Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 30, 2024, 12:27:02 am

Author Topic: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis  (Read 4846 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

leona0123

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • Respect: +11
TEXT RESPONSE: Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam & The Old Man Who Read Love Letters

CONTEXT: Encountering Conflict (The Secret River & The Crucible)

STUDY SCORE AIM: 40+
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 11:02:07 pm by ninwa »
2010: Further Maths 37
2011: English, Studio Arts, VCD and Psychology
ATAR aim: 90+ (Bachelor of Visual Arts/Bachelor of Arts @ Monash)

leona0123

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • Respect: +11
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2011, 07:22:48 pm »
0
Sorry this is so long!

In the article ‘Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard’, which was published in the Herald Sun on the 17th of December 2010, Andrew Bolt contends that the Labor Government’s immigration policy is responsible for the tragic deaths of refugees coming to Australia by boat. Bolt uses an accusatory tone as part of his method of blaming the Gillard Government for its errors and is particularly cynical when mentioning Julia Gillard explicitly.   

Bolt implements several stylistic techniques in order to catch the reader’s attention and begin to persuade them to agree with his point of view.
From the very beginning of the piece, Bolt uses rhetorical questions in a repeated fashion. In response to the statement that ‘it’s too early to blame the Gillard Government for these Christmas Island deaths’, he asks, ‘...why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?’. This serves to align the reader with his point of view and signposts the direction that he will take in the article. From these rhetorical questions, the audience can clearly see that Bolt disagrees with the first statement in the article, leading them to feel as though they should adopt this point of view too.
Bolt also makes consistent use of repetition throughout the article, particularly in relation to the phrases ‘they lie’, ‘it’s never been the right time’ and ‘too soon’.  The structure of the article is also quite repetitious, as he constantly alternates between giving evidence and examples and giving his own opinion. The use of this technique continually reinforces the point that Bolt is trying to make throughout this opinion piece and ensures that the reader remains aware of what he is trying to argue. 
Bolt’s use of emotive language is strong and he uses words such as ‘killed’ and ‘dead’ as dysphemistic alternatives to phases such as ‘the victims’ or ‘those who have passed away’. This provokes feelings of shock and dismay within the reader and experiencing these feelings leads the audience to wonder who can be held accountable for what has happened. The emotive language that Bolt uses puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, allowing the reader to quickly jump to the conclusion that they are responsible and feelings of shock and dismay seem to become associated with the mention of the Government. Bolt also uses emotive language to create a strong visual image in the reader’s mind by describing ‘[the] latest boat [which] smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’. Use of the word ‘smashed’ is particularly affective in this instance and works well to complement the dramatic photograph of a shipwrecked boat that accompanies the article. This photograph helps bring to life the issue at hand and is one of many pieces of evidence that Bolt presents in the article.   

Throughout this opinion piece, statistical and anecdotal evidence, as well as the previously mentioned photograph, give Bolt’s arguments strength. He gives the number of deaths that have resulted from many incidents that have occurred, stating that ‘28 or more people... [and] up to 170 others’ have died recently, along with ‘five Afgans [who] died in blowing up their boat’ in April last year and ‘19 Afgans’ whose boat sunk in November last year. The use of these statistics shows that Bolt has a solid understanding of what he is discussing and also indicates to the audience that he acknowledges that the issue is broader than just one isolated event.  These and other statistics emphasise to the readers the extent of the issue discussed and make Bolt’s opinion seem more reliable.
Bolt uses quotes from political figures and refugees in an attempt to bring in outside knowledge and give his contention credibility. He demonstrates the idea that asylum seekers are being tempted to travel to Australia (due to the way the Government has ‘recklessly weakened’ the immigration laws) by quoting an Afghan who spoke to The Age last year and said, “The [Australian] Government has changed now. It’s good for refugees there”. Through this quote, the reader can see the real life impact that the new laws have on opinions of refugees, and this impact is exactly as described by Bolt. Further on in the piece, Bolt makes reference to Nationals leader Warren Truss who reiterates statistics previously quoted by Bolt himself. Once again, this demonstrates that Bolt’s argument is factual and serves as a source of expert opinion. When quoting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Bolt’s tone shifts to a more cynical one.  Directly after quoting her statement that ‘These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts’, Bolt makes several sarcastic remarks to ensure that the reader continues to view Gillard negatively. From here on, attention seems to be focused less on the Labor Government and more on Gillard specifically as Bolt directs the blame towards her.             
   
