Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 08:20:22 pm

Author Topic: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis  (Read 1759 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Furbob

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1002
  • diagnosed with poo brain
  • Respect: +184
0
Texts: Twelve Angry Men, Growing Up Asian in Australia

Context: Exploring issues of identity and belonging.

SS Aim: 35+ realistically since English is my worst subject but 40+ for dreaming.  shit. I'm so ashamed of myself.


__________________________________________________________________________________

January essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis - this will need to be hyperlinked

« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 10:38:52 pm by ninwa »
2011 : English | Accounting | MM CAS | Further | Japanese | MUEP Japanese
2012 : BA(Japanese&Chinese)/BComm @ Monash Clayton

Furbob

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1002
  • diagnosed with poo brain
  • Respect: +184
Re: Furbob's thread
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2011, 12:21:25 am »
0
Week 3 – January 24th – Language Analysis – Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard

The recent tragedy of a boat carrying twenty eight or so asylum seeker refugees sinking off the coast of Christmas Island has come to forefront of the Australian media and has appealed to a broad cross section of the community, particularly to those who are interested in human rights. In the opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (17/12/10) Andrew Bolt forwardly indicts that it was the Labor government’s responsibility for the cause of the deaths due to their “weak laws” and blames it towards their failure to address repeated warnings regarding the tragedy.

Straight away, Bolt questions the statement that “It’s too early to blame…” with repeated rhetorical questions such as “why?”, “when?” and “Before…or after?” to create the situation that he, along with his readers, must consider to whether the government will continue to let refugees sink to their deaths because of reluctance to changing policies. This is accompanied by a large cropped photo focusing on an asylum seekers boat surrounded by violent waves to create a tragic atmosphere of the incident to support Bolt’s view. The use of questioning engages the reader to respond to the issue as they feel involved to agree with Bolt’s negativity towards Julia Gillard. It also raises the reader’s sense of urgency for the government to partake immediate action before the death toll increases for asylum seekers.

Bolt continues his argument by emphasizing the evidence reflecting the number of asylum seeker deaths on Australia shores by using given figures such as “these latest 28 or more” to “just like up to 170 others”.  He uses the figures to oppose against the government’s underestimated claim that the toll was 25, whilst explicitly mentioning that the deaths included children. Furthermore, Bolt uses an anecdotal example of the deceased Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his 9-year old son to reflect on how their hopes to reach Australia along with five Afghans that have gone to the extremity to die at sea to escape the navy because of the new policies. Subsequently Bolt reinforces this dismal truth with repeated mentions of extreme words, “the dead”, “those deaths” or “dying at sea” to oppose against Warren  to subject families to heighten their fear and sympathy towards the reality of asylum seeker families dying at sea. It instigates distrust towards the Labor Government for their disrespects concerning the miscounted who were considered as “scum”.

Bolt incorporates much sarcasm into the Government policies as the “sugar of Labor” to portray the rich, artificial side to the seemingly sweet face of the Labor Government. He mockingly compliments the “sugar” by stating how unbeneficial it is for refugees followed by his use of strong words such as “never”, “of course”, “compassionate” to reflect on his depiction of Julia Gillard’s “horrified” response towards the death poll as a result. He illustrates the rest of the government as “too delicate” by drawing an analogy to a group of pompous ladies that “lift up their skirts in horror and denounce my rudeness” to let the readers associate the government’s view on the rest of the nation. For readers this metaphor generates an image of how pretentious the government is and provokes a disloyalty towards them.

Throughout the article, Bolt’s accusatory and exaggerated tone is indicated through a generalization to denigrate the government. Bolt repeatedly asserts that “they lie” and it is “too soon” for the government to critically discuss the issues of their own policies which is played by a pun “It’s never been the right time for the Left…” to persuade readers that the government needs prioritize the rights of asylum seekers arriving in Australia. Additionally, Bolt increases his use of “too soon” at the beginning of sentences with time words such as “today… not the right time” and “weeks, even months” to add build up and tension in the reading pace by pointing to clear reasons of why Gillard’s policies can be seen as morally wrong. The readers are inclined to feel unjust and to fear that they are partly responsible for gambling with the safety and lives of refugees.

