[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

[Cappuccinos]

Whooo Essays!

Texts: A Christmas Carol, Cosi
Context: Whose Reality
SS Aim: 35 +   38+
I have attached your customised timetable to this thread. ~ werdna

__________________________________________________________________________________

** you will be required to provide internal hyperlinks to your essays on this post - see my thread to see what I mean **

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

[Cappuccinos]

EDIT: I've re-written this terrible essay & it's attached at the bottom of this post

Okay, So I did struggle a bit when writing this. Why? Because it was just full of attacks, so I found it difficult to analyse without being too repetitive >.<

Week 3 – January 24th – Language Analysis – Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard

The recent sinking of a boat full of asylum seekers off the coast of Christmas Island has sparked massive interest in the media. In an opinion piece for the ‘Herald Sun’, ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ (17/12/10) Andrew Bolt addresses this tragedy and strongly suggests that Julia Gillard and her ‘weak’ laws are to blame for these deaths of those on the boats.

The accompanying image, a photograph, is of boat crashing into the sea. On closer inspection it is evident the boat is crowded with people, who are obviously, due to the nature of this piece, asylum seekers. Before the audience can read the piece, they are subjected to this dark image. This allows them to insight of the issue before they read the article. The bolded quote ‘It’s never been the right time to point out the government was encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea by rewarding those who made it here with the sugar of labour’s softer treatment’ clearly states Bolt’s contention attracting those who are interested in the matter.

The opinion piece starts off with a number of rhetorical questions ‘But why’ And if not now, when?’ ‘Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ Though the answer is obvious, it encourages the reader to think, to develop an answer which is likely to be the same as the Bolt’s.  Bolt then composes a scathing attack on the labour government. It is evident that he is truly disgusted with the Gillard government, and his words are extremely sarcastic. The repeat use of the words ‘they lie’ emphasises his point.

Bolt then begins to use quotes from those who know the situation best, asylum seekers themselves. This, to the audience would be irrefutable and Bolt generates the generalisation that all refugees find it easier to go to Australia due to Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard’s laws, which in turn lures them into the sea. The shock value of the information that follows is powerful because it accuses that it is in fact Prime Minister Gillard’s fault for the numerous deaths of those who have tried to cross reach Australia. This positions the audience to be dismissive of Prime Minister Gillard and her laws.

He then continues his attack, again using sarcasm to mock the government, ‘Too Soon!’ He also begins to use quotes from Prime Minister Gillard (and those part of her government) "These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts," followed with evidence which exposes Prime Minister Gillard’s flawed position and identifies her actions as contradictory to her views, again manipulating the audience to be dismissive of the PM.

From the headline to the conclusion, Bolt’s self righteous and confrontational tone is evident. Paragraph after paragraph he attempts to manipulate the audience into rejecting Prime Minister Gillard and her laws through the use of rhetorical questions, emotional language, evidence and numerous attacks towards the labour government. The lack of reason and logic may lead to the audience questioning the substance of this piece.

[werdna]

I will underline key sections of your piece and discuss the underlined sections in red. Rewording, if any, will be done in green.

The recent sinking of a boat full of asylum seekers off the coast of Christmas Island has sparked massive interest in the media. In an opinion piece for the Herald Sun - always underline the source, don't put it in inverted commas , ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’ (17/12/10) Andrew Bolt addresses this tragedy and strongly suggests that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her ‘weak’ laws are to blame for these deaths of those on the boats. - you have failed to mention the general tone of the piece!

The accompanying image, a photograph, - unnecessary as an image = photograph is of boat crashing into the sea. On closer inspection it is evident the boat is crowded with people, who are obviously, due to the nature of this piece, - unnecessary asylum seekers. - if you wanted, you could even reword the whole topic sentence to something like this: "The accompanying image is of a boat crashing into the sea, which on closer inspection, is crowded with asylum seekers." Before the audience can read the piece, they are subjected to this dark image. This allows them to insight of the issue before they read the article. - weak expression; these sentences seem slightly blunt and add nothing to your analysis The bolded - you outline that the quote is bolded, yet you haven't analysed this further; what effect does the boldness create? quote ‘It’s never been the right time to point out the government was encouraging boat people to risk their lives at sea by rewarding those who made it here with the sugar of labour’s Labor's softer treatment’ - this quote is way too long! Break it up into smaller pieces and weave it into your analysis clearly states Bolt’s contention attracting those who are interested in the matter. - this paragraph, as a whole, is lacking in intended effect.

