Perfecting an essay for the Exam

[Termin8er789]

I was just wondering if someone can read this Language Analysis so I will be able to perfect a formula for the exam. I would also like to know what formulas others are using for the exam.

[Ghost!]

Just thought I'd throw in a couple of tips quickly having skimmed your introduction.

- Make sure you mention who the target audience is.
- If you can fit it in somewhere, mention who the stake holders in the issue are.
- Try to address the fundamentals of an LA essay in more than one line - ie, tone + date of publication + title + author + contention instead of formulaic-ly addressing each individually.

Hope this was helpful.

[seretide]

Just had a second to look at your intro.

You should really follow this structure:

1. A general sentence about the topic (1 sentence)
2. State the author, title and date + contention in a very simple way (1-2 sentences)
3. After the simple contention follow through with a much more complex contention; maybe the writer is attacking a certain audience or authoirty?
4. Talk about the techniques and maybe try to link with the contention in how it makes readers feel ( very simple as to not cause repetitiveness in your paragraphs!)

Just as a side note, if the writer used techniques like connotations, repetitiveness e.t.c all of these should be placed under the word 'literary devices' rather than stating each one.

I'll try to read it the rest later!

[jane1234]

Just had a second to look at your intro.

You should really follow this structure:

1. A general sentence about the topic (1 sentence)
2. State the author, title and date + contention in a very simple way (1-2 sentences)
3. After the simple contention follow through with a much more complex contention; maybe the writer is attacking a certain audience or authoirty?
4. Talk about the techniques and maybe try to link with the contention in how it makes readers feel ( very simple as to not cause repetitiveness in your paragraphs!)

Just as a side note, if the writer used techniques like connotations, repetitiveness e.t.c all of these should be placed under the word 'literary devices' rather than stating each one.

I'll try to read it the rest later!

I wouldn't mention the techniques in the intro - it's too generic and unsophisticated. Language analysis is NOT about picking the techniques and listing them, it's about looking at the piece as a whole and analysing how the language persuades the reader, using the techniques to explore this, and always how they affect the reader. In the intro, you can't go into much depth so I'd avoid mentioning the techniques as you would just be listing them with no analysis attached, which essentially tells the reader nothing. However, I would mention at least TWO different types of TONE used in the piece, and the general impact on the audience.

[seretide]

"I wouldn't mention the techniques in the intro - it's too generic and unsophisticated."

Yes - however, I still think it might be necessary. Definitely not listing the techniques, more a mention of 'literary devices' and of the image which would most probably accompany the text in the exam... In my opinion.

[VivaTequila]

I hope I don't get flamed for saying play it by ear.

As a lit student I hate structure as we're freer in Literature. I would include techniques in the introduction if they fit, which to say if the piece is obviously split into two sections with two main agendas, then discuss the overall technique that they are doing. Don't mention a few standalone examples unless they reign throughout the piece and are constantly reiterated.

[RossiJ]

I hope I don't get flamed for saying play it by ear.

As a lit student I hate structure as we're freer in Literature. I would include techniques in the introduction if they fit, which to say if the piece is obviously split into two sections with two main agendas, then discuss the overall techniques that they are utilizing. Don't mention a few standalone examples unless they reign throughout the piece and are constantly reiterated.

edited for a horrendous grammatical error

you know you can just click the modify button on your post instead of re-posting all together? noob Baxter

[Anon123]

Do not mention the terms "techniques" or devices at all in your essay, it shows that you are merely searching for devices, and not the task which is to analyse the piece as a whole. I was taught that LA was all about identifying techniques and just P.I.S.Sing in year 11...needless to say it messed me up bad for the LA at the start of the year, C+ lol....

Focus on the essay as a whole, "zoom in" on certain terms or words and analyse the language. Personally I at the moment, try and have 2-3 paragraphs on wide angle observations, and 1-2 paragraphs analysing specific use of words/phrases, just depends on the way in which it is written.

Yes you can say something like "the author attempts to use his authoritative position to sway readers...", which is pretty much a technique, but avoid summarising these things in the intro/conclusion by saying "through use of ..... techniques/devices",

[VivaTequila]

didnt work

[holytank]

hmm, my teacher taught us the simple and somewhat methodical method of using DEER for language analysis
that is, Device, Example, Effect on the reader (how it influences their mind, emotions etc) and the Result on the reader (how does it effect the reader and what action does it lead to if that makes sense?)
It is incredibly formulaic but i think it seems to work pretty well =)

[nacho]

for exam preparation, its essential you stop doing news articles and try out what they've given you and practice exams
you have to be comfortable with writing on magazines, webpages, speeches etc
because if your not, youll be sitting there thinking 'the writer of the article...' <--- wait its not an article mind blank ! /:

[paulsterio]

I don't have any sort of formula, I just loosely base my language analysis around how the writer positions the reader. So like I just talk loosely about what they're doing, and how it affects the reader, I try to be as un-formulaic as possible, because if you read the examiners reports, they discourage formulaic responses, you have to be able to understand and talk about how the writer positions you to take on his point of view. Imagine you are the writer and you're explaining why you wrote the way you did and what you were trying to do, that's how I've been writing my analysis and my teacher seems to like them

Also, I think that in order to achieve cohesion in your writing, you have to stop trying to force your analysis to sound like some formula, you have to be more free-flowing and sort of "talk about" not routinely analyse the article. There's an analysis which is written by the Chief Examiner, Bob Hillman, which you might want to read. I'll try to find it.

