All words have a
story. Diction analysis at its best
cracks opens that story and allows the reader to determine the impact of that
story on a text’s meaning. Words are our most powerful tool for shaping our
destiny and even our world. It is
oftentimes words that begin wars while bombs end them.
In
what ways do accomplished writers select their words to shape meaning and
communicate with intended audiences?
List in one column words from the serious version
and in another column words from the satiric version. Share your lists and draw a conclusion about the differences between the diction of
the satiric and serious texts. What forms of diction do the words on your list fall under? Use some or all of the terms from this diction ladder in your discussion.
Diction Ladder
|
Frozen (Ceremonial)-- Language that does not
change: Ex. Religious Ceremonies, Pledge of Allegiance
|
|
Formal--Complete sentences and specific word
usage: Ex. Academic Papers, Essays, Editorials
|
|
Consultative--Formal register used in conversation: Ex. Language used in business or classroom
discussions
|
|
Casual--
Word choice is general, and conversation is dependent upon non-verbal
assists: Language used in conversation with friends
|
|
Colloquial – Language particular to a
geographic location: “Y’all” is
associated with the south; “Pop,” “Soft Drink,” or “Soda”
all denote a carbonated beverage
in different geographical regions.
|
|
Intimate--Language between lovers. This is also the language of sexual
harassment
|
|
Jargon – Language associated with a trade or
profession
|
|
Slang – Language only understood among a
select group of people often defined by age, sex, ethnicity, or socioeconomic
status
|
Satiric Video
ReplyDeleteHey...wait
Hehehe
Wide behind
So..you like donuts?Eh?
James coco
Fair trials
Article
Adherents
We have a paradox.
Sanctions
Treating our body as a holy temple
Avoiding the burden
Band-aid problems
Badge of honor
Realm
Externally imposed regime
Deadly sins (lists them all)
The satiric video uses diction in a way that appeals to a teenage audience. On top of being a teenage based audience, the Simpsons is used for entertainment, not education. The words used here are definitely not educational. The video use jargon, slang, and casual language to provide the audience with a humorous piece. The free trial discussion belongs to the perfection of a person in the courtroom. Slang, however, is much more common in this video when words such as "eh" are muttered, and James coco is mentioned. Only some people understand those uses. The rest of the video can be considered casual language because they are all having normal-worded conversations. The words and actions used come together to teach that gluttony is fatal, especially after death. Eating the donut that was against the rules went against the deadly sins and sent the man to hell. The end went back to a satiric message when the man was surprised with how many donuts were being consumed.
The article on gluttony is a lot different than the video, although the message portrayed is about the same topic. The frozen language that was set in stone was used when the deadly sins were presented. They do not change because they are set in the church. Formal language is used mostly throughout the piece, and is needed to appeal to the audience. The audience is an educated group of people looking to explore the factual information about gluttony, along with the sin itself. This language is appearing in the list above. They do use casual language as they make reference to "band-aid," or small, problems.
When analyzing these two pieces and looking at the chart given to us with the different types of diction, the definition became a lot more clear to me. I always knew what it meant, but these examples presented gluttony in a completely different way to different audiences. Words are powerful, and although they provide the same message in this case, they can reach many more people of all ages and interests.
The fact that the Simpsons is an entertaining television show greatly affects the diction the author selected. None of the words force the reader to use context clues or a dictionary to discover their meaning, as words of that sort would hardly be appropriate for the entertainment of most citizens. In addition, it forced the author to indirectly show their opinion about gluttony. The satirized glutton, Homer, found himself in a bewildering predicament simply because he consumed a doughnut. Ending up in hell for such a reason is laudable, and provides entertainment for the audience. However, the author uses Homer's situation to provide the audience with his view in gluttony. The author shows that gluttony has disastrous effects, and will affect a person far beyond their earthly life. Expressing this view satirically is appropriate for the mode of publication the author uses. Teenagers would respond to this kind of message much better than the serious article. Teenagers enjoy often cartoons and allow the messages in them to shape their opinions, while lengthy articles extolling virtue for fear of supernatural retribution often are regarding with distaste or indifference. For this reason, a cartoon was the perfect choice to reach teenagers with this message.