From the beginning of the article, Bolt’s confronting heading is a forward attack towards Julia Gillard and the Labor Government over his outrage on the incident of the refugees.  Throughout the article his contention is clear and he often uses expert opinion along with his own view in conjunction with his arguments. Bolt displays his willingness to oppose the government through his strong emotive words and shows a static view on the issue. Through the implication of repetition, attacks and aggressiveness, Bolt presents himself as an effective opposition against the Labor government and makes it difficult for his readers to contend to his opinion.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 01:55:30 am by Furbob »
2011 : English | Accounting | MM CAS | Further | Japanese | MUEP Japanese
2012 : BA(Japanese&Chinese)/BComm @ Monash Clayton

lexitu

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2147
  • When I grow up I'm going to Bovine University.
  • Respect: +66
Re: 3rd Week Lang Analysis - Furbob's thread (of justice.)
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2011, 04:28:18 pm »
0
- Nice, concise introduction.
- May need a more explicit mention of target audience
- Image needs more thorough discussion
- "Whilst explicitly mentioning that the deaths included children" - to what effect? This is one example of where you need to expand.
- Sometimes it's better to quote one word rather than an array of words and focus specifically on how this adds persuasiveness to the piece.
- Sometimes sentences stretch out. Consider varying sentence length and using shorter sentences to bridge concepts.
- Your understanding of what Bolt is trying to do seems good
- You have a good vocabulary and are able to convey a range of ideas

Admittedly I've read through this quickly but I do think it's quite a good essay. You've got a firm base to work off - 8/10.

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: 3rd Week Lang Analysis - Furbob's thread (of justice.)
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2011, 05:02:15 pm »
0
One of the problems I found with this essay:

Quote
Straight away, Bolt questions the statement that “It’s too early to blame…” with repeated rhetorical questions such as “why?”, “when?” and “Before…or after?” to create the situation..
A couple of problems with this topic sentence. The 'straight away' is far too colloquial. You also need to be more specific with those quotes. What is Bolt referring to? Why does he ask 'why?' You need to outline the context behind each piece of evidence, or your reader (and examiner) will be clueless as to what you're trying to say. Make sure that the reader will know what you're referring to, before you go on to state the effect.

I'm feeling a bit tired at the moment (after reading and marking 4 essays non-stop :buck2:), but I'll try and get through your whole essay tomorrow or something.

liuetenant

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Respect: +2
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: Furbob's thread - week 3 language analysis *
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2011, 12:55:32 pm »
0
Some things i picked up:

INTRO
your first sentence that brings us into the context in ur intro is way to long and complex. The expression that you used...."twenty eight or so asylum seeker refugees sinking off the coast of Christmas Island" isn't very academic. However, you;ve nailed everything else :)

BODY
-you have excellently picked up some good techniques and their effects on the readers. i particuluarly loved the "Sugar" example. Very nice.
-i think you could have made more of a mention to the type of audience that could be interested...and how they will react.
-Mainly, i think you should work on your expression. Keep sentences short and to the point without having to throw in an "and" everywhere. Where you see lots of "and"s just cross it out, add a comma or fullstop to make it easier on the eye and for readers to keep up with your ideas--which i might add are very good.

All in all, wonderful :) 7/10
2010: TNT (39)
2011: English (42) | Bio (39) | Chem (35) | Jap (35) | Methods (36)|

ATAR: 95.50 ( i actually got my prediction! :D)

chrisjb

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • ROAR
  • Respect: +64
Re: Furbob's thread - week 3 language analysis *
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2011, 01:08:05 pm »
0
It was good, Just watch out for coloquial language.
You did this in sequential order right? I know that some people don't like that and would rather you do it by grouping techniques, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it and I'm just being picky by mentioning it. Also, perhaps mention tone in your introduction but once again, it's not nessicary and it's realy up to you if you want to in your intro or your paras (as you did). Perhaps you could also have have gone into a bit more detail about the picture. I reckon the picture deserves its own paragraph.

The only thing I reckon you have to work on is expression. I have that problem too of sentences sometimes getting a bit too long and having too many , and ;'s. But it's prety good all the same.

If you were in my class last year you'd get 25/30 (which is up the top).
2011: 96.35
2012: http://www.thegapyear2012.com/
2013: Arts (Global) Monash
2016: Juris Doctor (somewhere)

nacho

  • The Thought Police
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2602
  • Respect: +418
Re: Furbob's thread - week 3 language analysis *
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2011, 02:37:48 pm »
0
Week 3 – January 24th – Language Analysis – Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard

The recent tragedy of a boat carrying twenty eight or so asylum seeker refugees sinking off the coast of Christmas Island has come to forefront of the Australian media and has appealed to a broad cross section of the community, particularly to those who are interested in human rights. In the opinion piece “Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard” (17/12/10) Andrew Bolt forwardly indicts that it was the Labor government’s responsibility for the cause of the deaths due to their “weak laws” and blames it towards their failure to address repeated warnings regarding the tragedy. Nice intro, starts of well and flows nicely, you've identified the audience, writer etc.. I think though it would have been good to identify the tone used by Bolt.

