VCE English Question Thread

[thaaanyan]

Is talking about terrorists in a context essay a risky thing to do?

? no? in what way??? (presuming this is for encountering conflict) if you're explaining that conflict may provoke extreme reactions from individuals, who feel politically and/or religiously threatened by differing ideologies and may therefore commit violent crimes, then it seems like a valid argument. i think the issue comes when you specifically stigmatise a minority group as the sole cause of terrorist behaviour - which isn't true, and likely isn't what your planning on arguing. so it's fine.
if you think it's risky because it's over done in context essays, then it kind of depends on how you argue it. old examples can be rewritten in a clever and insightful way. good-luck!

[pi]

Is talking about terrorists in a context essay a risky thing to do?

It's risky to be racist because you don't know who's reading your piece. If you're not conveying any racist messages, there shouldn't be an issue.

[paper-back]

It's risky to be racist because you don't know who's reading your piece. If you're not conveying any racist messages, there shouldn't be an issue.

? no? in what way??? (presuming this is for encountering conflict) if you're explaining that conflict may provoke extreme reactions from individuals, who feel politically and/or religiously threatened by differing ideologies and may therefore commit violent crimes, then it seems like a valid argument. i think the issue comes when you specifically stigmatise a minority group as the sole cause of terrorist behaviour - which isn't true, and likely isn't what your planning on arguing. so it's fine.
if you think it's risky because it's over done in context essays, then it kind of depends on how you argue it. old examples can be rewritten in a clever and insightful way. good-luck!

Thanks guys. I was planning to use it in Identity and belonging to show how the the notion of a sense of belonging can sometimes become detrimental (in regards to radicalization in Australia) - Is this even a good example?
No, I wasn't intending to use it in a racist/stereotypical manner
Just thought it might be a sensitive topic these days, I don't know why

[thaaanyan]

Thanks guys. I was planning to use it in Identity and belonging to show how the the notion of a sense of belonging can sometimes become detrimental (in regards to radicalization in Australia) - Is this even a good example?
No, I wasn't intending to use it in a racist/stereotypical manner
Just thought it might be a sensitive topic these days, I don't know why

Hey. I'm not 100% sure because i haven't studied this context at all; but reading that it's kind of like what your saying is the sense of belonging individuals feel to an extremist cause/group identity can cause them to partake in radical actions?? I guess you could consider it a motivator, though I would generally consider political oppression/ foreign intervention larger sources of extremist action.  You could look at the concept from a different perspective/add depth to this original idea: alienation and exclusion of identity; a lack of belonging due to the stigmatization and demonizing of ethnic and cultural groups results in minorities seeking to find endorsement and cultural acceptance in more radical places.

It is a plausible example, but there are tons of stuff you could use for  'the sense of belonging being detrimental.' From a global historical perspective you could talk about how majorities in power seek to enforce their understanding of identity for purposes of consolidating power. Like when nations take over other nations - settler sovereignty imposes sexuality, religion, language, skin colour, culture and jurisprudence in specific ways on First Peoples. Forcing people to conform to a specific identity can be seen as an extension of the genocidal apparatus of colonisation; as a more modern Australian example, think of the stolen generation, and how there was awful policy which aimed to 'breed out the colour' from Aboriginal First Peoples.
Or like,  the whole process of citizenship which initially revolved around the exclusion and expulsion of first peoples; making them 'other' or alien in their own nations, while transforming outside colonisers into exalted 'citizens.' Identity which is used to exclude and to marginalise is historically present throughout all global + historical imperial relations. I'm just throwing ideas out there and hoping they stick, but basically there's tons of scope here to have interesting and insightful discussion!

And while I recognise it was probably because you didn't want to alienate an examiner, i still would like to say thank- you for understanding and being wary of stereotypes. As someone who faces a lot of them on this issue specifically, I appreciate it  when people go out of their way to be more empathetic and understanding of what minority groups go through, or at least choose not proliferate some of the bigoted rhetoric that's prominent in the media these days. Thank-you to pi as well.

