Bitter harvest,” “dislocation,” and “fear” all emphasize the dire situation that immigrants find themselves in. “In such a scheme [of tough immigration laws],” he writes, “panic and fear are a plus; suffering is the point.” Obviously many supporters would disagree, arguing that those immigrants wouldn’t have to panic if they were in Alabama legally. The author’s strong word choice reinforces a compelling argument, though, and I believe he successfully brings readers to criticize the new law through his article.
Details: Details are specific but still general enough to allow a reader to relate to his position. The author wants to appeal to a broad base of readers, so he includes examples of its effects that they can understand. “The new law has also added frustrating layers of paperwork for Alabamans who must now prove legal status when enrolling schoolchildren, signing leases and interacting with government,” he argues. Many readers will understand those examples, because they too have gone through the process of enrolling children and signing leases. The author also quotes a writer of the law, saying that the man has a “side career of drafting extremist immigration legislation”, immediately giving him a bad image in the eyes of the reader. These details contribute to the persuasiveness throughout the article, and they definitely contribute to its readability.
Language: The author of this article uses casual and informative language. He doesn’t want to alienate his readership with a powerfully biased article, but at the same time uses enough force to convince a reader of the correctness in his position. “The pain isn’t felt just by the undocumented,” he says. “Legal immigrants and native-born Alabamans who happen to be or look Hispanic are now far more vulnerable to officially sanctioned harassment.” This is the core of his argument, and it is easily understood by any reader. This only benefits the author, because he gains more critics for the new law.
Again, great close reading. Your indepth analysis shows your understanding. But be careful not to summarize. Certain parts seem to stray from the analysis. Also, was there no imagrey or syntax? For this kind of article syntax can be a major component so make sure you a address the S in DIDLS. Also, your use of quotations really helps the reader fully understand your points and opinion.
ReplyDeleteI think you do a really good job looking at the evidence you pick for diction. But is there any diction in the article to contradict what you focused on? Also you could use a little more explanation of your language examples.
ReplyDelete