Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 30, 2024, 12:28:46 am

Author Topic: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis  (Read 1582 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Greatness

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3100
  • Respect: +103
  • School Grad Year: 2011
0
Hey all :)
Study score aim: 42+ i would honestly be happy with anything above 40.

Texts: Cosi and On The Waterfront
Context: Encountering Conflict - The Crucible and The Secret River


__________________________________________________________________________________
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 10:50:00 pm by ninwa »

Greatness

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3100
  • Respect: +103
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: swarley's thread Language Analysis **
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2011, 08:10:12 pm »
0
The opinion piece entitled, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ (Herald Sun, 17/12/10), author Andrew Bolt contends in an irritated and pompous tone that the Labour government’s laws regarding boat people are ridiculous and ‘weak’. The principal methods of persuasion used range from rhetorical questions to repetition of specific phrases. Bolt’s view is reinforced visually by the photograph of a boat crashing onto Australian shores - which depicts the danger that these immigrants may encounter.
Bolt begins his piece with a litany of rhetorical questions, ‘But why? And if not then, when? Before the next boat sinks or after?’ These question when the Labour government will concede that they are mistaken for rashly changing the immigration laws. By promoting introspection in the reader, Bolt makes it very clear that his contention is correct and if you do not agree, you are mistaken in every aspect. The writer continues by utilising powerful language in an attempt to persuade the reader. Words such as, ‘lured, criminally recklessly, horror and rudeness’ all have strong negative connotations associated with them – which emphasise the government’s inability to take responsibility. By using these words to label the government’s actions, the reader is inclined to feel a sense of distress and infuriation.
Subsequently, Bolt adopts the use of the phrase; ‘Its never been the right time’ which is employed frequently throughout the piece. This again amplifies and reinforces the Labour government’s appalling and reckless deed of the removal of strict immigration laws implicated by the previous government. The phrase may also suggest that ‘it’s never the right time’ to question the cause of the deaths of these boat people. This coerces the reader to comprehend the notion that Julia Gillard and her government are erroneous in many aspects. In an attempt to evoke anger and outrage from the reader, Bolt uses a condescending tone when remarking, ‘with the sugar of Labor’s softer treatment’. The use of the word ‘sugar’ implies that the Labor government are encouraging boat people to migrate to Australia. ‘Sugar’ also has an association of enticement and richness, which inclines the reader to feel a sense of indignation.
To gain credibility in his argument, Bolt utilises direct evidence from the asylum seekers themselves. The anecdotal evidence of Nozoor Ali Iqbal and his son who tragically died in an effort to gain entrance into Australia is one that attempts to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of the readers. This implies that the Labor government’s actions have indirectly affected and enticed innocent people. The tenor of this is highlighted when Bolt states, ‘the government’s soft policies have tempted them into the boats’. By doing this, the writer creates an opposition between ‘us’ (the people who believe the Labor government are unreliable) and ‘them’ (the Labor government and their supporters). In this way Bolt promotes the issue as a simple black and white one, with the clear right and wrong sides with no further room for debate.
The photograph that is included depicts a boat occupied by many asylum seekers. The reader can explicitly see the dangers (strong waves crashing into the shore) that these boat people must face in order to get to Australia. The quote accompanying the image, ‘the Government was encouraging the boat people to risk their lives at sea’ is a direct attack at the government suggesting that they are the cause of the deaths of asylum seekers. The image and quote work in unison to coerce the reader to completely agree with the notion that Julia Gillard and her ‘weak’ laws are to blame for the deaths of the people on the boats.
Essentially, Bolt’s opinion piece and the visual make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to the issue. Effectively demonstrating that the Labor government are at fault in regards to the tragic deaths of asylum seekers. Bolt is unwavering throughout the piece demonstrating that he will not compromise his views on the matter.  To persuade the reader Bolt employs the use of evocative language and attacks on the government; the visual presents to the reader graphically, what may happen to these boats in unfortunate events.

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: swarley's thread - January Week Three: Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2011, 08:28:40 pm »
0
I will underline key sections of the essay and discuss these sections in red. Any rewording will be done in green.