DeleteYou made the statement that the video is intended to be entertaining, and not so much educational. It is true that the diction utilized in the video is extremely informal, and does not serve the purpose of invoking any sort of philosophical considerations in the viewer's mind. However, I think that in a way, it is intending to educate the audience on the topic of gluttony, no matter how twisted it may seem. When watching this video, it is hard not to at least experience a few thoughts about gluttony, no matter how vague they may be. If a person who had never heard of gluttony were to watch this video, they would then at least understand a little bit more about it. While the viewpoints and consequences depicted in this video are highly unlikely, they still spark a bit of consideration in the mind of the viewer. The diction utilized is quite informal, and the video's main purpose is to entertain, but I think that it discreetly serves the purpose of educating the audience as well.
DeleteGrace, I agree with pretty much everything you have stated. the sophisticated diction is pretty much needed for the sophisticated article. If the language was not very sophisticated, I think it would feel like something was missing. The article's message would not resonate so much. The Simpsons on the other hand was just trying to be funny. If they tried to use sophisticated language, it would not really be all that funny. Viewership would fall and the Simpsons would get cancelled. Wow...kinda seems almost blasphemous to say Simpsons and cancelled in the same sentence. But the article and the Simpsons have very different agendas and they are reflected in their choice of diction.
DeleteGrace, I agree these two articles both showed the same topic of gluttony, but the way each presented was in a different manor. The clips was directed towards teens and young adults in a comical way by showing Homer's gluttony towards the doughnuts. The article was more formal and sophisticated with a conversational tone which was directed to those looking for more facts and statistics rather than a satirical approach. However both articles showed the power of gluttony through different lenses which informed the audience the power gluttony has over the people.
DeleteGrace, I agree with you. You can't really have a formal document without using formal language. I believe that the type of diction and the way that the point is brought across has to depend on what type of piece the author is writing. I can't decide on which article is more effective in bringing its point across. However, I always am inclined to a piece that is funnier. I think that it is able to relate to a bigger audience and have a more symbolic meaning.
DeleteSatire
ReplyDeleteYeah, right
Hehe, Mmm, Eh
Daddy
Doughnut
You Americans
I don't understand
James Coco
Serious
Doctrine
Paradox
Yikes
A lot
Engulfed
Deficiency
Gluttony
The satirical video used diction of several types. The majority of the video was casual, and would not have been easily understood if a transcript of it was presented to someone. The conversations that the characters had depended on certain visual clues that the viewer perceived through the cartoon. However, some of the diction was consultative. The devil character and the doughnut demon both used complete sentences when they spoke. These sentences did not require the aid of the cartoon in order to understand them. Slang was also present in several forms. The several monosyllabic utterances of the characters are characterized as slang because there is not a true definition for them. "He he," "mmm," and "eh" are all examples of this type of slang. Slang is also used in the form of references. James Coco is one such slang reference. This is classified as slang because only some people understand the significance of this phrase.
The serious article also used diction of several types. The majority of the article was written with formal diction. The author had a specific purpose in mind, and chose appropriate words to achieve his goal. In order to properly convey his message, he uses words that are sophisticated and precise. These words are formal. The author also uses some consultative diction to help readers understand his message. The author is writing for an educated audience, but knows that some people need help understanding certain concepts. He reaches out to the audience using first person plural and short, basic sentences. In this way, he uses consultative language to help readers understand him. Finally, the author uses casual language. Words such as "yikes" and "a lot" contribute to this diction. The author uses these words to lighten some of his sentences and help lessen the passion of his tone. The casual language makes the reader feel understood and comfortable.
Both pieces used the appropriate diction to convey their ideas. Each piece's topic concerned gluttony, but using the same type of diction in each would have been disastrous. By choosing diction that appeals to the audience and helps them understand the work, an author can perfectly convey their message to their audience.
Ashley, I will have to agree with you. The cartoon and the article are so different from each other, it would be almost impossible for them to use the other's diction. I imagine uproars as teenagers watch the Simpsons use really complicated and sophisticated language. At the same time, I see conservative Catholics having heart attacks if the article employed some of the language seen in the Simpsons. So that's just a bad situation everyone wishes to avoid. So even though both the short clip and the article were about gluttony, they were presented in completely different ways. The Simpsons took a very humorous spin on it while the article took a more serious approach. As you mentioned, the diction selection helped each author achieve their intended purpose. For the Simpsons, they wanted to get people to laugh and watch a new episode next week. For the article, they wanted people to consider their eating habits and how that was effecting their relationship with God and the church.