Hope this helps you, paper-back!

[cosine]

Is it a bad idea to use the same quote twice in a Language Analysis Essay? Obviously they will be at different points in the essay?

[tashhhaaa]

Is it a bad idea to use the same quote twice in a Language Analysis Essay? Obviously they will be at different points in the essay?

I wouldn't tbh, my teachers penalise this. However, if you're using different sections of the same quote it should be fine.

/but lets wait to see what the experts have to say /

[pi]

Is it a bad idea to use the same quote twice in a Language Analysis Essay? Obviously they will be at different points in the essay?

I think it depends on how you structure your LA.

This is going way back, but from memory, the main two ways people structured an LA:
1) By "techniques"
2) By "arguments"

If you swear by method 1), which I think is an inferior method (but that's a post for another time and don't change now!), then maybe it would be fine to use the same quote twice. Although, it might sound clunky and disorganised, and hence, may not bode well with examiners.

If you swear by method 2), then you won't have this issue at all as that quote would probably be part of one particular argument, from which you can dissect the various "techniques" from it at once without it sounding clunky.

As above, keep waiting for the experts to have their say though

[cosine]

I think it depends on how you structure your LA.

This is going way back, but from memory, the main two ways people structured an LA:
1) By "techniques"
2) By "arguments"

If you swear by method 1), which I think is an inferior method (but that's a post for another time and don't change now!), then maybe it would be fine to use the same quote twice. Although, it might sound clunky and disorganised, and hence, may not bode well with examiners.

If you swear by method 2), then you won't have this issue at all as that quote would probably be part of one particular argument, from which you can dissect the various "techniques" from it at once without it sounding clunky.

As above, keep waiting for the experts to have their say though

Thank you guys, means a lot.

I always structure my LA by arguments, so I guess it's a bad idea.
Also for language analysis essays, how would you structure a certain paragraph?

For example, I use method 2 so topic sentence obviously addresses the argument. Then how can/should I structure the rest of the paragraph, including the link/last sentence?

Thank you

[tashhhaaa]

I always structure my LA by arguments, so I guess it's a bad idea.

I think it depends on how you structure your LA.

This is going way back, but from memory, the main two ways people structured an LA:
1) By "techniques"
2) By "arguments"

If you swear by method 1), which I think is an inferior method (but that's a post for another time and don't change now!), then maybe it would be fine to use the same quote twice. Although, it might sound clunky and disorganised, and hence, may not bode well with examiners.

If you swear by method 2), then you won't have this issue at all as that quote would probably be part of one particular argument, from which you can dissect the various "techniques" from it at once without it sounding clunky.

As above, keep waiting for the experts to have their say though

Sorry for sounding like a noob but would structuring by techniques be writing a paragraph analysing all the uses of a particular technique, while by arguments gives you paragraphs that discuss multiple techniques?

I never even considered two ways of writing an LA, I just write depending on how I'm feeling...

thanks in advance & no worries cosine :p

[pi]

^^Yup pretty much!

[heids]

ALL PREPARE FOR A RIDICULOUSLY LONG SEMI-RELEVANT IDEAS DUMP POST because I have other stuff I have to do so I did this instead.

I wouldn't tbh, my teachers penalise this. However, if you're using different sections of the same quote it should be fine.

/but lets wait to see what the experts have to say /

Absolutely no expert, but anyways... I don't see why you would, if you're structuring by argument (especially since I'd recommend 1-3 word quotes); however, if you draw different messages from the same quote, it'd be okay.  Do you have an example of where you've done it, Cosine?

Thank you guys, means a lot.

I always structure my LA by arguments, so I guess it's a bad idea.
Also for language analysis essays, how would you structure a certain paragraph?

For example, I use method 2 so topic sentence obviously addresses the argument. Then how can/should I structure the rest of the paragraph, including the link/last sentence?

