[2016 LA Club] Week 1

[literally lauren]

Awesome stuff happening so far, and the feedback has been on point.

To tidy up a few loose ends (though obviously anyone's welcome to come back to earlier weeks and attempt that material later in the year) I'll add a few comments to any pieces that haven't yet been commented upon by others, but I'll just isolate three or so key points rather than doing a full dissection. Anyone else keep to give feedback is still more than welcome to - mine will not be at all conclusive

An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked(1) by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government.(2) That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s notion argument(?) denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. (3) In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.

(1) - 'invoke' = to call upon an idea, or to cite a person
eg. 'When I was arguing with my parents, they invoked the old 'respect your elders' saying'
     'Religious fanatics frequently invoke God to support their arguments'
     'She invoked the words of Margaret Thatcher in her speech to the House of Commons'
'Evoke' works better for Language Analysis because it refers to an author eliciting certain emotions
eg. 'The author attempts to evoke a sense of patriotism.'

(2) I'm not sure the author is likening the refugee situation with the surf lifesavers. If anything, she was creating a link between the government and lifesavers to imply that the former were failing in their duties.

(3) Be even more specific here - how is this situation ludicrous or illogical? Why would the author make this particular comparison?

Other than that, your vocabulary and sentence structure are very impressive, and you seem to have a good grasp of the contention

Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers. (1) Barnett stated that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. (2) She is trying to suggest that us as Australians will connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey, the government should be like those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a lifesavers. (3)

(1) It's a bit tough to judge here since we were mainly concerned with the language and the background information was intentionally brief, but this isn't quite accurate. The sentence structure you've got here is a bit confusing - it'd be more accurate to say that the government were refusing to 'save' asylum seekers in order to deter people smugglers. But, admittedly, this is an issue with a length and complicated socio-political history behind it, so I'm not too worried about the contextual information.

(2) Not only could these two sentences easily be integrated to form one, but you should also aim to integrate that quote in your writing. For example: 'Barnet's appeal to patriotism as evidenced by her use of the word "un-Australian" forms part of her attempt to imply that the government need to seek other options.' You also need to be more specific about the connection here, ie. how does her use of the word "un-Australian" create this effect?

(3) Firstly, never use the word 'prove' in English - teachers hate it because it's way too definitive Use something like 'suggest/imply/depict/engender' etc. 'A.k.a' is also very informal. Secondly, what is the logic here? I can see that you've understood the function of the author's comparison/analogy, but you haven't quite made that clear, and you'd need to flesh out this appeal to logic in a bit more detail. In this case, what was the author trying to suggest by comparing the government to lifesavers? And what else in that analogy might you analyse?


edit: typed up feedback for the second one before I realised HLS had already covered it
@HLS: your comments were totally right though so don't worry!

[Anonymous]

Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers¹. Barnett stated² that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when³ she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. She is trying to suggest that us grammar: we as Australians will⁴ connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare⁵ the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey⁶, the government should be like⁷ those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a⁸ lifesavers.

Underlined what I thought could use changing. Keep in mind that I'm not an English student so my criticisms probably aren't as well informed as others. Also suggestions, but again, take those with a grain of salt.

Spoiler

1. Sentence is a bit long. Also, having 'save' in quotation marks implies a sort of mocking tone.
"Nicola Barnett, an Australian citizen, is critical of the Government for being 'in favour of denying people the care and protection they need'".

2. Minor issue - tense. In the rest of your piece, you use current tense (jumps, runs, hikes) instead of this past tense (jumped, ran, hiked). I'd change it to 'states'.

3. A bit of an awkward transition between your sentences. You could take out the 'this is evident when' and it would flow a lot better. It also may be better to use 'Barnett' or 'the author' but that might be personal preference.

4. I think 'will' is a bit clunky there. 'Should' fits better (imo) and has stronger connotations that relate to the article.

5. Phrasing? I feel like 'comparison' is one of the techniques or something but it comes off a little clunky. Just 'compare' is fine, I doubt anyone will be getting their knickers in a knot about not using specific forms of a word when the meaning is the same.

That, or:
"Barnett uses a comparison to emphasize the difference in values between the Government and Lifesavers of Australia."

6. Phrasing again. Honestly not sure how I'd change it, so maybe my criticism is unwarranted.

7. Sounds a bit colloquial to me. Changing it to something less so takes away some of the feeling though so this one's a matter of preference.