As Bolt’s aim is to convince readers of the ‘criminally reckless’ nature of the Labor Government and how they are responsible for the deaths of refugees, he attempts to appeal to them in various ways. Most of the article consists of attacks on the Labor Government which are supported by the evidence mentioned previously. By including these in his piece, Bolt has made an attempt to appeal to the audience’s sense of reason and the idea that it would be irrational to disagree with him since there is such a great amount of evidence supporting his claims. Bolt also describes the many fatal incidents involving the boat people, making mention of the ‘men, women and – God rest them – children’ who died. These techniques appeal to the audience’s sympathy, sense of justice and social responsibility as they feel sympathetic towards the refugees and experience the need to do something to help them. The audience is left wanting justice (which, as implied by Bolt, could be achieved through a change in Government) and they feel socially responsible to support Bolt’s arguments for fear of being seen as partly responsible for the deaths of refugees or as being in favour of Gillard’s laws which have been presented as morally wrong. 

Overall, Bolt’s article on this contentious issue presents the audience with a fairly one-sided view on the Gillard Government’s immigration laws. However, he maintains a consistently strong opinion throughout the entire piece which leaves the audience with a clear idea of his intention, making them more likely to develop an opinion that is strongly in favour of his own. To complement this, Bolt has used a range of techniques including rhetorical questions, repetition, emotive language, statistical and anecdotal evidence and appeals to the audience in his piece, creating a very solid argument that will most likely stay in the reader’s mind.       
2010: Further Maths 37
2011: English, Studio Arts, VCD and Psychology
ATAR aim: 90+ (Bachelor of Visual Arts/Bachelor of Arts @ Monash)

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: * Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2011, 07:56:26 pm »
0
I will underline key sections of your essay and discuss the underlined sections in red. Rewording will be in green.

In the article - you should try and include a statement about the context of the issue ‘Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard’, which was published in the Herald Sun on the 17th of December 2010, Andrew Bolt contends that the Labor Government’s immigration policy is responsible for the tragic deaths of refugees coming to Australia by boat. Bolt uses an accusatory tone as part of his method of blaming the Gillard Government for its errors and is particularly cynical when mentioning Julia Gillard explicitly. - excellent! Short, brief and to-the-point.

Bolt implements several stylistic techniques in order to catch the reader’s attention and begin to persuade them to agree with his point of view. From the very beginning of the piece, Bolt uses rhetorical questions in a repeated fashion - good to see you're being specific here . In response to the statement that ‘it’s too early to blame the Gillard Government for these Christmas Island deaths’, he asks, ‘...why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ - I can see what you're trying to do here. Don't try to weave long quotes into your analysis; it never works. Just break it up and interweave your quotes that way . This serves to align the reader with his point of view and signposts the direction that he will take in the article - this is slightly generic and general IMO; be specific about the intended effect . From these rhetorical questions, the audience can clearly see that Bolt disagrees with the first statement in the article - this statement is strange; how can Bolt disagree with what he wrote? , leading them to feel as though they should adopt this point of view too.

Bolt also makes consistent use of repetition throughout the article, particularly in relation to the phrases ‘they lie’, ‘it’s never been the right time’ and ‘too soon’ - be more specific with these examples; who is Bolt referring to when he repeats these questions? .  The structure of the article opinion piece is also quite repetitious - excellent idea with the grouping of different aspects of the piece, under the same technique; well done! , as he constantly alternates between giving evidence and examples and giving his own opinion. The use of this technique - I usually try to avoid this word in any language analysis continually reinforces the point that Bolt is trying to make throughout this opinion piece and ensures that the reader remains aware of what he is trying to argue. - build up on the intended effect; this last statement is generic.

