"Skiing into Oblivion"-Language Analysis

[simon_93]

Hey there everyone

This is my first attempt at writing a language analysis under timed conditions ( 50 minutes) this year. I was hoping I could receive some feedback, relating to anything I have written or simply some suggestions on how to improve. Any help would be greatly appreciated
The link to the article is:

http://ggsbbint.ggs.vic.edu.au/english/Miscellaneous%20Pages/Exam%20Papers/VATE%20exam%202008.pdf

I couldn't manage to find an actual online version of the article, so you'll have to scroll down to Section 3 of the above practice exam. Apologies for the inconvenience.


Skiing into Oblivion-Language Analysis

Over the past few years, the issue of whether our lifestyles are environmentally and economically unsustainable has been the subject of ongoing debate.

Written by Paul Evans and published in a weekly metropolitan news magazine (as well as on its website), “Skiing into Oblivion” is an opinionative piece which reflects on the ways in which the earth’s resources are being used in a profligate way to maintain unsustainable lifestyles. Contending in a predominantly concerned and rational tone, Evans argues that we are “consuming the planet’s resources…as if there were no tomorrow”, but that “it is still possible to change direction and take a conservationist route”. This piece is targeted towards the general public, particularly towards readers of an adult generation who live in urban areas, or those who are passionate about environmental sustainability.

Evans commences by exploring the notion of “skiing” as a metaphor for the unsustainable “route that we are taking”. Titled “skiing into oblivion”, the piece immediately establishes within the readers’ minds a sense of urgency, through the use of “oblivion”-a word which connotes imminent peril- and “skiing”, which alludes to the dangers associated with the sport. The skiing metaphor later reappears towards the end of the article, to give a sense of completion to the piece. Whilst still suggesting that the road ahead is hazardous, a beacon of hope is offered to readers in that we may still “survive the ride”, which serves to encourage readers to consider the author’s proposed methods of solving the problem.

In order to substantiate his claims, the author then proceeds to provide two prime examples which exemplify his contention- that our “rampant consumerism” is harming the environment. Selecting two issues which concern the majority of Australians-water restrictions and fuel prices- the author uses powerful words such as “crisis” and “pain” to emphasize the “dire” situation that we are faced with. Our national concerns are then juxtaposed with those of our own, which in contrast, are presented in a heavily understated manner, through words such as “inconvenience”, which connote a sense of mild discomfort. This inevitably causes readers to feel petty and selfish about assigning higher importance to their own concerns above those of the nations’, thus, influencing readers to take “proactive” action to counter the growing problem.

The article then continues to apportion responsibility to us as individuals and to society as a whole. Through the statement that many people living in cities still drive “high-powered cars” as opposed to the “more environmentally responsible options”, the author implies that these people are therefore not “environmentally responsible”- an insinuation which may cause readers to feel guilty about their own car use and thus, consider switching to an alternative “that would still meet their needs”, as the author suggests. To compound the level of guilt within readers and further encourage them to take affirmative action, Evans proceeds to appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism. Using the collective “we”, the author instils a sense of national pride and togetherness within the audience, manipulating their desire to see Australia prosper and transforming that desire into a form of motivation for rectifying the problem which is present.

In addition, Evans identifies the underlying cause as our need to “have the latest toys and technologies the instant they are made available”. In order to describe our need, the author uses the words “symptom” and “state”-words which connote a sense of ill-being and impairment. The negative connotations surrounding these words suggest to the readers that our obsession with having the latest “gadgets” (which in itself has negative frivolous connotations) is detrimental to our wellbeing and thus, places the readers in such as position as to agree with the author that we must “change direction”.

Accompanying Paul Evans’ opinionative piece is a large photograph, which is depicted in such a way as to show implicit agreement with Evans’ contention that the earth’s resources are being consumed at an unreasonable and unsustainable rate. The most striking and obvious feature of the photograph is the giant pile of computer screens, which occupies the entire lower-left segment of the photo’s foreground. The vast number of computers illustrates the photographer’s view that throwing out computer screens is a commonplace act and a result of what Evans describes as the need to  “have the latest toys and technologies” and also links in with the notion of swift obsolescence ( the irony being that computers themselves are a fairly recent technological development).  Located above the pile of computer screens is a large advertisement for “Hummer”, a company which specializes in manufacturing large, four-wheel drive cars. The car being advertised in this commercial is a prime example of what Evans would call a “gas-guzzling 4WD”. By placing this commercial above the pile of computers, it would appear that our society today is indeed one based on “rampant consumerism”. Lastly, our attention is drawn towards to the background, where there is one single tree, whose appearance gives the impression that it is fragile and sickly. Here, the photographer is trying to make two points-firstly, the positioning of the tree behind the computers and advertisement suggests that we as a society place more emphasis on material goods than we do about the environment, which is as the photo suggests, nothing more than a “background” issue. The second and more subtle point is that just as we as the viewers are more likely to notice the tree/representation of the environment last, so too do we have the tendency to consider the environment last, tending to perhaps “glance” past the issue. By combining these three elements, it is apparent that the photographer is trying to convey to the viewers that we are too wasteful and too entrenched within our materialistic world to notice the impact which it is having on the environment. By presenting such a confronting photograph to viewers, the photographer attempts to evoke guilt and concern within the audience and thus, positions them to be more mindful about their actions and their respective impacts on the environment.

The crux of Evans’ article resides in its controlled use of figurative language and words with distinct connotations, both of which lead readers to make several assumptions and draw conclusions in support of the author’s contention. Such support is further acquired by the unassuming yet poignant photograph which accompanies the written piece. It is through such an intricate composition that Evans and the photographer intend to persuade readers that we must reduce our consumption of the earth’s resources by acting now and changing our unsustainable lifestyles.

[simon_93]

Bump.
Any feedback would be really useful for this- please help!

[paulsterio]

It's quite good Simon, theres usually not much that can usually be said about language analysis, but you did very well in maintaining how the writer manages to persuade the reader, that is really the crux of language analysis and you've done well here, i think where you can improve is your line of analysis, it seems as if you didn't pick up the article's line of analysis very well, and that you manage to analyse small bits and pieces of the piece and never really talk about the piece in general

I'm not an English expert by any means, but I do well on Language Analysis, and that's just my 2 cents

[simon_93]

where you can improve is your line of analysis, it seems as if you didn't pick up the article's line of analysis very well, and that you manage to analyse small bits and pieces of the piece and never really talk about the piece in general

Are you Paul Ngyuen??? Long time no see! Do you still remember me, from back in the years 7&8? days

Anywho, back to the point.
First of all, thanks for the feedback.
Secondly, when you mentioned the " article's line of analysis ", what exactly did you mean? Are you suggesting that I perhaps didn't pick up on the 'big ideas' or the contention of the piece? If that is the case, how would I be able to address this issue?

My tendency with language analysis is to focus on the use of specific language, tone or other literary devices, then discuss its implications and impact on the target audience. After each small 'discussion' I try to state how it adds depth/ furthers the author's overall contention. Should I perhaps try to focus on the latter half a bit more?

Thanks

[paulsterio]

hahah yes i do simon
and yes i am paul nguyen

yeah i think you've got it there, cause like you didnt seem to talk much about the piece as a whole, like how it comes together to persuade the reader, and you didn't talk much about the contention of the author, like that's what i like to do with my analyses

but hmm, im not exactly an expert in english, so if maybe someone else here wants to comment on whether what im saying is true, then please do!