Teenagers: A Despairing Glimpse At Future Generations

My piece is an argumentative article, intended for publication in a broadsheet newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph. The primary purpose is to argue a rather controversial idea based upon the semantic field of teenage culture and behaviour; however, the piece also aims to entertain with frequent use of humour through hyperbole and sarcasm, such as “Oh, how mature”. The text is aimed at an audience of educated adults, hence the formal and somewhat advanced lexis perpetuated throughout.
My piece is based on an article by Quentin Letts, from which I adopted such linguistic features as repetitive listing, comedic imagery, satirical imitation and inclusive mode of address. I realised that Letts’ style was often overly pretentious, and that he often presents views which would be seen as controversial or belligerent by most, as displayed by the declarative “Many of us are bog-standard class”. His altercations often target certain groups of people, and this was utilised in my own piece by attacking a whole generation, much to the amusement of the given audience.
Both mine and Letts’ articles are comparable in the sense that they are both self-deprecating: Letts, attacking the British whilst being a Briton himself, and me, attacking teenagers whilst acknowledging that I am a teenager myself. The use of mode of address helps to punctuate the self-inclusive nature, with the first-person plural pronoun “we” used to bridge a connection between me and teenagers, and to establish an unwanted common ground.

Although I am wholly included within the recipients of my own blame, I make it obvious that I wish to be distanced from teenagers as I am writing from a viewpoint which does not want to be related with teenagers. I utilise various methods which help emphasise my stance. A method of intimidation which Letts uses is imitation as demonstrated with the declarative “e don’t love me!”, which is thus emulated in my piece with: “ME MAM BURNT ME CHIKEN NUGETS!” which also uses satiric misspelling to hyperbolise the remark, and maintain the humour of the piece in order to conform to the purpose. The use of such imitation makes clear the dissonance between me and teenagers as it directly parodies them in a somewhat demeaning way.
Letts helps to convey his argument by use of metaphors such as “climbing down into the gutter is a dangerous tactic”. This was mirrored in my piece with the metaphor “we speedily climb the ladder of maturity, whilst our parents wait at the top” which not only presents clever imagery to affirm the point for the reader, but also provides humour in a more refined way; use of such humour is used to adjust more with the audience of the piece.
When writing the piece, I aimed to argue my point in a succinct and structured way, which would simultaneously permeate an air of humour and pretension which Letts so adequately upholds. The audience is under consideration throughout, with clear attempts to maintain formal lexis and thus appease those of higher education and class, as shown with such words as the concrete noun “cacophony” and the descriptive adjective “gargantuan”. Yet this effectively contrasts with the satiric use of informal lexis such as colloquial adjective “plastered”, and the ironic use of such text abbreviations as “TBH” and “IDK”.