Bolt’s use of emotive language is strong and he uses words such as ‘killed’ and ‘dead’ as dysphemistic alternatives - excellent use of metalanguage here to phases such as ‘the victims’ or ‘those who have passed away’. This provokes feelings of shock and dismay within the reader and experiencing these feelings leads the audience to wonder who can be held accountable for what has happened. - this is EXACTLY the kind of intended effect you should be incorporating throughout the piece! The emotive language that Bolt uses puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, allowing the reader to quickly jump to the conclusion that they are responsible and feelings of shock and dismay seem to become associated with the mention of the Government. - once again, fantastic intended effect Bolt also uses emotive language - use a different sentence starter; an alternative to the traditional T.E.E approach - swap the order around here to create a strong visual image in the reader’s mind by describing ‘[the] latest boat [which] smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’. - try to avoid paraphrasing if you can; here, you could have just quoted "latest boat" and "smashed into the rocks of C.Island" Use of the word ‘smashed’ - excellent how you pull the quote apart! is particularly affective effective in this instance and works well to complement the dramatic photograph of a shipwrecked boat that accompanies the article - unnecessary . This photograph helps bring to life the issue at hand and is one of many pieces of evidence that Bolt presents in the article.  

Throughout this opinion piece, statistical and anecdotal evidence, as well as the previously mentioned photograph, give Bolt’s arguments strength. He gives the number of deaths that have resulted from many incidents that have occurred, stating that ‘28 or more people... [and] up to 170 others’ have died recently, along with ‘five Afgans [who] died in blowing up their boat’ in April last year and ‘19 Afgans’ whose boat sunk in November last year. The use of these statistics shows that Bolt has a solid understanding of what he is discussing and also indicates to the audience that he acknowledges that the issue is broader than just one isolated event.  These and other statistics emphasise to the readers, the extent of the issue and make Bolt’s opinion seem more reliable. - give more effect here; the last sentence here is far too general

Bolt uses quotes from political figures and refugees in an attempt to bring in outside knowledge and give his contention credibility. He demonstrates the idea that asylum seekers are being tempted to travel to Australia (due to the way the Government has ‘recklessly weakened’ the immigration laws) by quoting an Afghan who spoke to The Age last year and said, “The [Australian] Government has changed now. It’s good for refugees there”. Through this quote, the reader can see the real life impact that the new laws have on opinions of refugees, and this impact is exactly as described by Bolt. Further on in the piece, Bolt makes reference to Nationals leader Warren Truss who reiterates statistics previously quoted by Bolt himself. Once again, this demonstrates that Bolt’s argument is factual and serves as a source of expert opinion. When quoting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Bolt’s tone shifts to a more cynical one.  Directly after quoting her statement that ‘These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts’, Bolt makes several sarcastic remarks to ensure that the reader continues to view Gillard negatively. From here on, attention seems to be focused less on the Labor Government and more on Gillard specifically as Bolt directs the blame towards her. - the only thing I can say about this paragraph is: try and shorten your quotes. I know it's tempting to just chuck a whole slab of evidence into the analysis, but trust me, you're better off taking one or two words that really give impact, than one statement that is rather dull
  
As Bolt’s aim is to convince readers of the ‘criminally reckless’ nature of the Labor Government and how they are responsible for the deaths of refugees, he attempts to appeal to them in various ways. Most of the article consists of attacks on the Labor Government which are supported by the evidence mentioned previously. By including these in his piece, Bolt has made an attempt to appeal - this is repetitive (see above bolded section) to the audience’s sense of reason and the idea that it would be irrational to disagree with him since there is such a great amount of evidence supporting his claims. Bolt also describes the many fatal incidents involving the boat people, making mention of the ‘men, women and – God rest them – children’ who died. These techniques appeal to the audience’s sympathy, sense of justice and social responsibility as they feel sympathetic towards the refugees and experience the need to do something to help them. The audience is left wanting justice (which, as implied by Bolt, could be achieved through a change in Government) and they feel socially responsible to support Bolt’s arguments for fear of being seen as partly responsible for the deaths of refugees or as being in favour of Gillard’s laws which have been presented as morally wrong. - really good intended effect here!