The opinion piece entitled, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ (Herald Sun, 17/12/10), author Andrew Bolt contends in an irritated and pompous tone that the Labour Labor government’s laws regarding boat people are ridiculous and ‘weak’. - maybe include a sentence explaining the context of the issue? The principal methods of persuasion used range from rhetorical questions to repetition of specific phrases. Bolt’s view is reinforced visually by the photograph of a boat crashing onto Australian shores - which depicts the danger that these immigrants may encounter. - good, strong introduction

Bolt begins his piece with a litany of rhetorical questions, ‘But why? And if not then, when? Before the next boat sinks or after?’ - the same issue as the other essays; you're not being specific enough with these examples. What does the 'But why' refer to? What does the 'And if not then, when' refer to... what are we waiting for? These question when - weak expression; not sure what you meant here the Labor government will concede that they are mistaken for rashly changing the immigration laws. By promoting introspection in the reader, Bolt makes it very clear that his contention is correct and if you do not agree, you - NEVER EVER USE SECOND-PERSON IN A LANGUAGE ANALYSIS! BIG NO-NO. are mistaken in every aspect. The writer continues - continues what? by utilising powerful language in an attempt to persuade the reader. Words such as, ‘lured, criminally recklessly, horror and rudeness’ - break these words up into their own inverted commas ie: "lured", "criminally" etc etc and make it a list instead of a listing all have strong negative connotations associated with them – which emphasise the government’s inability to take responsibility. By using these words to label the government’s actions, the reader is inclined to feel a sense of distress and infuriation. - good reference to impact

Subsequently - for some reason, this doesn't flow on from the previous paragraph  , Bolt adopts the use of the phrase; ‘Its never been the right time’ which is employed frequently throughout the piece. This again amplifies and reinforces the Labor government’s appalling and reckless deed of the removal of strict immigration laws implicated by the previous government. The phrase may also suggest that ‘it’s never the right time’ to question the cause of the deaths of these boat people. This coerces the reader to comprehend the notion - too verbose here. You could have just as easily said something like this: 'This encourages readers to see that..' that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government are erroneous in many aspects - what aspects? Be specific . In an attempt - doesn't flow on from previous sentence to evoke anger and outrage from the reader, Bolt uses a condescending tone when remarking, ‘with the sugar of Labor’s softer treatment’. The use of the word ‘sugar’ - good to see you pulling apart single words implies that the Labor government are encouraging boat people to migrate to Australia. ‘Sugar’ also has an association of enticement and richness, which inclines the reader to feel a sense of indignation.

To gain credibility in his argument, Bolt utilises direct evidence from the asylum seekers themselves. The anecdotal evidence of Nozoor Ali Iqbal and his son who tragically died in an effort to gain entrance into Australia is one that attempts to strike at the sympathetic heartstrings of the readers. This implies that the Labor government’s actions have indirectly affected and enticed innocent people. The tenor of this is highlighted when Bolt states, ‘the government’s soft policies have tempted them into the boats’. ByIn doing this, the writer creates an opposition between ‘us’ (the people who believe the Labor government are unreliable) and ‘them’ (the Labor government and their supporters). In this way, Bolt promotes the issue as a simple black and white one, with the clear right and wrong sides with no further room for debate. - doesn't make sense. If there are clear right and wrong sides, how is there no further room for debate?

The photograph that is included that accompanies the opinion piece depicts a boat occupied by many asylum seekers. The reader can explicitly see the dangers (strong waves crashing into the shore) that these boat people must face in order to get to Australia. The quote accompanying the image, ‘the Government was encouraging the boat people to risk their lives at sea’ is a direct attack at the government suggesting that they are the cause of the deaths of asylum seekers. The image and quote work in unison - excellent to see you analysing combined effect to coerce the reader to completely agree with the notion that Julia Gillard and her ‘weak’ laws are to blame for the deaths of the people on the boats.

Essentially, Bolt’s opinion piece and the visual make a constructive and worthwhile contribution to the issue. - don't evaluate the piece Effectively demonstrating that the Labor government are at fault in regards to the tragic deaths of asylum seekers. - this sentence makes no sense Bolt is unwavering throughout the piece demonstrating that he will not compromise his views on the matter.  To persuade the reader Bolt employs the use of evocative language and attacks on the government; the visual presents to the reader graphically, what may happen to these boats in unfortunate events.

A strong essay. The biggest problem I could find was the flow of your writing. The expression in your writing also needs some work.

Final score: 7/10.

vea

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Respect: +29
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: swarley's thread - January Week Three: Language Analysis **
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2011, 10:35:36 pm »
0
I'm trying to find things that werdna may have missed. :S

"The principal methods of persuasion used range from rhetorical questions to repetition of specific phrases. "-  Avoid 'labelling' and saying that the author uses "repetition". Instead, say something along the lines of "The author is repeatedly...".

"if you do not agree, you are mistaken in every aspect"- As werdna pointed out above, second person is a big no-no in language analysis and the only time it can be used in VCE English is if you write a creative piece for context.

"(strong waves crashing into the shore)"- you should avoid the use of brackets in essays when you can

Overall, your essay is quite good and you have utilised some good metalanguage in your essay.


2011: ATAR 99.50
2012: Bachelor of Biomedicine, UoM
2015: Doctor of Dental Surgery, UoM