Here: http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=136&intversion=259

WHILE perusing an edition of The Age, an article caught my eye because of its accompanying, oversized photograph. The article was in the paper's news section and appeared on the top right of page 11. As I read the article and studied the photograph it became apparent that this was a perfect selection to analyse the way in which language - both the written word and visual - were being used to influence readers.

It highlights the notion that, practically speaking, there is no totally objective truth, no totally impartial, factual news. Whether it comes from the owner of the paper and the people he or she hires, or directives from the editorial staff, or pressure from advertisers and politicians, or simply the ''angle'' taken by the writer himself, there is always some implied viewpoint or notion that readers are expected to gain from an article.

Thus a news story - which is theoretically unbiased  - does, in fact, carry certain biases. The angle of the story, the way it is developed and the language it uses all go into influencing readers to take on a particular view.

This is not an insinuation of something untoward or surreptitious; it is simply a commentary on the manner in which information is conveyed to the public. This is not only true of newspaper articles, but, of course, almost everything we read. Cultural bias, social correctness and current accepted attitudes all go into the subconscious thinking of a writer. (Perhaps they are often even calculated and deliberate!)
The article on August 13  - ''Elderly couple give up on battle against airport'', by Andrew Heasley - exposes the story of a couple who live adjacent to Melbourne Airport and have been trying to use some of their land to construct a car park for airport patrons. If I try to offer the facts of this story devoid of subjectivity, I would state that they have now decided not to continue their plan because of the time and costs involved in achieving their goal.

Embedded within the article, however, is palpable support for Keith and Norma McLaughlin, and questions raised about the Melbourne Airport authorities and the federal government. Remembering that this is ostensibly a news article, found in the news section, it is interesting to analyse the way in which language has been used to influence readers.

The article opens emphasising the age of the McLaughlins, ''an elderly couple'', and soon after, ''both 73''.  This appeals to some of our deepest instincts in relation to helping the elderly, showing them due respect and standing up against those who would exploit the older members of our community. 

This sense of vulnerability is then juxtaposed against the litigation that has taken on ''David-versus-Goliath proportions'', a biblical allusion where the little guy ultimately triumphed over the giant. One of the true Australian cultural ideals is to support the helpless and downtrodden in the face of superior odds. Australians have always backed ''the little guy''. Heasley plays on this basic Australian principle.

The accompanying photograph reinforces many of these ideas in visual form. Keith McLaughlin is presented in a collared shirt, tie and neat slacks that lend him an air of respectability. He is immaculately dressed, perhaps implying he is someone who follows through things meticulously. Interestingly, his wife Norma is absent, possibly suggesting that she can no longer deal with the tribulations of fighting big business and government.

He is alone, by himself in his battle. The angle of the photo is looking up at Keith McLaughlin and the plane just above his head offers a clear visual of the proximity of his land to the airport. More importantly, however, is the fact that the plane is moving forward but McLaughlin is on the edge of a precipice, he cannot go any further - symbolically suggesting that he has been halted by bureaucracy. There is also a look of consternation on his face, which shows the frustration at missed opportunity for him.

It is particularly true when this ''elderly couple'' found themselves ''lined up against powerful legal teams representing the airport and the Commonwealth''. Clearly our sympathy lies with the little guy and I can't help but remember Michael Caton and that iconic Aussie movie The Castle.

 Phrases such as ''23-year ambition'', ''latest version of their plan'' and ''lengthy litigation'' all add to the feeling of frustration and unfairness felt by readers.

There is a sense of injustice for a simple desire ''to turn it into cheaper car parking'' that has been blocked by those with a vested interest. The words ''in competition with the airport'' strike at the very heart of fair economic practices. The way in which Heasley finishes the article also leaves the reader with a sense of frustration and anger towards those who have foiled this apparently sensible plan that would seemingly aid the public.

Leading into statements made by both the government and Melbourne Airport, Heasley twice employs the word ''defended'' (''defended its role in the saga'' and ''defended its actions''). The use of the word here implies that there are reasons they needed to explain their actions. It suggests some degree of guilt and that the words that follow in both cases somehow appear hollow and dismissive. The tactic of allowing a person's own words to damn them is used  and there is a tone of obfuscation in actual quotes.
Heasley then ends the piece with the statistical information that the airport ''took $94.8 million in parking fees'', which is considerable by anyone's perspective. It is interesting that he chose the verb ''took'', perhaps suggesting that this huge amount was not warranted. This is followed by another simple fact (''more than any of Australia's other five main airports'') and when placed side-by-side, the suggestion is clear that airport patrons are being ripped off.

When this is placed against the main intention of the article, readers are left with a sense of dismay and outrage that a humble, elderly couple who could have eased the financial burden on airport users have been conspiratorially denied that opportunity for the sake of obscene profits made by those who are charged with making fair decisions.

So a simple news article with an extraordinarily large photograph leaves readers with no doubt as to where its sympathies lie and the implicit invitation to share that view.

Bob Hillman is a senior English teacher at Trinity Grammar School, Kew.

See how loose it is and how nicely it reads, that's what an analysis should sound like

[burbs]

didnt work

did it for you.