Overall, Bolt’s article on this contentious issue presents the audience with a fairly one-sided view on the Gillard Government’s immigration laws. However, he maintains a consistently strong opinion throughout the entire piece which leaves the audience with a clear idea of his intention, making them more likely to develop an opinion that is strongly in favour of his own. To complement this, Bolt has used a range of techniques including rhetorical questions, repetition, emotive language, statistical and anecdotal evidence and appeals to the audience in his piece, creating a very solid argument that will most likely stay in the reader’s mind. - you don't have to list the techniques; I guess it's up to personal choice. Solid conclusion.

[/quote]

A breath of fresh air. Magnificent essay, well-written, and I can see that you've really thought about the intended effect. There are some instances in your analysis where the intended effect is generic, but in other parts, the intended effect is fantastic; so try and keep this standard of writing consistent throughout the whole analysis. Only some minor expression issues which you'll be able to solve if you proofread your work. Other than that, a really good analysis!

Final score: 8.5/10.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 08:01:34 pm by werdna »

adelaide.emily10

  • Guest
Re: * Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2011, 08:04:24 pm »
0
Sorry this is so long!

In the article ‘Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard’, which was published in the Herald Sun on the 17th of December 2010, Andrew Bolt contends that the Labor Government’s immigration policy is responsible for the tragic deaths of refugees coming to Australia by boat. Bolt uses an accusatory tone as part of his method of blaming the Gillard Government for its errors and is particularly cynical when mentioning Julia Gillard explicitly.  

(I think you should go a bit more in depth about the tone. i.e. instead of just saying he uses an accusatory tone also mention how the tone has a positive impact on the reader in terms of favouring the author. you need to also specifically mention the audience - great introduction though)

Bolt implements several stylistic techniques in order to catch the reader’s attention and begin to persuade them to agree with his point of view.
From the very beginning of the piece, Bolt uses rhetorical questions in a repeated fashion. In response to the statement that ‘it’s too early to blame the Gillard Government for these Christmas Island deaths’, he asks, ‘...why? And if not now, when? Before the next boat sinks, or after?’. This serves to align the reader with his point of view and signposts the direction that he will take in the article. From these rhetorical questions, the audience can clearly see that Bolt disagrees with the first statement in the article, leading them to feel as though they should adopt this point of view too.
(good paragraph, but may i suggest you try to flow the quotes in, than explicity stating - it can be a bit difficult but it can help with the overall flow of the piece)
Bolt (also - not necessary) makes consistent use of repetition throughout the article, particularly in relation to the phrases ‘they lie’, ‘it’s never been the right time’ and ‘too soon’.  The structure of the article is also quite repetitious, as he constantly alternates between giving evidence and examples and giving his own opinion. The use of this technique continually reinforces the point that Bolt is trying to make throughout this opinion piece and ensures that the reader remains aware of what he is trying to argue. (maybe don't use the word aware in the last sentence, but maybe use emphasise or highlight as he is reinforcing a point of view not just showing it :) )
  
