99.90 pls' Language Analysis

[99.90 pls]

Hi everyone! Was hoping someone could give me feedback on my Language Analysis! It's written for the NEAP 2010 Section C: http://www.dropbox.com/s/fbqge6f0wrdtn8g/2010%20NEAP%20Section%20C.pdf?dl=0

I wrote this with pen and paper with 10 mins read + 63 mins write. It's 752 words. If someone could give a mark, that'd be awesome too! But any sort of feedback would be greatly appreciated

Spoiler

In response to mounting community concern about the number of young people killed or injured in road crashes, Elly Hart, a Year 10 student has written an opinion piece for Ednews, titled ‘Driving the Highway from Destruction!’ She contends, in a fervent and outraged tone, that young people should cooperate to promote safe driving, rather than passively allowing authorities to continue their ineffectual, blanket condemnation of all young people. As a result, her piece is targeted at young drivers.

Introducing “Young” Elly Hart immediately connects her with her intended demographic, dispelling young readers’ preconceived notions of age and authority which are usually associated with those who promote safe driving. This natural camaraderie is developed by Hart’s repeated use of the inclusive “we” in “…we are all the same”, “…what can we, as young people, do” and “Are we going to…”, establishing for readers the notion that they are all striving for a common goal, united by their “[youth]”. Employing epithets such as “idiots” and “petrol heads” allows Hart to further polarise this dichotomy between “we”, the “young people”, versus the issue at hand; the objectification of these people engenders derision and scorn in the reader, allowing them to empathise with Hart’s vehement tone and “[anger]”.

Embodying the media as a “jock” implies that the media is superficial and lacking in logic and rationality, provoking the reader to feel that they value sensationalism over the truth; that is, they “are biased” and “encourage… [negativity] and [condemnation]” for the sake of attention. As a result, the reader is guided to believe, as Hart contends, that authorities do not possess the responsibility to handle an issue of such gravity and thus, the issue should be delegated to young people. The quotation marks enveloping “have your say” insinuate hidden and potentially sinister ulterior motives, engendering further mistrust in the reader towards the media. By contrast, Hart’s own exclamation mark in “…it’s grossly unfair to assume we are all the same!” connotes passion and unambiguous truth; this effect, in conjunction with the righteous tone, invites the reader to view the authorities as shady and Hart’s “young people” as honest, in a stark dichotomy of integrity.

Her use of “clog” to describe proposals such as raising the drinking age and authority-sanctioned campaigns implies that these plans are both disposable and impeding truly valuable ideas, similar to the way waste in a pipe must be removed. Thus, the reader is inclined to view these propositions as hackneyed and time-wasting. By contrast, the fresh, random polygons in her second image and the diverse range of fonts suggests that there are new, innovative ideas which have not yet been utilised. The inclusion of various artistic forms and drawing styles in her poster also inspires creativity, acting as a springboard for readers to design their own ideas and slogans, as per Hart’s call to action: “Please join me… Contributes your ideas…” Hart’s use of the word “preaching” is, on the other hand, resonant of trite dogma, compounding, in readers’ minds, the notion that young people must free themselves from institutionalised indoctrination, which Hart staunchly opposes.

The various street signs in Hart’s first image reinforces the idea that there are still myriad undiscovered innovations with regards to road safety; the formerly trite polygons (triangles, squares, octagons) are circles have been re-arranged to create an artistic floral-esque arrangement which is visually appealing and attention-grabbing. The relative ease of simply rearranging signs also encourages readers to attempt their own designs, as it seems effortless and simple.

Hart’s use of “torn apart” evokes both the literal, gruesome image of being ripped open by a road accident, as well as the emotional tearing and breaking – heartbreak – which couples “[death]” or “injury” of “someone [loved]”. These emotions – trepidation and mourning – synergise to make the reader feel vulnerable and, thus, anxious for a way by which they can avoid or escape this physical and mental pain. Hart capitalises on this moment of vulnerability by immediately offering a clear, succinct solution (“contribute your ideas”); readers are extremely inclined to accept this, as her pragmatism and renewed strength offer a welcome relief from the hypotheticals and uncertainty which she has just previously evoked.

