This is my Language Analysis on Cattle Grazing in the Alpine Region. <--- Really crap topic i know. Anyways i need any comments, on everything about it really soon.. so i can work on my next one based off of my teachers comments and hopefully all of yours too. If you simply read over it and think of anything, note it down in quick reply for me, anything helps.
Debate has been rampant recently over whether the re introduction of cattle in the alpine region has any scientific legitimacy or is right for Victorian national parks. One letter writer, Geoff Mosley in Attacking what parks stand for (The Age, 19/1/2011), contends in differing tones of voice that re introducing cattle into the alpine region is counter productive to the function of national parks, which is to conserve. In another letter, John Ashton in Alpine tenants should pay a bond (The Age24/1/11), contends in an attacking tone of voice that the reintroduction of cattle grazing in the alpine region lacks scientific legitimacy. In contrast to the opinions of Mosley and Ashton, Bradshaw in Cattle call is the right call (Herald Sun, 24/1/11) contents in a reasoned tone of voice that the reintroduction of cattle is the correct decision.
Mosley throughout his letter uses differing tones of voice to support the ways in which he attempts to outline the problems with re introducing cattle and the reasons behind these problems. Initially Mosley conveys his views in an outraged tone of voice, using words such as “appalling” and “ignorance” to detail his opinions about the contradiction the re introduction has on the purpose of national parks. Thus Mosley seeks to directly attack Victorian legislating officials and position the reader to feel their decisions are incorrect and ignorant. Although, as the piece develops, Mosley adopts a reasoned tone of voice and does this by making use of phrasing such as “150-year-old view” and “more than ten per cent”. Not only does this appeal to the traditional conservative nature of national parks; it also makes use of statistics and thus Mosley’s views are conveyed in a more logical and reasoned way in contrast to the outraged tone of voice at the beginning of the piece. This is done by Mosley in order to legitimise his previous attacks on the legislation in order to position the reader to empathise with him and see the logic within the concept of national parks as areas focused upon conservatism. However, Mosley’s use of tone again changes in the final sentence of the piece, adopting an optimistic tone of voice; stating that the return of cattle “hopefully will be rejected”. This final plea toward “public opposition” seeks to position the reader to believe that Mosley is deeply concerned by the issue, and is inclusive language in that further allows the reader to become actively involved, motivating them to take action on the issue.
Ashton, similarly to Mosley, opens the letter with an outraged tone of voice, seeking to attack the scientific purposes for the legislation. From the beginning of the piece, Ashton begins to undermine the arguments of the Cattlemen’s Association; sceptical of the scientific legitimacy of experiments. Ashton describes the idea of the reintroduction of cattle grazing as having scientific purposes, as merely a “glib banner” and describes “scientific grazing” in inverted commas. This statement clearly conveys Ashton’s scepticism, describing the scientific banner of the reintroduction as a shallow charade; positioning the reader to begin to question whether the reintroduction legislation has any merit. Ashton’s position is again furthered when he states the legislation introduced by the Baillieu government had “demoted science” to please “stock owning businessmen”. This conveys that Ashton believes the Baillieu government orchestrated the scientific lie in order to please parties with vested interests and aims to further emphasise to the reader the misconception portrayed by the government.
Ashton not only attacks the scientific merit of cattle grazing legislation, but also brings to attention the environmental impact of their reintroduction. To do so, Ashton uses hyperbolic language, such as “invade wetlands” to describe how cattle will “destroy” an “already fragile ecosystem”. This phrasing overstates the damage that cattle would have on the alpine regions, without supporting evidence, in order to position the reader to feel shocked that a harmless scientific experiment could result in a devastating eventuality for the environment. Thus the addition of this information is done so by Ashton to complement his attack on the scientific legitimacy of the reintroduction of cattle grazing and position the reader to not only feel injustice for the misconception, but also appalled at what damage this could have on the environment.