DeleteAshley, I agee the two re very differnt with their diction and trying to make it the same would be a train wreck. Even though they both serve as examples to explain gluttony to their audiences, it is hard to decide which one was more effective in doing so. One could argue that the article was becuase of the diction it used to make a wider audiance. Others could use that the video was better becuase its diction focused more on teens. Both used their diction is a way to make it very appealing to their targeted audiences.
DeleteAshley, I believe that the diction comes in response to the audience. For example, the audience watching the Simpsons would not be looking to be educated while watching a mindless comedy program, so there can be a stronger use of slang and other causal language elements. While for the article, people are looking to be educated, so the points and the diction have to be stronger and more effective to not only get the point across, but keep the readers interested. That is why words are so powerful, the meanings behind them are endless.
DeleteSatire
ReplyDeleteHehe
You Americans
Wide behind
Eh?
James Coco
Serious Article
Doctrine
Paradox
Sanctions
Conspicuous consumption
Gluttonous
The satirical video was definitely not suited for educational purposes. I'm pretty sure the devil does not look like Ned Flanders. But going beyond that, the word choice was intended for a mainly teenager audience. Because of this, the language was rather casual in nature. Jargon was utilized to maybe the fullest extent. And colloquial language was used. The diction used in this would not have been very appropriate for say, an important essay. But it made the piece funny. I know I laughed. I don't laugh at tv shows very often. But I thought this was rather funny. And my sense of humor is awful, so I can only imagine how a normal teenager would feel about this short clip.
The article, on the other hand, was much more formal. I would just like to point out that I saw the word paradox in like the second sentence and got excited because I thought this article might be about time travel. Far fetched, I know. But I get excited about stuff like that. But anyways, I digress. This would be how I would love to write an important essay. The Simpsons would have a hard time getting an audience to watch the show if they used this kind of language. I swear, 80% of the words were at least 5 letters long. That is a sure sign that whatever is being read is fancy. But the article could be described formal and some frozen language was used. I know I didn't put any frozen words down, and I apologize for that, but many things about the church were brought up and they could be considered frozen. Actually, gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins so I guess that could be considered frozen. I don't know. I didn't like that movie. Moving on.
The article had to be written like that because it was delving into some serious business. The Simpsons was more lighthearted and therefore, didn't need the sophisticated language. The Simpsons was trying to make people laugh. The article was trying to make people change the way they look at eating. So I believe each writer/author achieved their select purposes and got their desired results.
The formality of the article was created in part by the sophisticated language the author used. The diction was formal and frozen, creating an air of credibility and factuality. These connotations help the reader feel as though what they are reading is the truth, and influences their opinion to the author's side. In this way, one can see the incredible power of diction. I agree with the statement about the length of words in relation to their sophistication, but only to some extent. Long words do seem to be more intelligent, but short words can be just as meaningful. However, more people use long words when trying to sound intelligent than short words. The sophisticated words the author uses were perfectly suited to his purpose. They conveyed the appropriate meaning and did not force the reader to stop reading to figure out what they meant.
DeleteIt is evident that the diction utilized in these two pieces is extremely variant, as they are intended for two different audiences. Consider for a moment that the intended audiences for these pieces were switched. Would this affect the viewer/reader's perception of the pieces? Would a middle-aged Catholic woman become better informed by watching the satirical video or by reading the eloquent article? Which would a far-from-ambitious teenager respond better to? I think that the answer is obvious. The diction and overall structure of the two depictions adhere greatly to the intended audience, which is the reason that they are set up the way that they are. A teenager would probably have no intentions of reading a formally structured article, whereas an average adult would not look to comedic television to derive much sought after answers.
DeleteI agree with you Nick! To me, both authors achieved their purpose. They spoke differently about the same topic. I don't think anyone would go to Simpsons when looking for advice on morality, but its nice to see a little bit of that incorporated into TV. If someone was truly looking for advice, they would go to the article, or perhaps to a priest. But, the Simpsons knew that was not their goal. They were just trying to make people a little curious, or think a bit. Either way, I thought they both were good.
DeleteSatirical:
ReplyDeleteNot likely hehe
Well, well
You Americans with your fair trials
That wasn't so bad
So you like donuts, ehh?
James Coco
Serious:
Adherents
Paradox
Conspicuous
Equated
Transcends
Derives
Pursuits
Satiation
There are a great deal of variations in regards to the two texts. The satirical video uses a very unique form of diction to convey the ideas of the piece. The diction, I would suggest, is generally casual, as a variety of informal conversations took place and utilized words and phrases such as "hehe," "well, well," and "ehh?" There is not a great deal of educated diction utilized in this video due to the audience of the piece which is, for the most part, very general. This video does not target older, more educated individuals as the article does. Another type of diction used in this piece is slang. For example, the mention of James Coco could be considered slang because he is only a recognizable figure to a select group of people. Another example of slang could be through the phrase "You Americans with your fair trials. This is always so much easier in Mexico." This is obviously something that is understood by mostly anyone, but is more directed towards the American people and those of other countries.