8. Seconding HopefulLawStudent, this feels a bit iffy. You could take it out and the meaning out be exactly the same, too. Final cut's up to you of course.

Overall it's good. I know what you're talking about when I read your analysis so there's no glaring issues, it's mostly just structural/stylistic stuff in your writing that draws away from your work. It was a short article, but I would've liked more quotes and a little more explanation on your interpretations.

[HopefulLawStudent]

(2) I'm not sure the author is likening the refugee situation with the refugees. If anything, she was creating a link between the government and lifesavers to imply that the former were failing in their duties.

What do you mean? #confused.

[literally lauren]

What do you mean? #confused.

Ah, that was my own brain melt - I meant to say 'likening the situation with surf lifesavers' ~my bad!
I'll edit it out so it doesn't confuse others.

Basically, to take your original sentence:

Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government.

...you've stated that the author likens the condition of the refugees to lifesavers, which isn't strictly true. She is using an analogy and making a comparison, but in that example, the author was implying that the government refusing to help the refugees would be the equivalent of a lifesaver letting someone drown at sea.

So, metaphorically, the government are 'lifesavers' who are refusing to save lives, which is designed to elicit ridicule and frustration at the illogicality of the situation (- they're literal job is to save lives, so the idea of a lifesaver not doing that is clearly designed to evoke disbelief and fury,) so by equating this with the government's inaction, the author is implying that the same antipathy should be directed towards them for failing in their duties. <-- It seemed like that was what you were hinting at, but the structure of your sentence didn't reflect that clearly, so a small change would just help bring your idea to the surface for your assessor.

Hope that makes sense!

[Anonymous]

Could someone pop some suggestions for mine pls? 

[qazser]

Edit: That was me, prev msg

[MightyBeh]

Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a thought-provoking and contentious piece¹ that urges² her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent future tragedies³.  She outlines that ‘267’⁴ asylum seekers are in Australia seeking medical treatment, intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences of “allowing asylum seekers to stay” and attempts to evoke a sense of fear of what could result⁵. Barnett reaffirms her previous sentence⁶ using repetition, reminding the reader once again of this⁷ ‘immoral’ act. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they conform to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality (Ty Anon) to the land we live in. Through the use of⁸ an analogy, Barnett aims to present her contention in another way, enticing the audience into seeing the issue as a point of view⁹. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are part of this¹⁰ article through Barnett’s use of ‘our livesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language.  Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché¹¹ where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. Reaffirming her point, she imposes on her reader to reconsider their views on the issue, through the word ‘must’¹². Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative, challenging the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart.  (Anon just called it Call-To -Action, must make note . TY ANON )

I’m in Y11, no clue what a language analysis really is, so whipped this baby out. Use of repetitive words is overly common in my piece. Feel free to roast this LA, no offence will be taken 

I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ).

Point by point breakdown

1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?

2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?

3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.

4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.

5. What exactly could result?

6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam

7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?

8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. 

9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.

10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.

11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.

12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.

Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place.

Edit: Highlighted the things I really liked in yellow because I didn't think it was clear enough <3

[qazser]

I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ).

Point by point breakdown

1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?

2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?

3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.

4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.

5. What exactly could result?

6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam

7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?

8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. 

9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.

10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.

11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.

12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.

Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place.

Ty

[Anonymous]

I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ).

Point by point breakdown

1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?

2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?

3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.

4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.

5. What exactly could result?

6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam

7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?

8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. 

9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.

10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.

11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.

12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.

Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place.

LOL that feedback was really enjoyable to read ! Why can't everyone give feedback as fun as that

[qazser]

Edited Piece for LA
Thanks Beh for the suggestions


Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a contentious piece that attempts to persuade her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent the loss of more lives at sea.  She argues that we should allow ‘267 asylum seekers seeking medical treatment to stay' intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences if “asylum seekers are allowed to stay,people smugglers will be encouraged”,which evokes a sense of fear in the reader for the lack of justice. Using the words 'denying' and 'denial' when elaborating on the government's options further attacks the reader's appeal for sympathy. These connotations of cruelty and apathy also serve to reinforce Barnett's attempts to label us readers as 'immoral' should we conform to the government's plans to send sick asylum seekers back to Nauru without treatment. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they agree to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality to the land we live in. Barnett uses an analogy about 'lifeguards' to present her contention in another way, attempting to illustrate a different stance on the issue to the readers. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are supporting her contention through Barnett’s use of ‘our lifesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language.  Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety, alike the stereotypical Aussie who would do anything for his 'mates'. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. The author's use of the word 'must explore' when persuading the audience forces the audience to consolidate their thoughts. These connotations of 'thinking outside the box' and 'look for alternatives' serve to reinforce the authors contention for asylum seekers to remain in Australia for treatment and curb encouragement of people smugglers. Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative and calls for the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart. 

