Compare And Contrast The Language And Layout Of "We Drink To You All" And "Fresh Air". Explain How Each Text Appeals To Their Audience.
Essay by 24 • December 20, 2010 • 1,241 Words (5 Pages) • 2,259 Views
Essay Preview: Compare And Contrast The Language And Layout Of "We Drink To You All" And "Fresh Air". Explain How Each Text Appeals To Their Audience.
The "Fresh Air" text is a leaflet about there being a lack of water in a place called Hawa Amadu. This text tells you about the shortage of clean, drinkable water to one sixth of the worlds population. It is a leaflet mainly focusing on the areas in Hawa Amadu.
The "We Drink To You All!" text is a newspaper article thanking the readers for helping give people clean water. It tells you about two girls story and how, by donating money, it has really helped.
"Fresh Air" was written to persuade the reader to donate money; the writer does this by using lots of persuasive devices. "We Drink To You All!" was written to inform and persuade the reader about giving money. It shows you that people have given money and made a difference and that everyone should try and contribute.
In the text, "Fresh Air" the writer uses a lot of clever ways to layout and display the leaflet. As you look at the front you can see the image of a coke can. They do this as it relates to a drink in a can and it triggers your mind that it must be about drinking. It is shown as a can, and is bright red, so it draws attention. It also gives a universal image.
As you open the booklet you see four visual pictures, one of people working on a well, one of life before help (struggling to find water) and two of women working. All these pictures are effective because it shows people struggling and how donating money has helped, makes it emotive. As they are working on the well it shows it's changing for the better. The pictures that come first are the ones when they are struggling then followed by the one of people working on the well. They do this to show how it have help massively and it makes you feel sorry first and then shows you there is a way to stop it.
When you look at the text, you can see parts of the text in bold. These can either be a quote from someone or just a statement e.g. "one gift of water just went on reaping benefits". It is in bold as it is a bold statement; it is a very definite statement, which shows how people can help. This gets across key facts so you can see them straight away, so when you see them you automatically read them and then want to read on and find out more.
The overall layouts of the text it that its starts badly and shows how other peoples money has improved these places. At the end of the leaflet is information on how to get in touch with the Christian aid and donate money.
In the text "We drink to you all!", the writer uses a lot of different and clever ways to layout the newspaper article.
As soon as you look at it you can see the picture of the two sisters, with beaming smiles on their faces and looking really healthy and happy. This is very emotive as it shows they are happy so you can really see from it that people have helped.
The heading "We drink to you all!" also really stands out, especially as it has an exclamation mark on the end. This draws the readers attention ad makes them read on to the under-lined subheading.
The box of facts on the right hand side is also very effective to help the reader. It is effective as facts are very easy to read and gets across the point hard and fast and shows the truth without any bias.
Both texts use different types of language to appeal to the reader. They are similar because they both use emotive language and quotes. They are different because they are written in different styles, one is a leaflet and one is a newspaper article.
In the text "Fresh air" they use alliteration, rhetorical questions, emotive language, repetition and quotes to make this leaflet effective.
The uses rhetorical questions and alliteration when asking the same thing. It says, "Dying for a drink?". This uses alliteration in the words "dying" and "drink" to get across the point that people are actually dying because they haven't got enough water. It uses a rhetorical question as well because the term "dying for a drink" is used when people are thirsty but in this case they are literally dying for a drink.
They use
...
...