The serious article, in contrast, uses varying forms of diction. One type of diction utilized in this article could be defined as formal. The words utilized are not extremely advanced, but are advanced enough so that the article is not considered informal. The audience of this piece, it could be said, is most likely educated adults who are interested in or unclear about the topic of gluttony.The list above is an example of the formal word usage displayed in this article. The words appeal to the audience in a way that informal or conversational writing would not. Another term to describe the diction of this piece would be consultative. Because the article was meant to convey ideas to a group of people (namely Catholics), it could be said that this article is somewhat of a formal discussion on the topic of gluttony. The subheadings serve as somewhat of a conversation starter. For example the heading "What is Gluttony?" gives off the impression that a question is being asked, and will proceed to be answered in that section. It is almost as if the reader is asking the questions or suggesting topics for discussion, and the article then answers them.
In both of these pieces, the diction utilized to convey the same ideas was quite obviously different. However, both were necessary and appropriate when considering the audiences of the two. In the satirical video, the diction was appropriately used to portray a slightly humorous, somewhat unrealistic depiction of the consequences and seriousness of gluttony. In the article, however, a more formal approach was taken, and served the purpose of appealing to a different audience. Both pieces used appropriate diction to appeal to their audiences, and were equally effective in doing so.
Mary, I would have to say that I believe that the satirical video was educatonal in way. Gluttony is one of the deadly sins which we all know of. The dad is put to the test to not finish the donut so then the devil cannot take his soul. Isn't the devil putting us to a test everyday to sin? I beleive that the clip was showing a way that sin and the devil work together in order to take us away from God. I do understand that the article seemed to be more informational becuase of its tone, but I beleive that they both are very closely related to the topics they both wanted to convey.
DeleteMary, I agree with what you stated between the two articles. Both of these distinct pieces both portrayed the same topic in different ways to appear to both of the audience. The satirical article appeals to an audience most likely consisting of teenagers and young adults. Whereas the written article is composed primarily of facts and statistics about gluttony. Despite these to major differences both articles do a fantastic job at portraying the topic of gluttony.
DeleteI think that the video also was educational. It portrayed gluttony as a sin, just not like the article did. The devil does try and tempt Homer just he would any other person. The article just presents a more formal view for people that are questioning the issue in depth. I would not go to the Simpsons for moral advice, but to spark curiosity, yeah. This episode of the Simpsons actually might lead someone to want to read the article. They both convey the topic well.
DeleteSatire:
ReplyDeleteYeah, right
Hehe
Well, well
You Americans
Ehh
James CoCo
Article:
Doctrine
Paradox
Temple
Deadly Sins
Spiritual Emptiness
In the Simpson's video, the diction used could clearly be understood. The clip itself wanted to show gluttony and how it relates toward the devil because of it being a deadly sin. The main issue with gluttony is in teenagers, and the video shaped its diction to that audience. Using the words such as "hehe" and "ehh" really showed that slang was used Throughout the clip. The video did though provide a example of gluttony with the devil and how it could turn our life away from God. The clip is very satire but it does turn out to be educational for the right audience.
The article shows a better way at conveying the true meaning of gluttony. It makes a more casual diction in order to apply to a wider range of audiences. This makes the article more universal for the points to be spread. The author makes the article very informative by stating all the types of the deadly sins not only gluttony. The author also shows of spiritual emptiness when he talks about food not satisfying out hunger for God. The article is toward a catholic faith audience because of the supporting details the author uses to convey the points.
Both articles made sure to get the point a crossed to both types of audiences. I would have to say that the article was more moving just because it had a wider range for an audience and it also had a casual tone. If gluttony was only found in teenagers, the Simpson's clip would have made a greater statement, but gluttony is found in all ages.
The last sentence of your blog is a great summary of how I feel when it comes to the video and the article. The audience is definitely different, and the article satisfies a broader range of people. It is more straight forward and can be understood by many people, while the video is only watched by a certain audience and is confusing, but not necessarily abstract. I did not understand a few of the points made in the video, and if I did not know it was under the topic of gluttony, I would have honestly thought that the sin Homer was committing was that of disregarding the signs that said not to eat the donut. He did not listen to what the signs said, and ate the donut anyway. Is sneaking under the topic of gluttony? I am not sure, but I did understand the more sophisticated article better for sure.
