systematic framework analysis

It is the second section of the article, written by Mark Almond, where the writing style changes completely, forming a much more persuasive piece as Almond gives us his own commentary on the situation. From the first paragraph, Almond gives a report which contrasts the first in both the way it is written and the information it presents. Describing what we have already been told was a peaceful operation with full public support as “political turmoil” involving “corruption and cronyism on a massive scale.” The use of more dramatic wording in the headline and opening paragraph immediately show us that this writer holds a drastically different opinion.

He begins by drawing words from a semantic field of paradise, creating an association with Thailand as a peaceful, exotic place through use of pre-head modifiers such as “vibrant” or “tropical”. This effectively creates a stark contrast to the Thailand which Almond goes on to describe, again using words like “chaos”, “unrest” and “sudden turmoil” to create a semantic association with the country as a nation turned upside down by political strife.

The use of discourse markers prompts the reader take their own stance on the situation, in contrast to the earlier section of the article in which the writer uses subtle persuasive techniques to bring us to his way of thinking. One example is the writer’s description of previous coups, and the nations we would normally associate them with, before ending the paragraph with the rhetorical question; “but surely not in Thailand?”

The biggest contrast between the two commentaries comes with the predictions of what the future hold for Thailand. Williams only touches on the coup itself, before the rest of his article goes on to discuss tourism and effects on UK holidaymakers. His attitude to the coup itself is passive, which is obvious from the fact that he devotes so little of his article to discussing it. Almond, on the other hand, describes the country’s prospects as both “equally uncertain” and “on a knife edge” to create an association with the reader that the fate of the nation really does hang in the balance.

Almond uses no inclusive nouns in his piece, creating a distinction between himself and the reader, and perhaps making his view seem more knowledgeable. Interestingly, the first half of the article is simply credited to “David Williams”, whereas Almond’s piece has a short paragraph following it, which explains his work as a lecturer of modern history; again, this could be a subtle hint that one view is more credible than the other.

On a sentence level, Williams makes use of short, simple sentences when narrating the events, effectively giving a brief summary of the situation and its consequences. Almond goes into much more detail, using mostly compound and complex sentences which are more suited to a persuasive style. In the rare instance that a shorter sentence is used, it is done for emphasis, as can be seen in one-sentence paragraphs that contain a single, rhetorical question.  Almond’s comments are mostly declarative; one example being “Thailand is no longer in any position to serve as a role model”. Numerous comments along these lines make the writer’s comments appear as fact, giving a sense of authority to his opinions.

The use of two different writers using contrasting styles is effective in providing two points of view from contrasting perspectives. As well as this, the reader is able to find a narrative of the events in summary-form, before going on to read a more detailed analysis of the events. The articles contrast not only in the point of view they give, but also in the framework, language and techniques used to present the writers’ opinions.