English language Mini Investigation

Introduction
For my investigation I have decided to look at how Marcus Rashford makes
linguistic choices to gain public support as well as to address the issue of
systematic racism embedded in our society. This issue has been long-standing,
and despite a recent push is still a subject prevalent today. I will explore the
linguistic choices of Rashford, to show how he conveys theses topics in his
open letter to Parliament, and how it helps him push his overarching argument
for his campaign. I will also explore Rashford’s use of euphemistic language
and how he utilises this to speak to and relate to a more specific audience,
whilst maintaining his formal register to communicate with Members of
Parliament. Given Rashford’s choice of an open letter, I am intrigued to see
how he communicates his thoughts as his audience is a very diverse one, and
he needs to appeal to the public in order for his campaign to gain traction.

How Rashford represents himself

When representing himself, Rashford faces a dilemma: he can either aim to

appeal to the public, or to those who ultimately make the decision on whether
his campaign is successful. In the end, Marcus opts to make himself a symbol
for the public, representing his voice as the citizens of England’s. From the first
sentence this becomes clear. Rashford uses a flashback to reminisce on his
International performance for England when he became the youngest player
to score in his first senior game. Despite being seemingly irrelevant to his
campaign, he does this as it was a time when he was representing the nation,
which he is aiming to do again. Rashford states: “I watched the crowds waving
their flags and fist-pumping the three lions on their shirts.” This imagery
connotes success and togetherness; England was unified with what was (quite
literally) a common goal. It was a time of national pride, and Rashford wants to
bring us back to that as he once again brings us together with a different
objective. After he has established himself as a speaker for the nation, it is here
he first explicitly mentions race and also when it becomes abundantly clear:
Rashford is the common ground between patriots who may have racist views,
and the black community that may struggle to identify with a nation that
seemingly neglects them.

How euphemistic language is employed to

represent race
“Understand: without the kindness and generosity of the community, there
wouldn’t be the Marcus Rashford you see today: a 22-year old Black man lucky
enough to make a career playing the game I love.” This conjures up a very
powerful message – Rashford is giving credit to his success from “the
community” of his past. The specific mention of being a “Black man” gives us
information that this is important in his upbringing.
We are told his “story to get here is all-too-familiar for families in England” and
that “the system was not built for families like mine to succeed, regardless of
how hard my mum worked”. Here the prior mention of him describing himself
as a “22-year old Black man” becomes very powerful. By saying “the system
was not built for…” Rashford is using euphemistic language for the systemic
racism England exhibits. He is saying that being black has made it much harder
for his mother to get by. The term “family” used in this passage is another
example of euphemistic language, as it is a collective representation of those
who are fighting poverty. Furthermore, when telling us this (his background),
the prior formal language is reduced, making it appeal more to the general
public, even using the colloquialism “digs”.

How Rashford uses discourse to appeal to the public

Of course, despite the prevalent theme of race throughout the letter,
Rashford's main goal is to sway Members of Parliament and gain public
backing. In the antepenultimate paragraph repetition is present in the form of
asyndetic lists. Whilst this is used as a device to represent the importance of
what he is saying, what is key here is Rashford’s use of possessive pronouns.
“My mum, my family, my neighbours, and my coaches” and later on “myself,
my family, and my community”. In between these, he states that “the only
stats I am associated with are goals, appearances and caps.” The lack of
pronouns in comparison to the other lists show he does not wish this was the
case. It is evident here that although he is viewed as a footballer, what he
identifies with is much more than that, he is a representative for the black
community, and this is where his heart lies. It is clear within the context of this
letter, that his footballing ability is no more than a platform for his campaign.
The overarching structure of the text is also used to gain public backing. The
first page exemplifies Ethos – Marcus Rashford explains who he is (paragraph
one) and then his background/what makes the subject relevant to him
(paragraphs two, three and five). In the first paragraph, synthetic
personalisation helps him gain the audience’s trust. He uses the first person to
tell his story, and then uses the second person (“you see today”) to make it
seem as if it is one on one, Rashford telling his story to you, the viewer.
Logos is displayed throughout the middle of the text, appealing to the logical
reasoning of the reader. This is also where Rashford targets his appeal to the
Members of Parliament, and is the proof backing the campaign. Words like
“hardship” and “perspective” contribute to a Latinate lexis targeted at these
people. Facts and numbers are also displayed, supporting his argument with
statistics from 2018-2019, 9 out of 30 children in any given classroom were
living in poverty in the UK.
Lastly, Pathos is used. Here it is used to summarise his argument and to
represent the public as a force for change. We are told “the eyes of the nation
are on you” (you being the government). The noun “nation” denotes a large
collective, and it is personified with “the eyes.” This implies the nation is alive
and watching the governments every move, impatiently waiting for change. A
rhetorical question is also used directly at MPs. “Political affiliations aside, can
we not all agree that no child should be going to bed hungry?” Rashford uses
this to represent Members of Parliament as ignorant and unforgiving. After all,
“this is not about politics; it is about humanity.”

Summary
As Nelson Mandela once said - “Sport has the power to change the world. It
has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little
else does.” From one iconic activist to another, Rashford exemplifies this. From
twitter to the pitch, Rashford shows us that change is always possible. This is
not about politics; this is about humanity.