The opinion piece starts off - too colloquial! with a number of rhetorical questions ‘But why’ And if not now, when?’ ‘Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ - the very same issue that TGI had; when you quote examples, you must be specific with them! In what context were these rhetorical questions used? What or who were the rhetorical questions referring to? You quote the 'But why' question, but fail to state why Bolt asked readers this? 'But why' to what? Though the answer is obvious, it encourages the reader to think - poor intended effect , to develop an answer which is likely to be the same as the Bolt’s - generic, and adds close to nothing to your analysis; be specific with the intended effect, and maybe state the impact that these rhetorical questions had on a specific group of the target audience  .  Bolt then composes - is this the right word to use? a scathing attack on the labour Labor government. It is evident that he is truly disgusted with the Gillard government, and his words are extremely sarcastic. - poor expression here The repeated use of the words ‘they lie’ emphasises his point. - strange that you've ended the paragraph in this way

Bolt then begins to use quotes from those who know the situation best, asylum seekers themselves. This, to the audience - weak expression To the audience, this would be irrefutable and Bolt generates - wrong word to use  the generalisation that all refugees find it easier to go to Australia due to Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard’s laws, which in turn lures them into the sea. - which makes readers feel...? The shock value of the information that follows is powerful because as it accuses that it is in fact - messy and confusing Prime Minister Gillard’s fault for the numerous deaths of those who have tried to cross reach Australia. This positions the audience to be dismissive of Prime Minister Gillard and her laws. - generic effect

He then continues his attack, again using sarcasm to mock the government, ‘Too Soon!’ - what is this 'too soon' quote referring to? Without explaining the evidence further or informing your reader what it means, your evidence is pretty much useless/pointless He also begins to use quotes from Prime Minister Gillard (and those part of her government) "These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts," followed with evidence which exposes Prime Minister Gillard’s flawed position and identifies her actions as contradictory to her views, again manipulating the audience to be dismissive of the PM. - there is more effect!

From the headline to the conclusion, Bolt’s self righteous and confrontational tone is evident. - I like this sentence! Paragraph after paragraph, he attempts to manipulate the audience into rejecting Prime Minister Gillard and her laws through the use of rhetorical questions, emotional language, evidence and numerous attacks towards the labour Labor government. The lack of reason and logic may lead to the audience questioning the substance of this piece. - not sure why you added this?

A solid effort, given it's only summer holidays. Use these holidays to focus on your expression. Also try and concentrate on building up on the impact on the reader; expand on this and steer clear from generic statements.

Final score: 7/10.

[EvangelionZeta]

Attached.

[Cappuccinos]

I've re - written the piece with the advice you have given me. Hopefully its better? It's attached but yeah you don't have to look at it 

Yeah anyway thanks for the advice

[EvangelionZeta]

Attached.  Much better.

[Water]

I've read the essay twice, so I'll make making some comments regarding the essay.

There are some critical areas in the criteria that you have left out, which in the eyes of the assessor would be alarming and be ringing the sirens of your teachers. I jotted some notes down, and though, you have introduced the issue in your first sentence, it is much too vague. You seem to try to use "too few words" to accommodate your entire introduction. "Less is more," but I think you have opt'd to be too less. You would want to state your issue very clearly. Your contention is not strong when related to the article. It would be much more powerful if you chose a better contention that also expresses his
tone.

You had also left the tone out "entirely." After I finished reading the introduction, I was shocked to see "there was no tone" and hoped that you would redeem yourself in the second paragraph. This was not apparent and in a SAC, this would already lose your A+ down to mid A or less, if your paragraphs were not superb.