Bolt’s use of emotive language is strong (we don't measure how good he uses a technique, but more it's effect - i do the sam thing as well :) ) and he uses words such as ‘killed’ and ‘dead’ as dysphemistic alternatives to phases such as ‘the victims’ or ‘those who have passed away (VERY GOOD SENTENCE)’. This provokes feelings of shock and dismay within the reader and experiencing these feelings leads the audience to wonder who can be held accountable for what has happened. The emotive language that Bolt uses puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, allowing the reader to quickly jump to the conclusion that they are responsible and feelings of shock and dismay seem to become associated with the mention of the Government. Bolt also uses emotive language to create a strong visual image in the reader’s mind by describing ‘[the] latest boat [which] smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’. Use of the word ‘smashed’ is particularly affective (effective?) in this instance and works well to complement the dramatic photograph of a shipwrecked boat that accompanies the article. This photograph helps bring to life the issue at hand and is one of many pieces of evidence that Bolt presents in the article.  
(overall a very strong paragraph and good vocabulary)

Throughout this opinion piece, statistical and anecdotal evidence, as well as the previously mentioned photograph, give Bolt’s arguments strength. He gives the number of deaths that have resulted from many incidents that have occurred, stating that ‘28 or more people... [and] up to 170 others’ have died recently, along with ‘five Afgans [who] died in blowing up their boat’ in April last year and ‘19 Afgans’ whose boat sunk in November last year. The use of these statistics shows that Bolt has a solid understanding of what he is discussing and also indicates to the audience that he acknowledges that the issue is broader than just one isolated event.  These and other statistics emphasise to the readers the extent of the issue discussed and make Bolt’s opinion seem more reliable. ( try to focus more on the effect than the actual example so that your response is more succinct)
Bolt uses quotes from political figures and refugees in an attempt to bring in outside knowledge and give his contention credibility. He demonstrates the idea that asylum seekers are being tempted to travel to Australia (due to the way the Government has ‘recklessly weakened’ the immigration laws) by quoting an Afghan who spoke to The Age last year and said, “The [Australian] Government has changed now. It’s good for refugees there(better use of quote, good work)”. Through this quote, the reader can see the real life impact that the new laws have on opinions of refugees, and this impact is exactly as described by Bolt. Further on in the piece, Bolt makes reference to Nationals leader Warren Truss who reiterates statistics previously quoted by Bolt himself. Once again, this demonstrates that Bolt’s argument is factual and serves as a source of expert opinion. When quoting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Bolt’s tone shifts to a more cynical one.  Directly after quoting her statement that ‘These conversations are best had when they are fully informed by the facts’, Bolt makes several sarcastic remarks to ensure that the reader continues to view Gillard negatively. From here on, attention seems to be focused less on the Labor Government and more on Gillard specifically as Bolt directs the blame towards her.      
(great paragraph)        
  
As Bolt’s aim is to convince readers of the ‘criminally reckless’ nature of the Labor Government and how they are responsible for the deaths of refugees, he attempts to appeal to them in various ways. Most of the article consists of attacks on the Labor Government which are supported by the evidence mentioned previously. By including these in his piece, Bolt has made an attempt to appeal to the audience’s sense of reason and the idea that it would be irrational to disagree with him since there is such a great amount of evidence supporting his claims. Bolt also describes the many fatal incidents involving the boat people, making mention of the ‘men, women and – God rest them – children’ who died. These techniques appeal to the audience’s sympathy, sense of justice and social responsibility as they feel sympathetic towards the refugees and experience the need to do something to help them. The audience is left wanting justice (which, as implied by Bolt, could be achieved through a change in Government) and they feel socially responsible to support Bolt’s arguments for fear of being seen as partly responsible for the deaths of refugees or as being in favour of Gillard’s laws which have been presented as morally wrong.  

Overall, Bolt’s article on this contentious issue presents the audience with a fairly one-sided view on the Gillard Government’s immigration laws. However, he maintains a consistently strong opinion throughout the entire piece which leaves the audience with a clear idea of his intention, making them more likely to develop an opinion that is strongly in favour of his own. To complement this, Bolt has used a range of techniques including rhetorical questions, repetition, emotive language, statistical and anecdotal evidence and appeals to the audience in his piece, creating a very solid argument that will most likely stay in the reader’s mind.        


a very strong response overall just a few technical errors to work on
correct me if i'm wrong but don't we usually write a whole paragraph on the image?
i think that you have used grat vocabulary, but sometimes you just need to be mroe to the point

just my opinion :)

Greatness

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3100
  • Respect: +103
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: * Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2011, 08:06:07 pm »
0
Very good piece. Read Attached.

pi

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 14348
  • Doctor.
  • Respect: +2376
Re: * Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2011, 08:06:57 pm »
0
In the article - you should try and include a statement about the context of the issue
...

