ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: Ghost! on December 18, 2010, 02:10:55 pm

Title: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis
Post by: Ghost! on December 18, 2010, 02:10:55 pm
The Ghost Insides English Essay Thread.

English SS Aim 2011 - 45+

Texts
- Spies
- A Streetcar Named Desire
- Cosi
- On The Waterfront

Context - Whose Reality?


__________________________________________________________________________________


January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis - this will need to be hyperlinked

February essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Language analysis
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Good copy

Title: Re: The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Ghost! on January 24, 2011, 09:34:11 pm
January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis - "Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard." - Andrew Bolt.

In the opinion article titled "Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard" published by the Herald Sun, writer Andrew Bolt adopts an irrational and at times self righteous tone when contending the issue of the Labor parties 'fatal' and 'weak' laws regarding immigration, as well as the Governments lack of accountability in their failures. The opinion piece is targeted towards the general public, particularly those with an interest in politics, immigration and foreign affairs.

The writer commences the opinion article with the repeated use of rhetoric, asking questions like 'But why?, 'When?' and '... or after?'. This is used to create the illusion of being mislead or being poorly informed, implying to the audience that Gillard and her Government are not managing their affairs. Consequently, readers are encouraged to feel negatively towards their Government. Continuous repetition and use of rhetoric throughout the article emphasises the Governments poor handling of the immigration issue, which serves to further increase feelings of negativity towards Julia Gillard and her Government.

The writer continues his onslaught against the Labor Government by using loaded, negative language through his article. Harsh and blunt words like 'death', 'suffering' and 'scum' are used to draw attention to the brutal reality of the issue. In effect, readers are encouraged to switch the blame of the refugees deaths onto Julia Gillard and her Labor Government. Furthermore, using the dysphemism 'reckless' and it's adjectival form 'recklessly' in describing the Labor Governments removal of certain immigration laws the writer highlights the fatal outcomes that have occurred, and implying more guilt. This encourages the reader to push more blame in the direction of the Labor party. In turn, the audience may feel further disdain towards Julia Gillard and her Labor Government.

Deeper into the authors article he quotes multiple Afghan refugees who told separate media sources that "The Australian Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there" and that "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugees. If I go Australia now, it's different."  By injecting his article with the words of those who know the issue best, the refugees, the writer adds seemingly irrefutable evidence to his argument. Consequently, the reader is more likely to feel the authors contention is the truth, or at least has credibility. Quotes are also used to further on in the article. The second time is an attempt to label Julia Gillard as incompetent. The writer quotes "These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts." By using this piece of evidence the writer attempts to reveal a severe case of inaction on Julia Gillard's behalf, showing the reader an example of her avoiding questioning on the immigration issue. As a result the readers may feel further negativity towards Julia Gillard, as well as identifying her lack of action and accountability.

In addition to his text the author provides an image of a boat full of refugees crashing into Christmas Island's many rocky shores and outcrops. The picture accompanies the writers concluding words well, creating a visual for the reader to have in mind as they read the words "... we can still see their grim consequences, being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island." By providing an image along with these dire words, the readers are encouraged to face a blunt and harsh reality. The most dominant feature of the image is the water. Ice cold blue and out of control the water not only shows how impossible the weather conditions are for refugees crossing the ocean to Australia, but is also a symbol of the Labor parties lack of control on the immigration issue. The angle of the shot, as we look down onto the refugee's boat from high above on Australian soil is a solid representation of how unattainable refugee's goals of reaching Australia are. The angle also attempts to add distance between Australians and the refugees by placing the refugees in far away from Australian soil, in the bottom of the image. By creating distance, Australian readers are less inclined to feel sympathy for the refugees. The writers own quote floating in the top corner of the image is dominant. By placing it above the boat and the refugees the writer places himself in a position of authority, as he makes rulings and places judgment on what should happen with the immigration issue. The choice of language in the quote is also important in pushing the writers contention, the phrase 'risk their lives at sea' explaining what is happening to those in the image and 'Labors softer treatment' to identify who is at fault for the image and it's tragedy.  The image not only provides a shocking visual to accompany the article but provides a quick wrap up of the writers contention to anyone who sees the image in passing but does not stop to read it.

