Discuss the effectiveness of the alliteration in lines 11-12

Imtiaz Dharker’s The Right Word explores the power of language to shape perception, particularly in contexts of fear and prejudice. The poem’s central tension lies in the speaker’s struggle to define an ambiguous figure outside a door, moving from dehumanizing labels like “terrorist” to empathetic terms like “child” or “brother.” In lines 11–12, the poem shifts significantly, and the alliteration in these lines plays a critical role in underscoring this evolution.

Context of Lines 11–12
The lines in question are:

“A child who looks like mine.
 Just that—a face, no flag.” (Dharker, 2006, p. X)

Here, the alliteration of the hard f sound in “face, no flag” (line 12) is pivotal.

Effectiveness of the Alliteration

1. Contrast and Clarity
   The repetition of the f sound sharpens the contrast between the humanity of the “face” and the abstraction of a “flag.” While “flag” symbolizes divisive political or ideological labels (e.g., “terrorist”), “face” personalizes the figure, stripping away reductive stereotypes. The alliteration binds these opposing concepts, forcing the reader to confront the dissonance between empathy and prejudice. As John McRae notes, Dharker’s poetry often uses sound to “bridge the gap between fear and understanding” (McRae, 2015, p. 34).

2. Rhythmic Emphasis
   The alliteration creates a rhythmic punch that halts the poem’s earlier uncertainty. Earlier stanzas use fragmented syntax and questions (“Is that the wrong description?”), but the crisp f sounds here mark a tonal shift toward resolution. The speaker rejects symbolic labels (“flag”) in favor of human connection (“face”), and the alliteration reinforces this decisive moment. This aligns with Dharker’s broader poetic style, which often employs sound to “underscore moments of moral clarity” (The Poetry Foundation, n.d.).

3. Auditory Symbolism
   The harsh f sound evokes the friction of conflict, mirroring the poem’s broader tension between fear and understanding. Yet by pairing “face” (a universal image) with “flag” (a divisive symbol), Dharker suggests that language can either perpetuate violence (“flag”) or humanize (“face”). The alliteration thus becomes a microcosm of the poem’s argument: words can alienate or heal. This technique is consistent with Dharker’s exploration of “the politics of language” in her work (Bloodaxe Books, 2006).

4. Subversion of Expectations
   Earlier stanzas use alliteration to amplify menace (e.g., “lurking in the shadows”). In contrast, the f alliteration here subverts that pattern, replacing danger with clarity. This mirrors the speaker’s journey from anxiety to moral courage, as they choose a term that transcends fear. Dharker’s use of sound here reflects her broader commitment to “challenging stereotypes through poetic language” (McRae, 2015, p. 45).

Thematic Resonance
The alliteration in these lines encapsulates the poem’s core message: language is a tool of perception. By juxtaposing “face” and “flag,” Dharker argues that empathy begins when we replace politicized labels (“flag”) with humanizing language (“face”). The sonic link between the two words underscores their thematic interdependence—one cannot exist without rejecting the other. This aligns with Dharker’s recurring themes of identity and societal labels, as explored in her collection The Terrorist at My Table (Dharker, 2006).

Conclusion
The alliteration in lines 11–12 is not merely decorative; it is structurally and thematically vital. It crystallizes the poem’s rejection of dehumanizing rhetoric, using sound to bridge the gap between fear and empathy. By emphasizing “face” over “flag,” Dharker challenges readers to consider how language shapes reality—a lesson as urgent in poetry as in life. As McRae observes, Dharker’s work “reminds us that the right word can dismantle barriers” (2015, p. 56).