Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 07:41:29 pm

Author Topic: Lang Analysis - 2017 Sample Exam  (Read 489 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Abdibasit

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: +3
Lang Analysis - 2017 Sample Exam
« on: June 04, 2019, 04:30:06 pm »
0
This is a Lang Analysis Essay for the 2017 sample Exam called "Taking Stock"

Feedback on this would be greatly appreciated (expression etc.) SAC is in about two weeks!!

In the wake of the ongoing inaction of various world leaders towards the preservation of biodiversity on planet Earth, an international conference was held in 2010 to discuss the certain changes that were promised to be implemented in the previous conference in April 2000. Keynote speaker, Professor Chris Lee aims to shock the audience, specifically the academics and well-educated individuals in the field in an attempt to shed some light on their failings towards the protection of their planet. Structurally, the keynote transcript begins with detailed imagery in which the audience are given a daunting impression that they must act or suffer the consequences of inaction. Lee proceeds further by discussing the appalling state of affairs regarding the increasing rate of biodiversity loss. Given this is the keynote speech, Lee seeks to set the initial tone of the conference to reignite each individual’s commitment to the goals they set in April 2000. By closing his speech with a call-to-action, Lee seeks to reinvigorate the hearts of his fellow delegates and ultimately motivate them to support his position on the issue.

 Keen to make the issue immediately relevant to the audience, Lee opens with imagery of “lush jungles” and a “variety of flora and fauna” in an attempt to present a utopian goal and provoke the delegate’s emotive response to the issue and encourage a sense of responsibility to act.  However, Lee then shifts his focus into the exact opposite, describing a “scorched earth” and dead animals to show the level of change that one can experience in a “lifetime” due to prolonged inaction. Lee seeks to emphasise the seriousness and the magnitude of damage that one can inflict upon a very delicate planet. Delegates are likely to experience fear in response to Lee’s juxtaposition from a paradise-like utopia into an apocalyptic world induced by their own callous nature for the Earth’s environment and come to the likely conclusion that a more urgent response is required. The use of the inclusive language “we” and “our” by Lee aims to create an alliance with his fellow delegates to trigger a sense of shared responsibility. Having established an optimistic tone, Lee employs a slightly more direct and encouraging tone, to implicitly suggest the corrosive effects on biodiversity and the problems that are facing mankind and hence, warn the audience of the serious consequences which could arise from prolonged inaction. Creating a more reasoned argument, Lee employs an appeal to expert opinion quoting a leading scientist who asserts that “we can wait no longer” and “we must take action in 2010”. This is intended to point the metaphoric finger at the delegates who are highly educated yet, continue to neglect the desperate state the planet is in and the incredible rate of biodiversity loss. Assisted by an opening slide which depicts a father and a child surrounded by different forms of life within their environment as a visual representation of a powerful rhetorical question which elicits the audience to question the nature of the world in which they seek to expose to their children as they grow up. Thus, by appealing to the audience’s family values, Lee firmly establishes the need for the audience to think and ponder about the type of world they would want their children to live in, positioning the audience to view him as a concerned human being who not only cares for plants and animals but also the future of the next generation.

Lee shifts his line of argument describing the results of the commitments made by various countries in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and with an interrogatory tone, he forces readers to view the past ten years in an objective lens to highlight their failings in the preservation of their planet. The quotation of the supposed “leading scientist” which Lee utilises lends some credibility to his claims, and along with a barrage of statistics, indicating the number of species that are “already extinct” along with increasing rate of extinction by “100 times the natural rate” intending to shock the delegates and appeal to their sense of justice by repeatedly referring to the “promises” and “commitments” they made. Lee seeks to convey to the delegates that their promises did not help their planet and that they still need to do more. In this sense, Lee is encouraging the audience to reflect back on the past 10 years and ultimately motivate them to do better post-2010. Hence the title, “Taking Stock” frames Lee’s main contention and his call to action to safeguard the future of the next generation which is likely to make the delegates feel concerned about their planet even more.

Lee closes his speech with a utopic tone whilst further augmenting the final call-to-action as he strongly urges for the delegates’ support and the enforcing effect is emphasised as it contrasts to the hard and scathing tone previously employed by Lee. The use of 2nd  person pronoun “You” and “Your country” is particularly prominent in this part of the speech, indicating that he is encouraging swift and unprecedented action from the delegates in response to the increasing rate of biodiversity loss. Lee’s speech until this point is pervaded with idealism and criticism, until a heavily optimistic tone is utilised to invite the delegates in engaging along with the shared responsibility of saving the planet Earth. Furthermore, Lee establishes a more personal argument as he refers to some members of the audience, assuming that they also “have already suffered the human costs biodiversity loss”. Lee seeks to point out how the effects of the loss of biodiversity are indiscriminate and can affect all people, he seeks to elicit a feeling of regret within the audience whilst describing the reality of the situation to them. By appealing to the delegates sense of human connection and empathy, Lee draws attention to the poor individuals living in poverty who rely on the benefits of biodiversity yet “are not in any position to do anything” about its loss in their environment. In this sense, Lee utilises inclusive language in his affirmation that “we need to be part of the solution” referring to the delegates who are indeed in a position of action. This notion is also evident in his closing slide where he depicts a small image of the Earth between the palms of a person. Lee creates a double meaning behind this slide whereby he allows the audience to interpret it as the world is in their hands and they have the power to save it. On the other hand, audiences can interpret the slide that is depicting the planet between the two palms of an individual carefully carrying the Earth, symbolising the delicacy of the planet. Hence, in both interpretations, Lee encourages the audience to be highly motivated to act out in order to safeguard the Earth’s biodiversity.

The Keynote transcript takes the view that we must commit to action rather than inaction beyond 2010 in the hope of achieving a better future for the next generation, and in the speech, a plea is made in a generally concerned yet optimistic tone. By creating a collective shared interest and responsibility, Lee encourages the delegates to consider the consequences that they may cause in the future if they continue their callous behaviour and launching ineffective programs towards achieving change.