Throughout Bolt's article he attempts to identify a sense of disdain in his readers towards Julia Gillard and her Labor Government, as well as sway readers into encouraging a change in immigration laws, his textual argument compounded by a horrific image.

Title: Re: * Andrew Bolt Article Is Up - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: werdna on January 24, 2011, 10:54:21 pm
I will underline parts of your essay and give critiques on these underlined sections in red. Rewording is done in green.

In the opinion article titled, "Don't Blame Me, Blame Julia Gillard" published by the Herald Sun, writer Andrew Bolt adopts an irrational and at times self righteous tone when contending the issue - weak expression here of the Labor parties 'fatal' and 'weak' laws regarding immigration, as well as the Government's lack of accountability in their failures. The opinion piece is targeted towards the general public, particularly those with an interest in politics, immigration and foreign affairs. - good to see that you've identified the specific target audience

The writer commences opens the opinion article with the repeated use of rhetoric, asking questions like 'But why?, 'When?' and '... or after?'. - in what context are these rhetorical questions being used? What is Bolt referring to when he uses these rhetorical questions? You need to be specific with your examples. This is used to create the illusion of a mounting sense that the general public is being mislead or being poorly informed, implying to the audience that Gillard and her Government are not managing their affairs. Consequently, readers are encouraged to feel negatively towards their Government. - explain the intended effect further! Continuous repetition and use of rhetoric throughout the article emphasises the Government's poor handling of the immigration issue, which serves to further increase feelings of negativity towards Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Government.

The writer - it's okay to refer to the writer as 'the writer' sometimes, but in some instances, it may confuse the reader as it sounds like a new point or you're talking about something else continues his onslaught against the Labor Government by using loaded, negative language through his article. Harsh and blunt words like such as 'death', 'suffering' and 'scum' are used to draw attention to the brutal reality of the issue. In effect, readers are encouraged to switch the blame of the refugees deaths onto Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government. Furthermore, using the dysphemism 'reckless' and it's adjectival form - this is not an adjective, but an adverb 'recklessly' in describing the Labor Government's removal of certain immigration laws the writer highlights the fatal outcomes that have occurred, and implying implies - although this is not the right word to put in here more guilt. This encourages the reader to push more blame in the direction of the Labor party. In turn, the audience may feel further disdain towards Julia Gillard and her Labor Government. - I get the sense that the only intended effects you have thought of for this article are: (1) the pushing of blame and (2) negativity. You should try to branch out the intended effect and really be specific with the purpose and impact of such use of language, and steer clear from these more generic forms of impact - these are okay to use once or twice, but don't overuse them.

Deeper into the author's article Bolt's opinion piece, there are quotes from multiple Afghan refugees who told separate media sources that "The Australian Government has changed now. It's good for refugees there" and that "Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugees. If I go Australia now, it's different." - you need to break up these quotes. They could easily be weaved into your sentences so that your paragraph flows more seamlessly.  By injecting 1 his article with the words of those who know the issue best, the refugees, 2 the writer - do you see how bolded sections 1 and 2 clash? You need to be consistent with your use of pronouns throughout your essay! Substituing the surname 'Bolt' into bolded section 2 would do the trick IMO above adds seemingly irrefutable evidence to his argument. Consequently, the reader is more likely to feel the author's - again another pronoun clash - it is weak expression - the two bolded sections here do not intertwine contention is the truth, or at least has credibility. Quotes are also used to further on - weak expression in the article. The second time - weak expression is an attempt to label Prime Minister Julia Gillard as incompetent. The writer - personalise the piece and refer to 'Bolt' quotes "These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts." - break this quote up and weave it into your sentences, instead of chucking a whole slab in By using this piece of evidence the writer attempts to reveal a severe case of inaction on Julia Gillard's behalf, showing the reader an example of her avoiding questioning on the immigration issue. As a result the readers may feel further negativity towards Julia Gillard - repetitive use of the same intended effect, even when you are discussing a different persuasive technique , as well as identifying her lack of action and accountability.

