Recent Parisian terror attacks and the ensuing racial rallies have prompted discussion regarding the need for an open and peaceful exploration of terrorist-related issues. Of these responses is an editorial Expression is a bit weird here - go for simplicity in L.A. sentence structure, especially in the introduction as you're assessed on your clarity, not your writing flair from newspaper, The Herald Sun, first published on November 23, 2015. Entitled, “Don’t give in to extremists”, the Herald Sun condemns these attacks and the “clashes” that resulted. The articlecontinues on to address'also addresses...' (don't draw attention to the chronology unless it's an important part of your analysis. Saying 'the article then goes on to discuss...' or 'later in the piece, the author...' are fairly weak transitions. It's much more impressive if you can make a connection based on the ideas, eg. 'this portrayal of terrorists as dangerous and threatening is also reinforced by...' or you can just use linking words like 'furthermore' and 'likewise' for efficiency's sake) the need for amalgamation word check - 'amalgamation' does mean 'coming together,' but it'd be more fitting in the context of 'Company A and Company B amalgamated to avoid bankruptcy,' or 'the amalgamation of the two proposals simplified the problem.' It's a very business-y word, so you can't really use it in the context of, say, 'I amalgamated the flour and the milk to bake a cake' or 'the people amalgamated outside of the cinema.' Something like 'camaraderie' or 'solidarity' would be preferably here in times of conflict, not division, emphatically entreating their audience of concerned Victorians who may possess any inclination to “turn on each other” to remain united in seeking to maintain the freedoms the newspaper evinces terrorists seek to rob them of. Really good summation of the contention here, and you've skillfully avoided evaluating the issue (in a way that might have been intentional, but I thought I'd explain it here anyway just so you know what you're doing right.) If you had said '...seeking to maintain the freedows that the terrorists seek to rob them of,' you would've essentially been casting judgement on the issue and providing your opinion (i.e. 'that terrorists seek to rob people of freedom') and regardless of whether or not you're right, that kind of evaluation is irrelevant to the task, and therefore worth no marks. However, because you've slotted in that '...the newspaper evinces...' qualifier there, you've stopped this from being evaluative and instead turned it into analysis because you've made it clear that you're aware this is something the author is doing! Overall, good structure for this intro, a few weird phrases, but mostly succinct and accurate.
On the outset Should be 'from the outset...' but remember that you don't necessarily have to begin your piece by discussing the opening; you might sometimes find it easier to jump in to some point halfway through, and then revisit the beginning once you've already got a stable basis for your analysis of their article, the Herald Sun opens with a frank censure of the racial rallies, labeling them “ugly [and] violent”. This newspaper employs these terms because they are commonly associated with danger and chaos. Okay, you're off to a good start here, but you need to do a bit more. So you've isolated the quote "ugly [and] violent" as an example of persuasive language, and you've mentioned some things that these words are associated with in the next sentence, but what is this language doing, exactly? Basically, fill in this sentence: The Herald Sun opens with a frank censure of the racial rallies by labeling them "ugly [and] violent. By associating the rallies with these connotations of danger and chaos, the editorial seeks to...(?)" These elements are further highlighted by the newspaper’s reference of these rallies as “clashes,” which implies that there is a great deal of noise and commotion with very little social harmony.This is because this term is often associated with loud noises and a lack of harmony.Try not to separate the words from their meaning if you can avoid it. Also, notice that all these points of analysis are occurring in a very similar format? 