Its actually not necessary nor is it marked (as the context is given in the exam on the previous page to the article).  

Although I am yet to write mine (kinda cheating by reading yours...), I would probably give it a 8/10, its pretty strong actually. I think werdna has got most things covered in the critique. Just in the conclusion, I wouldn't list the techniques, a lot of people don't even do a conclusion as for language analysis, its not really needed (I know someone who got 10 in LA in the exam with no conclusion, so thats dort of proof). I would also agree with adelaide.emily10 on the expansion of your writing of the tone, as it is one of the most important techniques.


EDIT: Looking at EZ's below post, just add a context line for safety
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 08:14:29 pm by Rohitpi »

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2011, 08:13:21 pm »
0
In the article - you should try and include a statement about the context of the issue
...

Its actually not necessary nor is it marked (as the context is given in the exam on the previous page to the article). 

Marker's criteria:

"Shows a perceptive and sophisticated understanding of a range of ways in which the written and visual language positions readers in the context presented."

Students' criteria:

"• understanding of the ideas and points of view presented "

Yes, it doesn't explicitly say that you need to understand the context, but it eases the fear that an overzealous marker will take points for not demonstrating an awareness of "the context presented".
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].

leona0123

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • Respect: +11
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2011, 08:15:23 pm »
0
In the article - you should try and include a statement about the context of the issue

I am not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain it a little more, maybe with an example?
Thanks :)
2010: Further Maths 37
2011: English, Studio Arts, VCD and Psychology
ATAR aim: 90+ (Bachelor of Visual Arts/Bachelor of Arts @ Monash)

EvangelionZeta

  • Quintessence of Dust
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2435
  • Respect: +288
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2011, 08:18:02 pm »
0
Attached.

In terms of contextualising the issue, it means having an introductory sentence such as "With the recent introduction of anti-graffiti laws, questions have been raised as to the legitimacy of graffiti as an art form".  Then follow up with something like "One response to this issue has been that of" blah blah.
---

Finished VCE in 2010 and now teaching professionally. For any inquiries, email me at [email protected].

LOVEPHYSICS

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +1
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2011, 02:10:40 pm »
0
Just to what EV is saying:
The government's recent proposal to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for immigrants wanting to settle in Australia, has divided the community with many being outraged citing its discriminatory nature, while others argue it is necessary to ensure Australia maintains its cultural specificity.

That is an example of contexualising the background issue. Hope this helps.
Arts/Law (ANU)

LOVEPHYSICS

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +1
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2011, 03:40:49 pm »
0
Comments:
(1) Dealt with the language techniques rather well
(2) Appropriate analysis on the author's intents
(3) Writing is controlled and well-structured
(4) Expression is strong, though not without its problems
(5) There is an assurance about the response, you have clearly thought about the piece and it shows in the writing.

Points to note:
(1) Try not to be repetitive with the techniques
(2) "(due to the way the Government has ‘recklessly weakened’ the immigration laws), (which, as implied by Bolt, could be achieved through a change in Government)"
NO, do not use brackets. Putting on brackets not only make the sentence sloppy, it UNDERRATES the significance of the content within.

I find this paragraph rather interesting, so I thought I would try to improve it.