Finally, the ellipse in her concluding suggestion, “…to get you thinking…”, infuses readers with a renewed hope for the unknown future, a hope which is, however, conditional on their “[contribution]”. This, in conjunction with the catch alliteration and rhyming of “cooperation, not condemnation”, conveys the contention in a way which is both memorable and profound for the reader.

[Orb]

Hi everyone! Was hoping someone could give me feedback on my Language Analysis! It's written for the NEAP 2010 Section C: http://www.dropbox.com/s/fbqge6f0wrdtn8g/2010%20NEAP%20Section%20C.pdf?dl=0

I wrote this with pen and paper with 10 mins read + 63 mins write. It's 752 words. If someone could give a mark, that'd be awesome too! But any sort of feedback would be greatly appreciated

Spoiler

In response to mounting community concern about the number of young people killed or injured in road crashes, Elly Hart, a Year 10 student has written an opinion piece for Ednews, titled ‘Driving the Highway from Destruction!’ She contends, in a fervent and outraged tone, that young people should cooperate to promote safe driving, rather than passively allowing authorities to continue their ineffectual, blanket condemnation of all young people. As a result, her piece is targeted at young drivers.

Introducing “Young” Elly Hart immediately connects her with her intended demographic, dispelling young readers’ preconceived notions of age and authority which are usually associated with those who promote safe driving. This natural camaraderie is developed by Hart’s repeated use of the inclusive “we” in “…we are all the same”, “…what can we, as young people, do” and “Are we going to…”, establishing for readers the notion that they are all striving for a common goal, united by their “[youth]”. Employing epithets such as “idiots” and “petrol heads” allows Hart to further polarise this dichotomy between “we”, the “young people”, versus the issue at hand; the objectification of these people engenders derision and scorn in the reader, allowing them to empathise with Hart’s vehement tone and “[anger]”.

Embodying the media as a “jock” implies that the media is superficial and lacking in logic and rationality, provoking the reader to feel that they value sensationalism over the truth; that is, they “are biased” and “encourage… [negativity] and [condemnation]” for the sake of attention. As a result, the reader is guided to believe, as Hart contends, that authorities do not possess the responsibility to handle an issue of such gravity and thus, the issue should be delegated to young people. The quotation marks enveloping “have your say” insinuate hidden and potentially sinister ulterior motives, engendering further mistrust in the reader towards the media. By contrast, Hart’s own exclamation mark in “…it’s grossly unfair to assume we are all the same!” connotes passion and unambiguous truth; this effect, in conjunction with the righteous tone, invites the reader to view the authorities as shady and Hart’s “young people” as honest, in a stark dichotomy of integrity.

Her use of “clog” to describe proposals such as raising the drinking age and authority-sanctioned campaigns implies that these plans are both disposable and impeding truly valuable ideas, similar to the way waste in a pipe must be removed. Thus, the reader is inclined to view these propositions as hackneyed and time-wasting. By contrast, the fresh, random polygons in her second image and the diverse range of fonts suggests that there are new, innovative ideas which have not yet been utilised. The inclusion of various artistic forms and drawing styles in her poster also inspires creativity, acting as a springboard for readers to design their own ideas and slogans, as per Hart’s call to action: “Please join me… Contributes your ideas…” Hart’s use of the word “preaching” is, on the other hand, resonant of trite dogma, compounding, in readers’ minds, the notion that young people must free themselves from institutionalised indoctrination, which Hart staunchly opposes.

The various street signs in Hart’s first image reinforces the idea that there are still myriad undiscovered innovations with regards to road safety; the formerly trite polygons (triangles, squares, octagons) are circles have been re-arranged to create an artistic floral-esque arrangement which is visually appealing and attention-grabbing. The relative ease of simply rearranging signs also encourages readers to attempt their own designs, as it seems effortless and simple.

Hart’s use of “torn apart” evokes both the literal, gruesome image of being ripped open by a road accident, as well as the emotional tearing and breaking – heartbreak – which couples “[death]” or “injury” of “someone [loved]”. These emotions – trepidation and mourning – synergise to make the reader feel vulnerable and, thus, anxious for a way by which they can avoid or escape this physical and mental pain. Hart capitalises on this moment of vulnerability by immediately offering a clear, succinct solution (“contribute your ideas”); readers are extremely inclined to accept this, as her pragmatism and renewed strength offer a welcome relief from the hypotheticals and uncertainty which she has just previously evoked.

