Braddon exhibits various examples of jargon to enforce the reader in believing the authorÃÂs argument, that minor nations such as Australia contribute in major wars, though they will soon be forgotten for their valiant contribution.
Jargon is used in the sub-title, characterising the author to be a former ÃÂgunnerÃÂ who became a ÃÂChangi POWÃÂ, which stands for ÃÂPrisoner Of War.ÃÂ The use of jargon in this case, ÃÂgunnerÃÂ and ÃÂChangi POWÃÂ states to the audience that this author has experienced the war and will recount a less biased and more informed review unlike an author who has not experienced the war and would make a less convincing review.
The military jargon, ÃÂgarrisonÃÂ is used instead of a more recognisable word. This influences the audience to believe in BraddonÃÂs argument, making the article seemingly original and written from a war-correspondent. JargonThe contrast in war propaganda between Australia and Japan is a Rhetorical device used by Braddon to establish the theme of the article, where Braddon relates to the flaws of the Australian government and larger political bodies who did not tell of Japans powerful status.
Braddon informs to the reader of the Japanese perspective to war. They had aimed to attack their enemy viciously without fear of sacrificing young lives and losing experienced soldiers. An instructor of the emperorÃÂs forces had never stopped telling the soldiers, ÃÂDo not be afraid of combat, and do not come home alive.ÃÂ It is considered almost shameful to return, a dutiful order, a matter of bravery and courage as opposed by BraddonÃÂs contrasting view of the Australians who saw the Japanese to be ÃÂpuny, myopic, afraid of the dark and badly armed.ÃÂThe AustralianÃÂs racist and undermining view of the Japanese can be viewed as the use of irony where the Australians see the Japanese army being weak though the audience knows that the Japanese will eventually overcome the British and Australian soldiers to capture Singapore. BraddonÃÂs use of irony is engaging and enforces the articleÃÂs motif.
Braddon considers the use of metaphors to state the motif of this article, that AustraliaÃÂs triumphs in the war as an ally of major nations such as Britain and America, had eventually lead to Australia being forgotten. The metaphor, ÃÂ We remain pawns on its chessboard of diplomacy and war,ÃÂ is BraddonÃÂs comparison between Australia with the pawns on a chessboard, informing to the audience of BraddonÃÂs belief that Australia, in the eyes of major ally powers, is nothing but a small nation willing to volunteer itself in order to gain little respect from its mother country, similar to a pawn on a chessboard, often facing a meaningless death when sacrificed on the front line.
Braddon compares the lesson of Singapore with the Allusion of Vietnam. Singapore and Vietnam shares a common purpose, where a minor nation when under the control of a foolish mother country is in danger, ÃÂa pawn in the hands of a halfwit is a pawn squandered.ÃÂBranddonÃÂs use of this Allusion will enrich this articles meaning, comparing the events of Singapore with Vietnam.
This article is narrated in second person, enforcing the reader to believe in BraddonÃÂs idea. The pronoun ÃÂweÃÂ is used particularly in the first few paragraphs of the article where the main ideas are introduced.
We are a minor nation whose battalions, brigades and fewÃÂ ..
ÃÂ we should set aside one day each year when we remember it.
We should remind ourselves that.
We remain pawns on its chessboard of diplomacy and war.
The pronoun ÃÂweÃÂ establishes a closer writer-reader relationship since the readerÃÂs ideas are somewhat agreeing with the writers.
The informal uses of language as identified by BranddonÃÂs statement,ÃÂ When Canberra continued to nag,ÃÂ combined with BranddonÃÂs use of pronouns, ÃÂweÃÂ and a second person voice, places the writer to the same level with the reader through common language, establishing a closer writer-reader relationship.
The use of Rhetorical Questions also contributes to enforcing BranddonÃÂs major idea of the article, questioning AustraliaÃÂs ability to stop Japan. The rhetorical question enforces BranddonÃÂs major idea through a closer writer-reader relationship.
The rhetorical question, ÃÂHad we been armed as the Japanese were armed, supported in the air as they were supported, led as they were lead and motivated as they were motivated?ÃÂ implying to the reader that the Australians loss was due to the lack of preparation, determination, and poor judgement initiated by government officials.