Comparative Language Analysis

[cassettekid]

It would be great if someone would be able to read over my LA. It's definitely not my best work and is way too long (1200 words) so please let me know how I can improve. *Note when we were given the articles no image was included*
Thanks so much!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/on-your-bike-de-brito-20110917-1kf42.html
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/when-pushie-comes-to-shove-20110910-1k2mo.html


The issue of whether cyclists should share the road with motorists has sparked numerous debates within the media. The opinion piece “When Pushie Comes To Shove” published in "The Age" (11/09/11) by Sam De Brito contends that the new craze of rich male bicycle riders is frustrating for motorists and citizens alike. In response to De Brito’s article, Russell Patterson’s letter to the editor named “On Your Bike De Brito” published in "The Age" (18/09/11) asserts that De Brito’s article helps promote intolerance and reckless behaviour between motorists and cyclists. Using differing tones, arguments and techniques both writers clearly construct their opposing contentions.

De Brito’s article “When Pushie Comes To Shove” strongly argues that rich male cyclists are an annoyance to society. The headline plays upon the well know pun when push comes to shove. This helps position the reader to believe that De Brito’s article was provoked by the actions of cyclists. Throughout the piece, De Brito uses a highly critical and sarcastic tone which helps depict bicycle riders negatively and constructs them as pompous, arrogant men. The writer labels the cyclists as “grim faced, entitled white men.” The negative connotations associated with these words helps manipulate the reader to view all cyclists in a negative light. This argument is reiterated when De Brito claims bicycle riders “used to plague golf courses.” The loaded word “plague”  positions the reader to think of bugs, swarms and pests and thereby link these images to cyclists. De Brito also constantly condemns and attacks the cyclists appearance and clothing. This is established when the writer describes their “lurid, genital hugging bodysuit.” This provocative statement sparks an outrage emotion from the reader and is also then juxtaposed with the image of the “sea urchin” bike riders who only wear “a pair of boardies and a cheeky grin.” This helps construct the idea that wearing lycra outfits is unnecessary and helps lead the audience to further form a negative view of cyclists. Therefore, by the use of juxtaposition, loaded words, connotations and tone, De Brito clearly presents the argument that cyclists are arrogant and irritating.

De Brito forcefully argues that cyclists are dangerous on the roads and therefore have a detrimental effect on society. The writer recalls from his personal experience as a child to establish that cycling is dangerous. De Brito claims that as a “kid.. you took your chances on the road.” The informal language helps present De Brito as a down to earth character that the reader can relate to. The writer also clearly establishes that as a child, he knew that cyclists didn’t control the roads but rather the “two-tonne chunks of metal screaming in both directions” did. This helps further position the reader to agree that cyclists should understand the dangers of cycling like De Brito does. However, De Brito then continue to discredit cyclists as he describes their actions on the road as dangerous and arrogant. Personal experience is again used when De Brito as a motorist recalls being “abused by some 60 year-old cardiovascular surgeon.” This recalls the stereotype of cyclists being old rich men. De Brito also positions the reader to sympathise with him as the victim through the loaded word “abused.” The writer continues using a heavily mocking tone to condemn bicycle riders. De Brito argues that cyclists cannot “complain” about motorists actions when they themselves “treat red lights as suggestions.” The tone used creates a level of humour in the piece but also positions the reader to agree that cyclists are arrogant, dangerous and believe that “roads were purpose-built” for themselves. De Brito, through numerous techniques and tone creates the idea that cyclists are dangerous on the roads and do not obey road laws.

Contrastingly, Russell Patterson’s letter to the editor “On your bike, de Brito” argues using a different tone that De Brito reinforces negative attitudes and abuse on the roads. Patterson begins by discrediting De Brito as an expert on cycling. By claiming that De Brito “knows absolutely nothing” about the activity- the reader is positioned to believe Patterson’s opinon, who unlike De Brito, is a credible cyclist. This is also reiterated when Patterson states he will not “even attempt to explain” the clothing cyclists wear. Patterson condemns De Brito’s article as he argues it further helps “inflame the minority redneck driver.” The use of the word “inflame” creates the imagery of a violent negative reaction which further helps emphasise the intolerance of cyclists within society along with the cruel, abusive nature of motorists. Patterson also uses the word “minority” to also help position motorists to see that only a few select people are causing issues on the road. Patterson uses personal experience when he claims that De Brito should make an “effort” to see a cyclists point of view and witness the behaviour of many motorists. This positions the reader to believe that De Brito has a somewhat ignorant, lazy and conceited view of cyclists. Patterson’s personal experience is evident when he claims to have been on the receiving end of “thrown missiles, verbal abuse and intimidatory tactics.” This helps portray cyclists as the victims of a “small minority” group and allows the audience to sympathise with cyclists. Through this, Patterson contends that De Brito’s article provides motorists with a reason and “justification” to continue acting immorally and “illegal[ly].” The word ‘illegal’ strongly helps emphasise Patterson’s strong contention as the audience are led to agree that since the motorists actions are against the law they must be wrong. Therefore, Patterson clearly within his article aims to discredit De Brito by contending that his article promotes dangerous abuse from motorists.

Patterson argues that motorists are far more likely to break road rules and act unlawfully.  Unlike De Brito, Patterson uses an angry but reasonable tone throughout his article to reinforce the serious issue regarding cyclists. Patter asserts that he is both a “driver and cyclist” but witnesses more motorists acting recklessly. By labelling himself as both a driver and cyclist, Patterson presents himself as an expert on the issue which adds credibility to his argument. Patterson uses personal experience and evidence of motorists “speeding, running red lights and talking on mobile phones” to strongly argue that motorists act illegally on the road. Patterson claims that the number of “dangerous” actions by motorists far “exceeds” the number of cyclists. This positions the reader to view cyclists as reasonable while simultaneously condemns the actions of motorists. Patterson also points out the greater level of responsibility a motorist has on the road. He claims that a motorists actions are more “life threatening to all road users.” This positions the reader to agree that motorists should start obeying the road rules before they criticise and dangerously abuse cyclists. Unlike De Brito, Patterson clearly asserts that bicycle riders are less dangerous on the roads in comparison to motorists.

Overall, both De Brito and Patterson use completely differing arguments and tones to illustrate their opposing views. De Brito heavily utilises a sarcastic tone and loaded words to argue that cyclists are arrogant and pompous. Contrastingly, Patterson uses an angry and serious tone to assert that De Brito’s article promotes abuse and intolerance between motorists and cyclists. De Brito argues through personal experience and several key techniques that cyclists are dangerous on the roads. Interestingly, Patterson also uses personal experience but instead uses the technique in conjunction with various others to contend that motorists act recklessly and illegally on the roads. Therefore, clearly through the use of differing techniques, tones and arguments both writers thoroughly illustrate their different views.