'The piece labels X as Y. This is because Y has connotations of Z.' - I'll talk more about this in the end comments. The newspaper goes on to label this “clash” a “collision”, highlighting the brutal nature how does the word 'collision' create a sense of brutality? You haven't really justified this point, and I'm inclined to think 'collision' has more to do with characterising the aggressively opposing viewpoints involved, rather than suggesting the conflict is especially brutal of these conflicts. These terms alienate audiences from these rallies, positioning them to perceive them as an unnecessary escalation of heightened tension v good vocab and discussion of the effect on the audience. It would've been good to examine this even closer (e.g. where did you get the sense that this was an unnecessary escalation? What language gave that away?). Disdainfully, the newspaper suggests these rallies “have no place in our society.” This cliché is this a cliche? enables the Herald Sun to establish their belief try to use more verbs to describe what the piece is intending to do to the audience's thoughts/feelings/beliefs these rallies are not conducive to public unity and encouraging open discussion regarding terrorism. This firm statement so is it a cliche or a firm statement? appeals to the audience’s reason and logic, implying “society” – a term commonly associated with civilised life – is one where violence, such as those observed in these rallies, should be perceived as uncivilised and thereby unwelcome. <-- THIS IS REALLY GOOD!!!! The editorialcontinues on toif you're going to structure your piece chronologically, you still need better links than just 'Next...' or 'The piece then says...' refer to the French terror attacks as a “massacre”, alluding to the way in which many innocent civilians were killed. The term accentuates the violence of their deaths. how? why? These short, choppy sentences are breaking up your flow a little bit. By continuing toconveyemphasise “hundreds of police” were needed to prevent the rallies from escalating, the newspaper seems to highlight the threatening nature of these rallies. This is because police are commonly associated with danger; they are usually called upon to mitigate threats to the public. This implication regarding the nature of these rallies is further accentuated by the Herald Sun’s use of terms such as “resort” and “subdue”, intimating the assemblage of protestors were out of control and violent beyond reasoning. this is also really good, but because you haven't contextualised the quotes, it's hard to give you full credit? What do "resort" and "subdue" have to do with anything? You are allowed to assume your assessor has read the piece, but you can't chuck single word quotes around unless you're going to paraphrase a bit and given them some context, otherwise your analysis could just become: 'The fact that the author uses the word "yellow" highlights the severity of the issue.' - you might be right about that, but we can't tell unless more information is provided. (e.g. The fact that the author describes the colour of his left tow to be "yellow" highlights the severity of the issue of his nicotine addiction - now we know what's happening :) ) These terms suggest law enforcement officials present had no other alternative than to use drastic measures to control the crowd. This enables audiences to perceive these rallies as dangerous. The newspaper further underscores just how sinister these rallies are by referring to them as “street warfare”; the term “war” carries strong connotations to brutality, aggression and atrocious violence. By continuing on to suggest the parties involved “exploited… public concern”, the tabloid appeals to the reader’s desire to not be taken advantage of. This serves to render those involved in these rallies as sinister figures that set out to manipulate and play on the vulnerabilities of the public. The newspaper continues to vilify those who partook in these rallies by establishing that they were led by the “thrill of a fight more than meaningful dialogue.” Through this statement, the Herald Sun seeks to undermine the purpose with which these individuals assembled bit more explanation here would be good. The defamation of the protesters is further developed when the newspaper refers to some them as “serial pests”. The hyperbolic term “pests” has strong connotations that imply these protestors are unwanted and irksome presences I was about to pull you up on saying the word had "strong" connotations, which is usually way too generic a comment to make, but you backed yourself up by being more specific afterwards by saying they're "unwanted and irksome"... so I guess I'll let you off :P Be careful not to use any techniques like "connotative language" or "emotive language" unless you're able to then specify which connotations and which emotions.In culmination, Thus/ Therefore/ Hence/ To this end... the newspaper seeks to form an association between the violence of the ralliestoand the violence of the terror attacks that indirectly prompted them while vilifying those who partake in such rallies, placing the readership in a position where they perceive these “clashes” as abhorrent. Excellent paragraph conclusion.