In addition to his text the author provides an image of a boat full of refugees crashing into Christmas Island's many rocky shores and outcrops - nice and brief, well done! . The picture accompanies the writers Bolt's concluding words well, creating a visual for the reader to have in mind as they read the words "... we can still see their grim consequences, being dragged from the waters of Christmas Island." By providing an image along with these dire words, the readers are inclined to face a blunt and harsh reality. The most dominant feature of the image is the water. Ice cold blue and out of control, the water not only depicts how impossible - wrong word to use in this context the weather conditions are for refugees crossing the ocean to Australia, but is also a symbol of symbolises - be careful with your verbs! the Labor parties lack of control on the immigration issue. The angle of the shot, as we - if I remember correctly, this is the only time you've used inclusive language in your analysis. This is fine, but if you want to use words like "we" and "our" to discuss effect, you need to keep it consistent and start doing it from the start of the essay too look down onto the refugee's refugees' boat from high above on Australian soil is a solid representation of how unattainable refugee's refugees' goals of reaching Australia are. - which makes readers feel..? The angle also attempts to add distance between Australians and the refugees by placing the refugees in far away from Australian soil, in at - careful with your prepositions also the bottom of the image. By creating distance - use a different sentence starter; I've heard 'By..' and 'By..' too many times now , Australian - unnecessary readers are less inclined to feel sympathy for the refugees. The writer's own quote floating in the top corner of the image is dominant. By placing it above the boat and the refugees the writer places himself in a position of authority, as he makes rulings and places judgment on what should happen with the immigration issue. The choice of language in the quote is also important in pushing the writers Bolt's contention, the phrase 'risk their lives at sea' explaining what is happening to those in the image and 'Labors softer treatment' to identify who is at fault for the image and it's tragedy.  The image not only provides a shocking visual to accompany the article but provides a quick wrap up of the writers contention - not sure if this is just laziness or not, but you need to put in the apostrophes! to anyone who sees the image in passing but does not stop to read it.

Throughout Bolt's article he attempts - bad expression to identify a sense of disdain in his readers towards Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government, as well as sway readers into encouraging a change in immigration laws, his textual argument compounded by a horrific image - good ending statement, although the conclusion as a whole could do with a little more depth


I suggest you do a good copy and PM it to me. This is a good effort, and seeing we haven't actually started year 12 English yet, it's a job well done, bar a couple of issues you will need to deal with prior to term 1.

Final mark: 7/10.

Title: Re: * Andrew Bolt Article Is Up - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Andiio on January 24, 2011, 11:03:16 pm
Overall an alright effort, but I find that in many places there was a general lack of depth and detail, and some of your sentences need rewording. Maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda iffy with your word choice in some cases: e.g. "a quick wrap up" just sounds much too colloquial for a language analysis.


Also some grammatical errors: as well as swaying readers into encouraging - not sure if it was a typo or not.
Title: Re: * Andrew Bolt Article Is Up - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: werdna on January 24, 2011, 11:13:30 pm
Quote from: Andiio on January 24, 2011, 11:03:16 pm
Overall an alright effort, but I find that in many places there was a general lack of depth and detail, and some of your sentences need rewording. Maybe it's just me, but I'm kinda iffy with your word choice in some cases: e.g. "a quick wrap up" just sounds much too colloquial for a language analysis.


Also some grammatical errors: as well as swaying readers into encouraging - not sure if it was a typo or not.

Even changing the phrase to:

Quote
as well as swaying readers towards a change in immigration laws


would be a good idea - less words, and it's clearer.
Title: Re: * Andrew Bolt Article Is Up - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: lexitu on January 24, 2011, 11:26:23 pm
Very solid effort. Werdna's marking is about right I think, 7, perhaps pushing 8 (I haven't read the full thing). I think your main point of improvement is ensuring that you are not summarising argument but rather are analysing construction of argument and intended effects. Sometimes you slip into explaining what the author wants the reader to think/feel without articulating why and how. So good effort for January with 10 months till the the exam :) Keep it up.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: LOVEPHYSICS on January 25, 2011, 01:27:16 am
Yeah, it would make a 7 easily. Maybe a few choppy sentences here and there, but you should gain greater fluency in your writing as you practice more later in the year. As Werdna picked up, it seems as if you are struggling with the persuasive techniques of Bolt's and their specific intents on the reader. They are a bit too broad, since each technique has its own intended effect by the author, hence be careful and avoid general statements regarding Bolt's contention. Perhaps, you should ask yourself how you would feel when met with the techniques (works for me), before putting it on paper. Remember, reader affects!