DeleteMaddie, I thought your connection between gluttony being a deadly sin and the devil in the cartoon was great! I never put that together. Once again, the symbolism in the cartoon is able to speak volumes. Being straightforward is great, but it is symbolism that makes this beautiful and poignant. I think that it helps people see things for how they really are without saying it.
DeleteMaddi, I do not agree completely with your last statement. I think that the video appealed to a bigger audience. The article was directed more towards adults and older teenagers, but the video could be understood by anyone who was watching it. Even though the article was more mature than the video, the article was not as effect. Like you said, gluttony applies to all ages, which includes kids teenagers, and adults.
DeleteSatire:
ReplyDeleteDoughnuts
You Americans
James Coco
Forbidden doughnut
Hey..wait...
I'm smarter than the devil
Ehh.. uhh
all doughnuts in the world
Serious:
Devote
Nearly all
Excessive Consumptions
Paradox
Yikes
Trends
The satirical video of The Simpsons displays diction types of slang, jargon, and casual. The general feel of diction from this video I perceived was jargon and casual. The causal diction is present because the show is a non-educational comedy which is known for their simplicity and general use of language. Instead of a wide variety of language the showed the viewers actions which can be received as phrases. This is similar to that of a parking lot director or a mime; using actions to show the phrases with minimal words. The jargon is what the comedy profession uses in the case of the writers portraying actions such as near the end of the clip of Homer Simpson eating the doughnuts, a clip which was shown instead of written/spoken. Slang was also found in that section of the clip when they mentioned James Coco. The name James Coco is directed towards people who know who this is referencing.
The serious article on gluttony uses a more formal jargon with a consultative angle. The choice of words builds the formal phrases which are related to the type of profession the writer is in. The phrases such as "excessive consumptions" are a formal way of stating overeating or eating too much. However, even though this text is more formal there is also a consultative, conversational, tone in which relates the writer to the reader. The use of the word "yikes" is a example that breaks the frozen diction into a conversation. Yikes is a word often found in conversations referring to a shock or scare. By using words such as this allows the reader to engage in the topic.
When comparing the satirical and serious dictions I found distinct differences, but I found myself engaged in both texts because of jargon which is used. The satirical piece was informal writing containing slang, whereas the serious was formal but also conversational. Both of these pieces were found to engage the readers in different manners. Though each have used different dictions both used their choices accordingly and effectively.
Hmm. The Simpsons is not just meant for teens. I think the show has a rather broad appeal.
ReplyDeleteSatire
ReplyDeleteI'm smarter than the devil
Mmm forbidden donut
Wide behind
This is always so much easier in Mexico
Hell Lab: Ironic Punishment
James Coco
Article:
Devote
We have a paradox.
Transcending
Condemning
Antiquated concept
Spiritual pursuits
The differences between these two pieces is vey evident but both are able to make a point about the same thing. In the satire, casual diction is used. There aren't many sophisticated word choices and the dialogue that takes place is easy to follow. Also, the satire is able to use visual enhancements to add to the meaning of the piece. Along with casual language, the piece uses slang which relates to the reader. The way the characters talk in slang is effective because it appeals to a group of people. The informal language is able to bring a point across in the piece without trying to overload it with information. The simplicity of it makes it more appealing to the reader/viewer. Also, while the Simpsons is a comedy show on television, it is easy to see that this message is brought across clearly. The eating of the donut is symbolic because he chooses to eat it when he knows the consequences, much like many people choose to eat what is bad for them.
The article is effective in bringing across the points about gluttony in a more structured way. The language is frozen which renders the piece easy to read and follow. This also makes the message stand out more clearly because the reader does not have to dig for a different meaning because the language remains the same. Formal language is also used throughout the article. Formal language helps the writer make a point in a more logical and standard way. The main difference between these two pieces about gluttony is the way their ideas are presented. The satire used symbolism and humor along with the other points listed above to make a point about gluttony in our world today. The article, however, is straightforward when dealing with this matter and presents the material in a formal manner.
Abbey, I like the point you brought up about the donut being symbolic. It takes a lot of effort to sit down and completely analyze a show like the Simpsons, but there is a great deal of hidden information used to get this point of extreme gluttony being awful, not just for Christians, but Americans as well.