Finally, the ellipse in her concluding suggestion, “…to get you thinking…”, infuses readers with a renewed hope for the unknown future, a hope which is, however, conditional on their “[contribution]”. This, in conjunction with the catch alliteration and rhyming of “cooperation, not condemnation”, conveys the contention in a way which is both memorable and profound for the reader.

Not sure if i'm qualified since you'll probably get a higher English S.S than me, but i'll give it a try

A few problems in that
- you always say 'the reader', try to vary up the targeted audience, surely it's not just young drivers?
- 'the use of' is a taboo, try to just say, instead of: Her use of “clog” to describe proposals or her use of 'torn apart' --> The imagery of torn apart encapsulates.. etc
- there isn't a set way of concluding the essay but the teachers here suggest adopting a summary-type conclusion in terms of the overall effect instead of analysing further. (i.e author tries to connote, tries to insinuate etc)
- don't use square brackets if it's just for one quote "[anger]" the general use is discouraged and you'd probably be better off finding a more pertinent quote if possible

Overall i'd say 9/10, demonstrates major aspects very strongly, just a few tidbits to work on

[99.90 pls]

Thanks for the feedback!

- you always say 'the reader', try to vary up the targeted audience, surely it's not just young drivers?

I've noticed this too - it's quite dry, but I'm not sure what else to say besides 'the reader'. In this case, the targeted audience is very specific (young drivers). Are there any other phrases or words I might be able to use instead? e.g. 'the audience'?

- there isn't a set way of concluding the essay but the teachers here suggest adopting a summary-type conclusion in terms of the overall effect instead of analysing further. (i.e author tries to connote, tries to insinuate etc)

Would one or two lines suffice? Because I feel as if the introduction pretty much covers everything 'overall' about the text (e.g. overall tone, style and contention are all in the intro so what else is there left to say?)

-'the use of' is a taboo, try to just say, instead of: Her use of “clog” to describe proposals or her use of 'torn apart' --> The imagery of torn apart encapsulates.. etc
- don't use square brackets if it's just for one quote "[anger]" the general use is discouraged and you'd probably be better off finding a more pertinent quote if possible

Will do, thanks again, really really appreciated! Good luck on Wednesday brother

[heids]

I've noticed this too - it's quite dry, but I'm not sure what else to say besides 'the reader'. In this case, the targeted audience is very specific (young drivers). Are there any other phrases or words I might be able to use instead? e.g. 'the audience'?

Alternate between the readers, the audience, the readership, and more specific terms like young drivers. (or if it's a speech, the audience and the viewers)

Would one or two lines suffice? Because I feel as if the introduction pretty much covers everything 'overall' about the text (e.g. overall tone, style and contention are all in the intro so what else is there left to say?)

Yeah, 1-2 sentences should be fine; just think about the 'meatiest' or most 'profound' way of discussing their overall style that you can, or (the way I like it) the main ways they try to influence the audience (e.g. trying to get the audience to ridicule X, or trying to arouse fear about Y, or trying to get them to support Z, or trying to get them to feel really sorry for AA)/the action they want the audience to take/the message they try to leave their audience with.  Something like that, which ends up a bit different from the intro.   But yeah, since it's short, it doesn't matter if you rehash the intro anyway, should take you about a minute.

[99.90 pls]

Alternate between the readers, the audience, the readership, and more specific terms like young drivers. (or if it's a speech, the audience and the viewers)

Yeah, 1-2 sentences should be fine; just think about the 'meatiest' or most 'profound' way of discussing their overall style that you can, or (the way I like it) the main ways they try to influence the audience (e.g. trying to get the audience to ridicule X, or trying to arouse fear about Y, or trying to get them to support Z, or trying to get them to feel really sorry for AA)/the action they want the audience to take/the message they try to leave their audience with.  Something like that, which ends up a bit different from the intro.   But yeah, since it's short, it doesn't matter if you rehash the intro anyway, should take you about a minute.

Thanks bangali_kok, you truly are a contemporary Messiah