Straight away, Bolt questions the statement that “It’s too early to blame…” with repeated rhetorical questions such as “why?”, “when?” and “Before…or after?” to create the situation that he (this sounds odd to me, although im not sure how to correct it :D), along with his readers, must consider to whether the government will continue to let refugees sink to their deaths because of their reluctance to changing in changing their policies. This is accompanied by a large cropped photo focusing on an asylum seekers boat surrounded by violent waves to create a tragic atmosphere of the incident to support Bolt’s view. Awesome, you used the image! (Which i forgot in my piece..)The use of questioning engages the reader (good!) to respond to the issue as they feel involved to agree with Bolt’s negativity towards Julia Gillard. It also raises the reader’s sense of urgency for the government to partake immediate action before the death toll increases for asylum seekers. Nice paragraph, there were a few grammatical errors though and odd sounding sentences

Bolt continues his argument by emphasizing onthe evidence reflecting the number of asylum seeker deaths on Australia shores by using given figures such as “these latest 28 or more” to “just like up to 170 others”.  He uses the figures to oppose against the government’s underestimated claim that the toll was 25, whilst explicitly mentioning that the deaths included children. Furthermore, Bolt uses an anecdotal example of the deceased Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his 9-year old son to reflect on show  how their hopes to reach Australia along with five Afghans that have gone to the extremity to die at sea to escape the navy because of the new policiesIt's good you included this, but from what I interpreted, they blew up the boat not because they'd rather die than go back, but rather because they'd have no way to be forced back now. Subsequently Bolt reinforces this dismal truth with repeated mentions of extreme words, “the dead”, “those deaths” or “dying at sea” to oppose against Warren  to subject families to heighten their fear and sympathy towards the reality of asylum seeker families dying at sea. It instigates distrust towards the Labor Government for their disrespects concerning the miscounted who were considered as “scum”. Good finishing sentence, quite strong, perhaps you should have continued on

Bolt incorporates much sarcasm into the Government policies as the “sugar of Labor” to portray the rich, artificial side to the seemingly sweet face of the Labor Government. He mockingly compliments the “sugar” by stating how unbeneficial it is for refugees followed by his use of strong words such as “never”, “of course”, “compassionate” to reflect on his depiction of Julia Gillard’s “horrified” response towards the death poll as a result. He illustrates the rest of the government as “too delicate” by drawing an analogy to a group of pompous ladies that “lift up their skirts in horror and denounce my rudeness” to let the readers associate the government’s view on the rest of the nation. For readers this metaphor generates an image of how pretentious the government is and provokes a disloyalty towards them.

Throughout the article, Bolt’s accusatory and exaggerated tone is indicated through a generalization to denigrate the government. Bolt repeatedly asserts that “they lie” and it is “too soon” for the government to critically discuss the issues of their own policies which is played by a pun “It’s never been the right time for the Left…” to persuade readers that the government needs prioritize the rights of asylum seekers arriving in Australia. Additionally, Bolt increases his use of “too soon” at the beginning of sentences with time words such as “today… not the right time” and “weeks, even months” to add build up and tension in the reading pace by pointing to clear reasons of why Gillard’s policies can be seen as morally wrong. The readers are inclined to feel unjust and to fear that they are partly responsible for gambling with the safety and lives of refugees.

From the beginning of the article, Bolt’s confronting heading is a forward attack towards Julia Gillard and the Labor Government over his outrage on the incident of the refugees.  Throughout the article his contention is clear and he often uses expert opinion along with his own view in conjunction with his arguments. Bolt displays his willingness to oppose the government through his strong emotive words and shows a static view on the issue. Through the implication of repetition, attacks and aggressiveness, Bolt presents himself as an effective opposition against the Labor government and makes it difficult for his readers to contend to his opinion.

Colour code:
Green = good
Purple = comment
Red = bad/meh/questionable

It was written well, strong expression.
7.5/10 from me.
OFFICIAL FORUM RULE #1:
TrueTears is my role model so find your own

2012: BCom/BSc @ Monash
[Majors: Finance, Actuarial Studies, Mathematical Statistics]
[Minors: Psychology/ Statistics]

"Baby, it's only micro when it's soft".
-Bill Gates

Upvote me

Mint

  • Guest
Re: Furbob's thread - week 3 language analysis
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2011, 10:10:10 pm »
0
Intro:
You've contextualised the issue in the first sentence but it's a bit long. Maybe a clear concise sentence could be better understood.
Body:
The paragraph on the 'sugar of labor' is good. It shows you have a deep understanding of those techniques.
Your vocabulary is good, you use a wide variety of words

overall: 7/10! :) Just try and use more concise sentences, and watch out for colloquialisms