Thank you

To structure:
TS - describe argument (and/or link to other paras, e.g. 'building on this fear, the author then...')
Then, repeat this cycle a few times with different quotes/techniques:
--- Pick one important 1-4 word quote (or technique, possibly)
--- Analyse the connotations or immediate effect - how does it make them feel/think?
--- Explain how this contributes to agreeing with the sub-argument
Link: draw back to overall article; how does agreeing with the sub-argument make the reader feel about the overall issue?  How does it make them agree with the author's main contention?

Will look at your samples and give you direct feedback today, btw

Sorry for sounding like a noob but would structuring by techniques be writing a paragraph analysing all the uses of a particular technique, while by arguments gives you paragraphs that discuss multiple techniques?

I never even considered two ways of writing an LA, I just write depending on how I'm feeling...

That's it

And, well, I kinda did a mixed version of these... it's pretty common that techniques and arguments overlap, like the techniques of a mocking tone, sarcasm and belittling the opposition = the argument that the opposition are pretty stupid so you shouldn't listen to them.  I called them 'approaches', which is kind of the broad strategies or methods they use to persuade; this is often a mixture of tone, general techniques, and the argument.  (Doesn't have to be chronological at all.)

EXAMPLE: an article I just invented on our need for high-speed trains in Australia, which goes something like this:
- anecdote: parents can't get to young daughter's interstate funeral when she died unexpectedly of car crash, because trains too slow (and for some reason can't get a plane?? lol)
- this would have been solved if only we had high-speed trains
- lists out economic/logical benefits of trains to society
- argues that it's only politicians with self-interest that are doing this
- say that we [authors] are doing everything for the benefits of the readers, we've researched thoroughly, here's our evidence, and more to the point we care about all you readers!

(note, by summarising/grouping it like this, it's already much easier to analyse - this can be a good approach when you get an article; think about how you'd summarise the article's general flow or methods to someone who hadn't read it)

There are also many other ways an author could argue on this point - like, rebutting all negative points, or appealing to patriotism and national pride (everyone else has got it, we can't stay behind the times!!).

Focus on the big picture (see the attachment); you want to show exactly how each technique or method of language usage makes the readers feel, and how this contributes to the wider sub-arguments, and how that contributes to the overall argument (plus show how arguments build on each other! it's all highly connected to make one big picture).  This way, you get a balance between the specifics (e.g. exactly how one individual word will make readers feel) and the overall ways the author is trying to persuade, and how all the individual words and techniques build up to these overall ways and thus the contention.  People often make the mistake of missing level 2, the subarguments, so they end up looking at a bunch of unconnected chronological techniques and trying to link each individual one back to the overall contention.

Anyway, here's kinda how I'd group analyse this article.

Well the post was looking massive

1.  Creating emotional pull to argument, arousing fear and concern about our current system.
- short, fast-paced, sharp, emotive sentences build up pressure and fear
- parents would feel 'what if it's my own child'?
- analyse words like 'devastated' or 'trapped' and how those specific words add to the impact and make us feel
- so now it's got us terrified about the current state of things, so we see the need for change
- provides huge relief by saying 'well here's the solution' - probably a change of tone, with one simple sentence after a para break saying 'look here's an easy solution' - got everyone so stressed they'll now grab at a solution (in theory)

2.  Listing logical benefits of high-speed trains to society's economy and wellbeing.
- complements first approach as readers realise it's not just emotional, it's also logical and in their own interests (targets both the thinking and the feeling members of the audience)
- discuss stuff like the stats used, how the author appeals to our need for income and holidays and how this will improve our quality of life and the country's economy etc.;
- simple, clear, formal sentences without really loaded adjectivey language, instead focus on stats and numbers and logical improvements - very clear tone shift to clearly and logically list out benefits and w/e

3.  Ridiculing opposition - attacking/undermining their credibility and thus the credibility of their views.
- look for the mocking/sarcastic/denigrating/belittling language - discuss how the author labels them in certain ways to make them look stupid or grasping
- by making the opposition look silly or selfish ('casting aspersions' on them), this subtly attacks or casts aspersions on their views; if such stupid/evil people are against high speed trains, then obviously not having high speed trains is bad; and also they're doing it for bad reasons so...
- NB analyse specific words (e.g.