Bradshaw, in contrast to both Mosley and Ashton, opens the piece in a well reasoned tone, and argues that the reintroduction of cattle in the alpine region is a positive move by the Baillieu government. Bradshaw does this throughout the piece by branding opposition to the legislation as ill informed and disconnected from true events within the national park. In doing this, Bradshaw uses inclusive language, stating they are a “family of Victorians” with a “lifetime of experiences in the Alpine National Park”. These statements frame Bradshaw as a party with a vested interest in the issue as well as one with past experience and first hand knowledge of the state of the Alpine National Park. Not only does this undermine the opposition’s arguments, such as Mosley’s and Ashton’s by contradicting their views, but also positions the reader to see Bradshaw as a person with real experience as opposed to government officials and gives the argument of Bradshaw a higher degree of pull with regular Victorian citizens. Bradshaw furthers this argument by stating that people have not taken the “time to go up there” and that all the cattle they would see are “groups of six to eight”. This further frames opposition to the reintroduction of cattle grazing as segregated from the reality of the events in the national parks and restates Bradshaw’s close encounter with the issue. This then positions the reader to question the legitimacy of arguments against the legislation for cattle grazing and be more empathetic toward the views of Bradshaw as he again reasserts his vested interests in the alpine region.
Mosley and Ashton’s contentions, while both aim to oppose the reintroduction of cattle grazing they go at it from different perspectives. Mosley from an environmental perspective and Ashton from the misconceptions given toward the true nature of the reintroduction of grazing. Mosley’s view would more appeal to environmentalists, as opposed to everyday Victorians, who would be concerned about a façade put in place by a representative government, which was proposed by Ashton. It is seen then that Ashton’s piece becomes more influential as it has harnessed public support within his writing as opposed to just harnessing a minority group which is what Mosley did. In contrast, Bradshaw aimed to assert his own personal association with Alpine National Parks; while simultaneously attacking opposition to the reintroduction. In doing this Bradshaw was able to have an effect on everyday Victorians, but also quell opposition and in doing this is more convincing that the ideas of Mosley and Ashton.
ARTICLES:
Attacking what parks stand for
ENVIRONMENT Minister Ryan Smith's statement that the return of cattle grazing to the Alpine National Park was "justified" on the basis of finding out whether it could help mitigate fire in some areas (The Age, 18/1) is an appalling admission of ignorance about the value and purpose of national parks. Agriculture, including grazing, mining, logging and many other material-production enterprises, has been excluded from national parks because it conflicts with the 150-year-old view that nature and nature processes are more important in selected areas now covering more than 10 per cent of the earth.
In Victoria, grazing has been banned in national parks such as Wilsons Promontory National Park for many years. Hence, the return of cattle to the Alpine National Park is an attack on everything the parks stand for and hopefully will be rejected as a result of public opposition and federal intervention.
Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge
Read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/attacking-what-parks-stand-for-20110118-19v8h.html#ixzz1KjfUQJ19Alpine tenants should pay a bond
THE aftermath of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires has given Victorians much to consider, and the cattlemen's association has been quick to exploit this tragedy as leverage to return cattle to the Alpine National Park under the glib banner of ''scientific grazing''.
CSIRO research has already ascertained that cattle are not interested in much of the flammable heath, so why does the taxpayer need to fund a program duplicating the excellent research that has been done since 1941? We know the cattle will invade wetlands to drink and while doing so will both destroy an already fragile ecosystem and lower the water table, creating dry conditions and downstream pollution.
Ted Baillieu's government has demoted science to below the vested interests of National Party elites of stock-owning businessmen, sorry, cattlemen, who, like any tenant, should pay a substantial bond to be held in trust for the restitution of the damage to the alpine parklands.
John Ashton, North Fitzroy
Cattle call is the right call
AS a family of Victorians with a lifetime of experiences in the Alpine National Park and adjacent lands, we are 100 per cent thrilled to bits that the Baillieu Government has the good sense to allow cattle back into the high country.
The environment is not as fragile as some would have you believe, nor does the high country become a "cow paddock".
In fact, if people took the time to go up there and see for themselves, at the most they'd see groups of six to eight cattle.
They don't all hang around together; they spread themselves out, and in doing so, don't harm the environment.
Perhaps people would prefer poisons were used to control undergrowth, and have the runoff go into our streams and rivers?
Bradshaw family, Carrum Downs
Home
Help
Search
Login
