Lingual devices to position responders

Lingual devices to position responders

1. Composers often employ lingual devices to position responders to view the text through the looking glass of their political perspective.

   • R presents political pers as differing from majority - noun group "black armband history"
     • infers perspective is 'other' or unique.
       • Poses series of rhetorical q's which open text "Why were we never told? Why didn't we know?"
         • Truncated nature of questions - evoke consideration on behalf of responder - what truthful account of Aus history is.
           • Pinnacle of R's pers lies within particular use of passive voice "the towns had an air"
             • positions responders to feel inclined to join R in becoming didactically educated on the 'true' frontier contact history of Aus
               • Rather than feel bombarded by imperative active voice such as that in Abbott's speech
                 • Conservative view confirmed within analogy "tomorrow can be better...when its built on values that last"
                   • infer reluctance to challenge existing ideas.
                     • Appeals to diverse audience through sibilance "cash splash" + colloquial lang "fair dinkum"
                       • grabs listener's attention, illustrating A as relatable public figure so as to gain audience's trust.
                         • Further positioned to trust A thru metaphor "worst deficit is not the budget deficit but the trust deficit"
                           • infers A's pers strays from and is more valid than that of current gov
                             • A's speech reveals uncharacteristically contemp. Indigenous pers seen to align w/ that presented by R in WWWT
                               • hyperbole "should've been done a century ago" highlighting the urgency of Indigenous concerns.
   • Thus, a composer’s sophisticated use of lingual devices prompts evaluation on behalf of the responder as to what the ‘accepted’ view may be and whether the composer’s view either aligns or conflicts with this ‘accepted’ view.