Hi,
I'd appreciate feedback on my comparative language analysis on two articles in response to the protests to the national anthem.
Thanks,
Jai
Tammy Preston's opinion piece, "The anthem is racist and needs to change" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 16-9-2018) approvingly argues with informal, colloquial language to convince Australians that the anthem is not appropriate for Australia and needs to change. Contrary to this, "Stand Up For Our Anthem" (Editorial, Brisbane Daily Mail, 16-9-2018) proudly contends that Australians should stand for the anthem. The editors formal, critical tone argues that it is disrespectful and wrong for people not to stand for the anthem in response to Harper and others not standing for the national anthem.
Preston approvingly contends that we should support Harper's actions in protesting against the national anthem. Preston's use of expert opinion utilises Shane Howard's social media comment. Howard, a song 'writer', proudly contends that Harper "deserves our utmost respect and admiration." The proud tone evokes appreciation in the audience in Harper's actions. Furthermore, the writer's use of expert opinion, as Howard is a song writer, evokes trust in the reader and Preston's argument. As a skilled writer calls the anthem "poorly crafted lyrically, is largely meaningless sentimentality and is a substandard melody", concern and thought is evoked in the reader. The reader is positioned to consider the idea that we need "a new anthem." The exaggeration used by the writer adds emphasis in how inappropriate the anthem is for Australia. The image further validates Howard's authority as an influential figure to the audience as an Australian. The stereotypical Australian clothes and background of Uluru positions the reader to view him as patriotic. Hence, the audience is influenced by his words more as he is a fellow Australian.
Preston mockingly contends that the Government tried to change the anthem in the past but failed. The writer's use of historical events that the anthem has "long been tinkered with" positions the audience to be aware of the fact that "the Government" has tried to improve the anthem. Preston's metaphor that this method is "like trying to modify a Leyland Marina into a Porsche" evokes concern and disappointment in the reader. The mocking tone effectively ridicules the anthem as the metaphor suggests that the anthem is like a Leyland Marina and so implies the anthem is of low quality. More evidence that "former Liberal government minister Amanda Vanstone had a go" in changing the anthem makes it apparent that many want to change the anthem, even political leaders. Therefore, the reader is positioned to be influenced to agree that the anthem should be changed.
Contrastingly, the editor opens by proudly applauding the school for "swiftly and surely" punishing Harper. Though both writers utilise a proud tone to evoke appreciation in the reader, the editor directs the appreciation to the school for correcting Harper's "misguided actions." The editor continues and attacks the "pampered, overindulged complainers" for "[insulting] all Australians". The attack degrades their opinion that the anthem should be changed. The editors use of a straw man argument represents their opinion as disrespectful to Australia. Consequently, anger and disgust towards people protesting against the anthem is evoked within the reader. Hence, the reader has been positioned to view standing for the anthem as the fright action to do.
The editor enthusiastically contends that "Aussies are proud to sand" and sing with price for our many achievements. The use of inclusive language, such as "our" and "we" makes the reader feel included and part of Australia. The editor's evidence of Australia's achievements such as "life-saving medical research conducted by the likes of Fiona Stanley" appeals to the readers patriotism. Pride and joy is invoked in the reader from their country's many achievements. Furthermore, the image of the Australian soldier in a third-world country is likety to have a strong appeal to the reader's patriotism. As he is risking his life to help others, out of respect the reader is positioned to want to stand for the national anthem. Furthermore, they are likely to feel more obliged as they are positioned to see their country performing proud duties. The inclusive language adds emphasis to these feelings as the reader feels they are part of Australia and the many achievements. On the other hand, Preston discourages the reader to stand for the national anthem by utilising a mocking tone. Preston also uses evidence, but instead to depict that the anthem was failed to be changed when they tried to do so. Ultimately, Preston attempts to degrade the national anthem whereas the editor evokes pride and appeals to patriotism to encourage the reader to stand and sing.
Preston proudly and approvingly argues that the anthem is racist and needs to change. Preston evokes appreciation in the reader to Harper's actions through an approving tone in combination with expert opinion. Contrary to Preston, the edtior proudly contends that Harper and other complainers are in the wrong through attacks at their actions and that we should stand for our national anthem and country by appealing to patriotism. Both texts target Australians, and utilise authoritative opinions and evidence to evoke trust in the reader with their argument. Ultimately, they differ as while Preston degrades the national anthem to encourage a new anthem, the editor instead encourages the reader to ignore the few that protest and to stand together for the anthem.
Home
Help
Search
Login
