[English]- Language Analysis

[madoscar65]

Hi Vners,
I have never posted an essay up on VCEnotes before because I know that my English sucks so bad that it is embarrassing... However since exams are approaching, I decided to put my essay up here and hopefully you guys will be able to mark it and give me feedback. Be as critical as you can. Thanks

“2010 International biodiversity Conference”


Recently there have been serious concerns about biodiversity in our world and the debate surfaces regarding how to “...safeguard the variety of life on earth: biodiversity.” This issue is presented as a speaker’s presentation in the conference hall and contends in an admonishing and informative tone that people should achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss. There are two images that accompany this presentation, one which is an upsized “2010” with animals, humans and plants, and the other one with Earth in the hands of humans. Throughout this informative presentation, the speaker utilises rhetorical questions, statistics, inclusive language and appealing to sympathy to add credibility to his argument.

Readers are first exposed to an image of an upsized “2010” which shows animals, humans and plants. The speaker intends to give the reader a general idea about the importance of biodiversity. The number “2010” is purposely upsized to immediately alert the reader that this year has been declared as the international year of biodiversity. The picture of the humans is purposely placed in the middle of “2010” which immediately informs the reader that biodiversity is in our control. 

The speaker commences his presentation with a negative connotation of the “vital significance” of biodiversity in our world, immediately inciting fear in the reader’s mind that our world is changing because of human actions. By opening his argument with the importance of biodiversity, it draws his audience to agree with his or her contention.  The speaker asks rhetorically, “Has this been a year of celebration of life on earth? Has this, in fact been a year of actions?” The speaker is not only makes his audience feel guilty for not taking any actions, but also makes his audience feel more responsible in protecting biodiversity. Furthermore, the speaker attacks his audience by asking rhetorically “Honestly, how well have we done?”. Since the speaker shows how disappointed he is, the readers will begin to feel a sense of responsibility and realise the significance of biodiversity and how badly it is affecting Earth. As a result, opening his argument by attacking his audience with negative connotation and rhetorical questions, it immediately draws the attention of his audience in siding with his or her contention.

After drawing his audience in siding with the contention, he begins presenting statistics from an authority, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), that “...species assessed, 38% are today threatened and 804 already extinct”, purposely directing to all his audience that humans are causing “...destruction of natural habitats, hunting, the spread of alien predators, disease and climate change” . The audience will feel guilty for their own actions in causing destruction and will take full responsibility by reducing the rate of biodiversity loss. Meanwhile, the speaker evokes a positive connotation with the inclusive remark “We are, in truth the most educated generation of any to date...”By using positive connotation of “most educated generation”, the speaker evokes optimism in his reader that they are capable of fixing the destructions that they have caused on Earth. Readers will vigorously work together and reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. Furthermore, with definite inclusive term “We have no excuse for inaction” instantly leaves the reader no chance to talk back but to agree with his contention. Ultimately, the combination of statistics and inclusive language with positive connotations leads the reader no choice in denying the speaker’s contention.

The speaker continuously uses inclusive language “WE”,”YOU” and “YOUR” shows that he is definitely not leaving anyone out. Once again, the speaker attacks his audience, particularly the wealthy ones, with the use of metaphor “mouth platitudes in the comfort of an air-conditioned sumptuously catered conference hall...” intending to provoke them to think about their own greediness and think about how others are suffering. Furthermore, the speaker provides negative connotation “environmental degradation” and “rampant illnesses” to incite fear in the reader on the detrimental effects of biodiversity. This will not only cause the reader to reduce biodiversity loss, but it also takes away their pride when the speaker repeats the word “poor”. By continuously repeating the word “poor” incites sympathy in the reader, and they will definitely feel guilty for causing extreme poverties to many people. The speaker is trying to continuously remind his audience the detrimental effect of biodiversity and that people should not only be thinking about themselves, but also others who are in great needs. With the change from informative to colloquial tone, with sarcasm statement “Is any of this new information? Of course not! The speaker, again, leaves no other choice for his audience to think about what has to be done.

The speaker purposely ends his presentation with an image of Earth in the hands of humans which shows that biodiversity is in our hands, and it is our choice in reducing its loss. The Earth is purposely down sized to show that everyone is capable of changing this world in good and bad ways. The image is accompanied by an authoritative quote “Biodiversity is the greatest treasure we have... Its diminishment is to be prevented to all costs”. The speaker ends his presentation with an image accompanied by a quote to re-establish his contention. After reading the quote, readers will begin to treasure Earth, and will prevent any further destruction on native habitants.

As a result, the speaker balances out his presentation with the use of positive and negative connotation to support his argument. By including rhetorical questions, statistics, inclusive language and sympathy, not only persuade the reader in siding with his or her contention, but compel them to take serious action in protecting Earth. The use of inclusive term successfully persuades the reader because it is purposely targeted to everyone on this planet . In general, by ending his presentation in a colloquial manner with an authoritative quote, readers will have a different perspective view in helping out Earth from being destroyed.

[Xavier1234]

*Disclaimer: The following are suggestions from a mere first year university student. Provided I went pretty well with English 2010, they are not of a person qualified to teach English in whatever shape or form.

-Don't give away too much in your introductions. Much of detailed info should be on the body instead. Otherwise, the paragraph doesn't flow as smoothly.
-I cannot stress this enough. Avoid identifying, and even worse, listing techniques used by the writer/speaker. If you're aiming for the best possible marks, this type of lang anal is just not good enough. It makes the piece look way too formulaic.

there still seems to be a dependence on formulaic responses, which suggests that some students believe that rote-learning is sufficient.

-Your chronological approach to the piece is good. You could also analyse the implications of "2010 year of bio..." as THE logo, not just as an image.
-interrogate why the writer might have used all-caps in "YOU" "YOUR" etc. (paragraph 5)
-Improve your quoting. (see 4th paragraph)
-Use deductive reasoning over inductive. You've done well to avoid this in much of your piece, but it was still evident. ".”By using positive connotation of “most educated generation”, the speaker evokes optimism in his reader that they are capable of fixing the destructions that they have caused on Earth. Readers will vigorously work together and reduce the rate of biodiversity loss." How do you know that the audience WOULD, after the discussion, actually do all you suggested? That's called inductive reasoning, something that is to be avoided.
-lastly, I know that you're writing with a strict time limit, but your conclusion has to be in line with your intro and body. They can't be on separate planes explaining different things.

-Despite all that, this was a good effort. Though, as has been said, formulaic touches like this wouldn't scale you on the upper-range. 6.5/10 All the best.

[abzzzz]

How do you not identify each technique, but still mention them? i have trouble with this

[Xavier1234]

I should have re-phrased that. You should be identifying techniques, hence despite how much improvements could be made on the essay, it still received a mid-range mark because it did just that. However, the problem is, 'it did just that'.

I apologise. ^ that was what I was trying to get to. For better marks, assessors say they want less direct identification of techniques and more subtlety in incorporating them in your analysis. Sorry for the confusion.

[madoscar65]

Thanks Xavier1234 , if I actually followed what you just said, will the mark be increased to about 7 or 8?

[Xavier1234]

Thanks Xavier1234 , if I actually followed what you just said, will the mark be increased to about 7 or 8?

I would have to say that your mark should definitely improve somewhat from what I've given you, but I can't put that in numerical terms. Some of what I've written above are just what my teacher last year told me not to do with writing an essay, whilst the others are only my opinion. It's still best for you to read up on vcaa reports and try to guage what your mark would be from there.