Bolt’s use of emotive language is strong as he uses words such as ‘killed’ and ‘dead’ as dysphemistic alternatives to phrases such as ‘the victims’ or ‘those who have passed away’. This provokes feelings of shock and dismay within the reader and the mere experience of these feelings brings the audience to question those who may have been involved in causing such a horrific tragedy.The emotive language that Bolt employs puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, as he shifts the blame to their 'compassionate politics' and positions the reader to conclude that the Gillard government are responsible and thus must be held accountable. Bolt also uses emotive language to create a strong visual image in the reader’s mind, by describing ‘[the] latest boat [which] smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’. Use of the word ‘smashed’ endows the inevitable loss of lives, as complemented by the dramatic photograph which depicts the shipwrecked boat struggling against the empowering tides. This photograph personifies the issue at hand and is one of the many pieces of evidence in which Bolt used to press his assertion that the terrible tragedy could have been avoided if not for the Labour government's 'weak laws' and the politics they played in misleading desperate refugees.

Otherwise, a high response. 8/10. You should be proud of your efforts.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 03:54:07 pm by LOVEPHYSICS »
Arts/Law (ANU)

lexitu

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2147
  • When I grow up I'm going to Bovine University.
  • Respect: +66
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2011, 04:04:18 pm »
0
I think your analysis is not specific enough and you are taking generic descriptions of intended effects and substituting them into your analysis. If you can take what you wrote and use it for another article then it is not specific enough. E.g. "The use of this technique continually reinforces the point that Bolt is trying to make throughout this opinion piece and ensures that the reader remains aware of what he is trying to argue."

Also, careful not to evaluate - saying that a technique is "particularly affective" serves no purpose.

Your writing is coherent but you need to improve at the task. 7/10.

Water

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Respect: +116
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2011, 05:41:32 pm »
0
Reread the article, with a refreshed mind and I would certainly give it an 8/10. I base my mark on the merits that the author has demonstrated a very clear understanding of the effects. I share the same views as the other posts in your flaws, overall. Good job well done :)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 08:35:36 pm by Water »
About Philosophy

When I see a youth thus engaged,—the study appears to me to be in character, and becoming a man of liberal education, and him who neglects philosophy I regard as an inferior man, who will never aspire to anything great or noble. But if I see him continuing the study in later life, and not leaving off, I should like to beat him - Callicle

Mint

  • Guest
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2011, 12:20:50 am »
0
Overall, a very well written analysis.
I think you have a great vocabulary and your writing is very fluent.
Your analysis of each technique is detailed but there are a few generic descriptions.
I particularly like the conclusion, wraps up the piece well :)

good job! 8/10

CharlieW

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
  • Respect: +2
Re: Leona0123's Thread - Week 3 January - Language Analysis
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2011, 06:52:31 pm »
0
Not gonna give a full wrap, as werdna and co. have done their bit, just a few small things

You're first paragraph is fine, the onyl nit picky thing i can say is try to find a synonym for repeat or repetition, i think u used it 3-4 times, which is absolutely fine, but i like mixing it up with fancy stuff like incessant use of bla bla bla, rather than just repetition reptition reptition.

paragraph after that:
Use of the word ‘smashed’ is particularly affective in this instance and works well to complement the dramatic photograph of a shipwrecked boat that accompanies the article. This photograph helps bring to life the issue at hand and is one of many pieces of evidence that Bolt presents in the article.

This is lovely, only thing i could raise  a question is works well, seems borderline value judgement.

Somewhere in you're essay you said:

"The emotive language that Bolt uses puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, allowing the reader to quickly jump to the conclusion that they are responsible and feelings of shock and dismay seem to become associated with the mention of the Government."

last clause is kinda awkward, doesn't feel right.

Apart from that I really like it, if it was written under exam conditions, I'd give it about a 9.

EDIT: 8/10 sorry, i read it thru again, and there was little mention of a target audience (excludings readers), u know really specific audience groups, e.g. more right orientated readers, ppl who see themsevles as compassionate, conservative readers, even say something like the Australian ppl is more specific than readers.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 06:59:20 pm by CharlieW »
Uni course: Monash MBBS I (2011-2015)