Some expressions are too long and windy. It is best to go, straight to the point. For instance you wrote "On closer inspection it is evident the boat is crowded with people, who are obviously, due to the nature of this piece, asylum seekers." Wouldn't it be better to write "The image highlighted by the article illustrates and epitomizes the very concern that Julia's policy has created. The refugees capture...." Something along those lines, would not only create a stronger impression on your essay but also add sophistication, depth , and better expression.

Your writing language analysis appears to be at times, colloquial. And in different cases, your wording also appears to be offensive with "though the answer is obvious" This could leave an impression on the examiner, that you would think he is "stupid"? Expression is also awkward at times, like "and his words are extremely sarcastic" could be replaced with "Sarcasm is employed/use/....". This not only adds an extra paragraph to your essay but also shows to the examiner that you have made an in dept analysis.

Strikingly, your wording of the third paragraph is at times, childish and unsophisticated. Such as "Bolt then begins to use quotes from those who know the situation best, asylum seekers themselves," - better expression could be used, it is equivalent to a year 10 standard if not worst. It also invokes a feeling of resentment in the reader by the pretentious "from those who know the situation best." The asylum seekers in fact don't know best, but rather are exploited by the situation. Wrong expressions can lead to misunderstandings in the reader and the examiner.

Lastly, the sentence, " manipulate the audience into rejecting Prime Minister Gillard" is a big No No. The reader of the article is not the biggest dumbass in the world, neither is the examiner. By using the word "Manipulate," it has connations to evil, deceit, hatred, witches, voldemort. Voldemort? We don't want the writer to appear satanic, we want to praise him, lick his bum and show how brilliant he is , despite how bad the writer actually writes. Its all about cloying the expertise of our writer within our own essay.

And your conclusion "The lack of reason and logic may lead to the audience questioning the substance of this piece" - though you may want to add your opinion into the article, it came out of nowhere and leaves the reader a bit bedazzled. Some students may insert their own opinion but it does prove to be risky, best not take it, some teachers are old fashioned and this could risk losing a few marks or two.


Overall . My score is 5.5 - 6

Some of the positives: You have successfully identified techniques and illustrated it affect on the reader. The structure of the essay is in good form and in your introduction you have identified the issue, somewhat, and the author's contention. You have also concluded your essay by summarizing the techniques that you have chosen to analyze.


PS: Before attaching new essay draft. After I finished writing my analysis of your analysis. It was too late ):

[leona0123]

Hi Steph,
I have read through the second version of your essay and I thought it was very good. However, some advice that I can offer would be to organise your essay into categories in order to give it a more structured (but still flowing feel). Something like this:

INTRO
PARAGRAPH ONE - ANALYSIS OF STYLISTIC TECHNIQUES

• Talk about techniques such as rhetorical questions, metaphors, inclusive language, repetition etc
• Explain how these things persuade in direct relation to the article
PARAGRAPH TWO - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

• Talk about what kind of evidence the writer has used (statistical, scientific, anecdotal etc) and how this strengthens their arguments
PARAGRAPH THREE - ANALYSIS OF APPEALS

• This should be the most substantial paragraph if possible, as it is where you will demonstrate a deeper understanding of the way persuasive language can affect the audience (your ability to do this can be the difference between a good and a great language analysis essay)
• You may be able to talk about one or many of the following things:
  • Appeals to core values:
    Ø appeal to a sense of Justice
     Ø appeal to family values
     Ø appeal to be modern and up-to-date
     Ø appeal to freedom
     Ø appeal to group loyalty
     Ø appeal to patriotism
     Ø appeal to social responsibility
     Ø appeal to tradition, custom or history
     Ø appeal to value of technology
  
  • Alarmism:
     Ø threat to sense of security
     Ø fear of change
     Ø fear of being excluded
     Ø threat to financial security (hip-pocket nerve)
     Ø threat to self-interest
  
• Note how the article makes you feel, and generalise that to the audience
CONCLUSION

The three categories are just ones that I used for my essay on the Bolt article, you might find others that you could use such as emotion or attacks. Hopefully this might be of some help for next time. Other than that, I thought your second essay was great! 8/10.
Keep up the good work
Leona.

   

[Greatness]

Overall it's good but there is room for improvement. Read Attached.