All in all, I still think it is a very solid effort for an early start. Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Water on January 25, 2011, 09:12:03 am
Hey there, Ghost, I share many of the same sentiments as the commenters above. I did a read of your text, 1.5? So I'm making some general comments here. I'd be giving it a 7, missing the 8 mark. Though, this can be easily be pushed to an 8, with re drafting and using better expressions. I found your conclusion abit dull if not slacking, anyone can correct me on that, but after bombarding the reader with a series of techniques, it would be best to offer a good round up of your essay as a whole (This helps people like me who seem to forget 10 seconds after reading a whole essay.)

Secondly, at times, some expression were abit weak, it would be worthwhile to invest some time, just trying to improve the expression. In the long run, it would be prove invalueable for your other essays.  Such as , "The angle of the shot, as we look down onto the refugee's boat from high above," the word "we", could be shifted to the "as the reader overlooks". Another example is "pushing the writer's conbtention" can be reworded with "asserts" perhaps?


Overall, the essay has structure and has the potential to hit 9/10 mark and easily an 8. There are no concerning issues surrounding the essay, which means that minor fixes, expression work can always be developed over time. At times, wording can be a abit lazy but hey, its summer holidays, i guess its forgiveable.

Score: 7 - 7.5
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Cappuccinos on January 25, 2011, 02:35:36 pm
Overall good job :) 
It's a good length and you've done a good job with stating the persuasive techniques and listing examples :)
However I think there could be a better use of words and expressions and it could 'flow' a bit better?
Oh and the conclusions a bit 'iffy'
Maybe use the word 'persuade' instead of 'sway'?  Oh and to make it a bit more lengthy, our teacher always tells us to write how effective the article in the conclusion.

E.g (I've done it like Werdna, comments in red & suggested rewording in green)

Quote from: The Ghost Inside! on January 24, 2011, 09:34:11 pm
Throughout Bolt's article he attempts to identify (hmm not sure if this is the right word? Do you mean like, 'draw out' Maybe a good word would be "elicit"?)  a sense of disdain in his readers towards Prime Minister  Julia Gillard and her Labor Government, as well as and  sway persuade readers into encouraging a change in immigration laws through the use of (list persuasive techniques e.g rhetorical questions etc) which is (effective/ineffective etc.) to get Bolt's point of across and a his textual argument compounded by a horrific image. (erm, i'm not really sure what you mean by compound, maybe the word 'cements' would fit  better?)horrific image cements  his textual argument


Again they’re only suggestions, not corrections, so you don’t have to accept them. Also I’m no ‘pro’ at language analysis but hopefully it’s still helpful. :)


Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: taiga on January 25, 2011, 02:43:44 pm
A little sentence about the context of the issue generally always makes it sound alot better :) The structure of the opening paragraph could also be reworded to flow a bit nicer.

"Continuous repetition and use of rhetoric throughout the article emphasises the Governments poor handling of the immigration issue, which serves to further increase feelings of negativity towards Julia Gillard and her Government."
I can see what you are trying to say, but you are not saying it. Many markers will "check the boxes" when marking a language analysis, so I think you need to specifically mention how the audience is positioned as a result of the rhetoric. You should also perhaps include why it may conflict with the views of a certain part of the audience, and hence position them to feel in a certain way.

Otherwise I like how you are seeing what the article/portions of the text are doing; but you are falling into the trap of not being able to translate that into words. You are definitely off to a good start though :)

That's most of what I have to offer for this, but I think it's generally not too bad, I would give it somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5 :)
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: lexitu on January 25, 2011, 02:44:30 pm
Quote from: Steph243 on January 25, 2011, 02:35:36 pm
Oh and to make it a bit more lengthy, our teacher always tells us to write how effective the article in the conclusion.

I think your teacher is giving bad advice here. The task is to analyse language, not to evaluate the validity and/or effectiveness of the text. Although assessors accommodate for different approaches that are taught (e.g. some schools ask students to speculate where the issue may go in their conclusion) this might be stretching it. The only opinion you present apropos of the text is that of your interpretation of what the author is trying to do.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Andiio on January 25, 2011, 02:58:08 pm
Quote from: lexitu on January 25, 2011, 02:44:30 pm
Quote from: Steph243 on January 25, 2011, 02:35:36 pm
Oh and to make it a bit more lengthy, our teacher always tells us to write how effective the article in the conclusion.