4.  Contrastingly, building up credibility of author and thus of their views.
- could group with para 3 but would get too long, so make sure you directly link and contrast these methods
- last para - negatives of opposition/not having HS trains, this para - positives of author/having HS trains
- cites expert sources and their own knowledge and research - look reliable in their info, contrast to politicians who don't know a thing beyond self-interest
- also, through using second-person singular (e.g. 'we care about you') and shifting the focus to the reader, this contrasts with politicians who care only about themselves
- because the authors are nice and caring about the readers, the readers are more inclined to believe them
- also makes readers think that no high speed trains = no benefit to the reader, but high speed trains = benefits because they're not being implemented selfishly, but for the good of the readers.

And just to let you know, Lauren does it a slightly different way again.

[tashhhaaa]

ALL PREPARE FOR A RIDICULOUSLY LONG SEMI-RELEVANT IDEAS DUMP POST because I have other stuff I have to do so I did

wow, thank for you the awesome mini-guide! +1'ed!

[paper-back]

Hey. I'm not 100% sure because i haven't studied this context at all; but reading that it's kind of like what your saying is the sense of belonging individuals feel to an extremist cause/group identity can cause them to partake in radical actions?? I guess you could consider it a motivator, though I would generally consider political oppression/ foreign intervention larger sources of extremist action.  You could look at the concept from a different perspective/add depth to this original idea: alienation and exclusion of identity; a lack of belonging due to the stigmatization and demonizing of ethnic and cultural groups results in minorities seeking to find endorsement and cultural acceptance in more radical places.

It is a plausible example, but there are tons of stuff you could use for  'the sense of belonging being detrimental.' From a global historical perspective you could talk about how majorities in power seek to enforce their understanding of identity for purposes of consolidating power. Like when nations take over other nations - settler sovereignty imposes sexuality, religion, language, skin colour, culture and jurisprudence in specific ways on First Peoples. Forcing people to conform to a specific identity can be seen as an extension of the genocidal apparatus of colonisation; as a more modern Australian example, think of the stolen generation, and how there was awful policy which aimed to 'breed out the colour' from Aboriginal First Peoples.
Or like,  the whole process of citizenship which initially revolved around the exclusion and expulsion of first peoples; making them 'other' or alien in their own nations, while transforming outside colonisers into exalted 'citizens.' Identity which is used to exclude and to marginalise is historically present throughout all global + historical imperial relations. I'm just throwing ideas out there and hoping they stick, but basically there's tons of scope here to have interesting and insightful discussion!

And while I recognise it was probably because you didn't want to alienate an examiner, i still would like to say thank- you for understanding and being wary of stereotypes. As someone who faces a lot of them on this issue specifically, I appreciate it  when people go out of their way to be more empathetic and understanding of what minority groups go through, or at least choose not proliferate some of the bigoted rhetoric that's prominent in the media these days. Thank-you to pi as well.

Hope this helps you, paper-back!

Wow! You're a genius. I didn't even think of the stuff you've mentioned in your post before, although ironically enough I view these things occurring everyday
Thank you too, it helps a lot!

[thaaanyan]

Wow! You're a genius. I didn't even think of the stuff you've mentioned in your post before, although ironically enough I view these things occurring everyday
Thank you too, it helps a lot!

Haha, really not a genius. Just passionate about social justice/ coming from a minority group that has faced struggle with trans-migrational identity -  grew up more sensitive to social structures and the like. Glad this info helps! I always felt the best thing about context is that it leaves a lot of lee way for exploration of examples which you're passionate about.

[Maca 13]

Hey everyone,
In a context piece, if your tone changes from an analytical/scientific tone to a more personal/reflective tone, can you justify this in your explanatory piece by saying something like, 'the tone changes constantly because it represents the fluid nature of our identity, and how it cannot be fixed, just like the tone throughout the piece'? Or should I be safe and stick with one tone throughout the whole piece?
(Identity & Belonging Context)

Thanks!