DeleteSatire:
ReplyDeleteYou Americans
This is so much easier in Mexico!
Americans love their right to trial
Ehh..Uhh...
Donuts!
Hot dog Meat
I'm Smarter than the Devil!
Serious:
Band-aid to fix problems
paradox
Gluttony
-aholic
behavior
excess
Both forms of media address the issue of gluttony, but in different ways to suit their audience. One of the great things about diction is you can always tailor it to suit your audience. The article is serious, while the Simpsons are a little more comical. The Simpsons have a relatively simple audience with varying ages from kids to adults. So, when they are trying to talk about gluttony they have to do in a funny, yet meaningful way. He shows the devil coming to him and tempting him with his favorite food, a donut. Because he can't resist, he takes the donut, giving into gluttony. He goes into hell, and when he gets there, they feed him even more donuts. Homer doesn't complain, and just eats all the donuts, giving into gluttony. Now, his children wanted him to have a trial before he is committed to hell, and I'm not sure if he did because the video ended, but I think he does deserve one. And no, its not an American thing. But, I think people need a trial in order to realize their actions and have someone call them out on them. Homer didn't realize he was being a glutton until he went to hell. Even though hell can be a lot worse then being force fed donuts, the idea is the same: their vices get them to hell.
In the article, the same idea is presented in a more serious way. They have a more mature and (arguably) Christian audience that wants to look more in depth at the sin. They don't want some Homer -Simpson-ate -donuts -and -went -to-hell-kind-of-thing. So, the article argues all different types of gluttony, from alcholism to overindulgence. Because of the audience, the article is able to use words like paradox, because the audience should know what they mean. Depending on what audience you have, I would say that both the article and video are effective at showing the problems of gluttony.
If I was doing a presentation on gluttony, I would probably present the video to a younger audience, even though it has a pretty universal appeal. Its pretty causal and has some slang that would be easy to understand and appeal to. The article I would present to a more mature audience. It is both formal and consultive, and makes people think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOlivia, the part in your blog about the trial made me think about the true meaning the producers may or may not have been trying to point out. Like you, I also believe Homer should have a trial. He is at fault, but sins occur everywhere. When we sin, we get a trial that is also known as purgatory. We can ask for forgiveness here and wait for prayers to get us to heaven, or we can go against God one final time and go to hell. Although Homer was denied a trial in the video and God does not deny us when we sin, they could have been strategically planning that scene. It also might be ironic, but either way, it makes sense.
DeleteSatire:
ReplyDeleteYeah right
Hehe
Americans
James Coco
All the Donuts
Serious:
Adherent
Paradox
Gluttonous
Excess
I personally liked the satirical video better because I feel that the message was clearer without being harsh. The diction was for more general group of people, for example, a child could watch the video and understand everything that was going on. It was clever and funny while also being educational. The video clearly pointed out that gluttony was bad and that one could eventually go to hell for it.
The article's diction was directed more towards teenagers and adults. The author used several facts to back up their statements, but it felt like the author was blaming everyone for being a glutton. The author has no right to assume that all people are gluttonous. She even blamed healthy people for being gluttonous. I understand that gluttony is bad, but to say that everyone does it intentionally is wrong.
For any age group, I would choose to show them the video. Adults like humor just as much as teenagers and children do. Sometimes, humor is what makes people understand better. Humor definitely gets people's attention.
Video:
ReplyDeleteHey wait,
I'm smarter than the devil (tone)
This is always easier in Mexico
Hot Dog Meat
Article:
Adherent
Godly life
Band-Aid solutions
The video took a more satiric approach to the topic simply because of their audience. The Simpsons is a comedy program that is suppose to be funny rather than serious, thus it can use a more, in a way, immature diction with its intended audience. The video provided a great deal of casual language and slang and I feel like they did this to gain some attention from their audience.
The article, on the other hand, was intended to educate the reader rather than just entertain them. This article was not just for Christians, it was for everyone. It shows this by not only showing how the problem of gluttony affects the Christian agenda by breaking the Ten Commandments, by also showing how the problem hurts Americans in their health and wellness.
These two pieces of information showed two different approaches to the same topic. It demonstrated how words play such a vital role in how things are presented and that there is no limit to how a spoken language can affect the people who here it.
Jenna, I really like how you brought up that gluttony is not only a sin, it is bad for ones health. In never really thought to think about it in a physical perspective.
Deletetime test
Delete