I think your teacher is giving bad advice here. The task is to analyse language, not to evaluate the validity and/or effectiveness of the text. Although assessors accommodate for different approaches that are taught (e.g. some schools ask students to speculate where the issue may go in their conclusion) this might be stretching it. The only opinion you present apropos of the text is that of your interpretation of what the author is trying to do.

Yeah, evaluation is a no-no

TRUST LEX - he is a god.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: darcy42 on January 25, 2011, 03:00:41 pm
I did what Steph243 is referring to in the exam, and scored 9.5. I wouldn't say it's a complete no-no.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: taiga on January 25, 2011, 03:14:13 pm
Yeah I don't think evaluating the article can be of major harm, the only pitfall is that there are some very close minded markers out there who may mark you down =\
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: Cappuccinos on January 25, 2011, 03:24:24 pm
Quote from: lexitu on January 25, 2011, 02:44:30 pm
Quote from: Steph243 on January 25, 2011, 02:35:36 pm
Oh and to make it a bit more lengthy, our teacher always tells us to write how effective the article in the conclusion.

I think your teacher is giving bad advice here. The task is to analyse language, not to evaluate the validity and/or effectiveness of the text. Although assessors accommodate for different approaches that are taught (e.g. some schools ask students to speculate where the issue may go in their conclusion) this might be stretching it. The only opinion you present apropos of the text is that of your interpretation of what the author is trying to do.

Hahah, probably. She wasn't a very good teacher >.<
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: lexitu on January 25, 2011, 04:44:00 pm
All essays are imperfect in their own way. I'm not saying it's going to cost you hugely, just that it "might be stretching it". Almost indisputably though it's not a correct thing to do for language analysis and the mistakes that you make accumulate so obviously it's better not to do it. It also doesn't contribute to making your analysis any longer because you're not adhering to the task. The substance of the piece isn't changed, or if anything it suffers.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: leona0123 on January 25, 2011, 04:55:38 pm
Hey there,
Overall I would say this is a good effort at analysing Bolt's article. One thing that I would suggest is to talk about any appeals that the author makes in the article. Quickly reading through Bolt's piece, I can see that he has made several attacks on the Labor government and backed these up with anecdotal and statistical evidence. To me this seems like an attempt to appeal to the audience's sense of reason, as Bolt has made them (the audience) feel as though it would be irrational to disagree with him since there is so much evidence supporting his argument.
By describing the fatal incidents involving the boat people, Bolt also appeals to sympathy, sense of justice and social responsibility. The reader feels sorry for the refugees and feels as though justice needs to be served. They also feel the social responsibility to support Bolt's argument, as doing otherwise might make them seem partly responsible for, or as though they are in favour of, the deaths of the refugees.
Hopefully this makes sense! I'd give you a 6-7/10 overall. Well done :)
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 25, 2011, 05:58:46 pm
Attached.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: EvangelionZeta on January 25, 2011, 06:11:05 pm
Also I'd like to add that perhaps you could make the image analysis two paragraphs, since 340 words is a bit long.  My preferred format is to have one paragraph on the image by itself, and the other on the image in relation to the article.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: LOVEPHYSICS on January 25, 2011, 07:32:51 pm
Well regarding the evaluating LA pieces issue, I have to agree with Lexitu. ^^ Our school certainly does not endorse it, and nor would I. I just don't think it's a risk worth taking in the exam.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: jaccerz on January 26, 2011, 12:33:33 am
just thought i would add, I was told last year when i did it, that if the information gives you the date of the article, to include it in your first sentence. otherwise you lose marks for it.
Title: Re: January Week Three - The Ghost Inside's thread
Post by: LOVEPHYSICS on January 26, 2011, 06:46:46 pm
To lose a mark straight without the date, that is pretty tight in my opinion. It certainly wouldn't go down well with the examiners, but to say it would lose a mark on its own, I think that's pushing it. Really, I have been saying this time and time again. Examiners mark you by what you have done correctly, they don't specifically look for stuff to penalise you. In the end, just play by the game and try not to do something outrageous.