Me below again, forgot tick

[HopefulLawStudent]

Didn't realise we were supposed to edit our paragraphs after feedback was given. So I did a last minute edit-job.

Spoiler

An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is employed through Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” to describe the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the government’s decision regarding refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government. That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s argument denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. This is because lifesavers are employed to save lives; the idea that they would choose not to evokes the disbelief and fury of the audience. The author thereby seeks to direct this antipathy toward the government, implying this institution was similarly failing to fulfil their duties. In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.

Off-topic(ish):

Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...

Are we allowed to give extra info in brackets? Like qazser has? I have this same issue every single time I sit down for language analysis and I never know. Lauren, or Heidi, or whoever, please weigh in on this?

[Anonymous]

Didn't need to edit, i just felt like doing so ahah 

Regarding brackets, could integrate into sentence if needed to.

of people such as bla bla bla who have

[Anonymous]

Recent controversy has arisen over the Government’s decision to send asylum seekers who are in Australia for medical treatment to detention camps in Nauru. In her opinion piece, Lifesaving spirit lost, Nicola Barnett contends in a critical tone that the response of the government is “un-Australian” and suggests that they must seek “alternatives to… [the] detention and prevention” of people smuggling.

Through a series of emotional and loaded language, Barnett suggests that the government is in favour of “denying” asylum seekers “the care and protection” they “need”. This depicts asylum seekers as vulnerable and readers are encouraged to feel sympathetic and concerned for the well-being of asylum seekers. In contrast, Barnett discredits the government in their denial of asylum seeker welfare and her mention of “medical professionals” suggests the incompetence of the government to undertake their responsibilities and thus readers are compelled to view the government as cruel and uncaring.

Furthermore, Barnett attempts to strengthen her argument in her analogous example of Australian surf lifesavers and the government. She states that if a person swam too far out at the beach and “got into serious trouble”, a lifesaver would not “let this person suffer” even though “more deaths… [could have been] prevented”. In equating the experience of a person in trouble at the beach with asylum seekers, Barnett intends to educate readers with a more personable and relatable experience. Moreover, Barnett links her example to the governments need to “explore alternatives to… the prevention of people smuggling” and readers are left under no misapprehension to the importance of the care required by asylum seekers and the neglect of the government.

[literally lauren]

Off-topic(ish):

Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...

Are we allowed to give extra info in brackets? Like qazser has? I have this same issue every single time I sit down for language analysis and I never know. Lauren, or Heidi, or whoever, please weigh in on this?

BRACKETS ARE FOR THE WEAK!!

Not really... they're perfectly grammatical punctuation marks in the real world, but who says VCE English prepares you for real life? They're considered quite informal by a lot of assessors, so you should try to avoid them in formal essays.
For T.R. and L.A. (and Context if you're writing expository pieces,) just don't use them.
^Shut up. I'm allowed to use them. I'm a grown up.

A better alternative would be to use the double dash - which I'm quite fond of - to embed extra information in a sentence like I just did. So long as you make sure the sentence is still grammatical even when you take out the information bound by the dashes, you should be fine.

eg. 'The author uses a variety of techniques - including rhetorical questions - to persuade readers' = fine
but 'The author uses a variety of techniques - some of these include rhetorical questions - these techniques are evident throughout the piece' = NOT FINE

There's also the single dash, which works differently, but I won't bring that up here since it performs a pretty different function.

Basically if you want to use brackets, try and restructure your sentence so that you don't need them. And if you really want to use brackets, use dashes instead. Because you might get some stuffy old prescriptive grammarian as your marker at the end of the year, and you really don't want to make people like that even more unhappy than they already are on the inside

[Anonymous]

Well I'm glad I've never used it now. My scary VCAA assessor teacher who has probably been marking since dinosaurs still roamed the Earth would've murdered me.