The Herald Sun continues on starting to overuse this as a linking word now to distinguish between the “pests” and the “average Victorian”. This appeals to the audience’s desire to belong among a group, insinuating that the majority of Victoriansdiddo not have “extreme tendencies”. By forming a distinction between these two groups, the tabloid positions their readership to perceive themselves as separate from the protesters. <--what's the connection between this idea and the next one?--> Calmly and reasonably, the newspaper acknowledges “everyone has the right to protest.” The frankness and rationality of the tabloid seems to counter rather than comment on what 'seems to' be happening, try to comment on things as though they're deliberate decisions made by the author/editorial the uncontrollable nature of the violent protesters. Proceeding to label the rallies as “skirmishes”, the newspaper seeks to undermine the intent for which these protesters originally assembled expression is a bit odd here; you don't 'assemble for an intent' - 'assemble with an intent' would be fine, so you could say 'the intent with which these protesters...' but even that might sound a bit too far removed. If in doubt, simplify the sentences; active focus is usually clearer than the passive (*explained in the end comments just in case). This enables the readership to conclude these “skirmishes” are instigated by individuals seeking meaningless violence, not meaningful discussion what is the word 'skirmish' accomplishing here? You haven't really unpacked that. The Herald Sun continues to frankly establish that these events present a “financial cost” to the average Victorian. The tabloid indicates it is their readership who must “foot… the bill”; this colloquialism galvanises readers to believe the newspaper is, like them, a concerned taxpayer, and has the reader’s apostrophe after the 's' here since it's plural possessive best interests at heart by informing them of this burden on taxpayer money this sentence is a bit clunky, and it feels like you're redundantly repeating information about 'taxpaying'. This endears the audience to the newspaper, making them more inclined to trust the newspaper’s vilification of protesters. Proceeding your piece could be much stronger if you were making argumentative or language-based links rather than chronological ones like this to liken the assemblage of law enforcement to a “flood”, enables the Herald Sun to emphasise the violent and out of control nature of the protesters in Melton. The cause and effect conclusion drawn by the newspaper – that this “flood” in Melton may have led to droughts in other localities –appeals to the readership’s reason and logic. This conclusionprompts readers to infer that subduing Melton protesters may have been at the cost of other victims of crime. The newspaper resumes their appeal to the reader’s hip-pocket notice how when you limit yourself to the structure that the author has chosen, you have to go back and forth between arguments? You could've grouped this hip-pocket concern with the earlier discussion about fiscal concerns, but instead you have to move away from that idea to talk about an appeal to logic before coming back to it again later by suggesting Melton families, by events expression beyond their control, suffered a loss of income on the day. By enumerating the damage purportedly wrought unto the public and Melton residents in a succeeding fashion, the Herald Sun seeks to shock readers by the extent and magnitude of the cost of the Melton rallies; it precludes the audience of “average Victorians” from perceiving any positive consequence of the protests when they caused financial, social and philosophical damage. The damage wrought by the protesters impels readers to associate “division and conflict” with them and the contrary – unity – with the “average Victorian”. Thus, when the tabloid continues to emphatically entreat their readers to resist “division and conflict”, the audience deduces they are also being compelled to resist joining the vilified protesters v good discussion of the effects. The use of the inclusive language “we” and “us” could use more context for these words, but overall this analysis is still good reiterates the newspaper’s message regarding the need for public amalgamation; it incites readers to remove themselves from protesters and regard themselves as an “average Victorian” you've used this quote before, which isn't inherently problematic, but it does signal that there's some repetition that could be cut down here in seeking unity. This language further suggests the protesters were part of a minority and that the majority of the public did not harbour the “extreme tendencies” also a quote that came up earlier of the protesters. The Herald Sun seeks to establish rallies such as those recently observed in Melton compromised the “average Victorian[‘s]” finances, principles and safety; implying these events should be avoided in future as they serve no great purpose other than to divide the public. v. good summation
In the newspaper’s closing statements, they ?? further malign the rallies by likening its careful with plurality here; it should be 'their' consequences if you're talking about 'rallies' consequences to the “spread[ing of] tentacles throughout… society.” Theimageimagery of an almost disembodied “tentacle” lurking within society is sinister in nature; this is due to the fact that “tentacle” are only ever naturally observed when attached to the body of a marine animal while the image of the disembodied “tentacle” is one readers perceive as unnatural and thereby repulsive awesome stuff here! Thisimageimagery perturbs the readers. bit stilted - try to integrate this with a sentence on either side. Thisimageimagery prompts readers to regard the rallies as they do the disembodied “tentacle” – with perturbation and abhorrence. The newspaper continues to employ inclusive language to reiterate the need for unity, appealing to their reader’s desire to belong to a larger group, to ultimately entreat them to unite, not divide, in the face of terrorism and its consequences.
“You don’t get marks for format/how you approach the essay so why make life more difficult for yourself?”True, but if an essay structure is going to make your analysis better and more efficient, then I'd say it's worthwhile. The trouble with doing things the 'key player' way or similar is that it's difficult to learn and easy to master, so teachers would rather not bother with it because a lot of students will struggle and it can take a while before you feel confident in using it, so rather than confuse everybody, they stick with something conceptually easy like the chronological method even though it might be to your disadvantage in the long run. The chronological method isn't totally flawed or anything, and it was my default option when I couldn't identify enough clear key players, but structuring by ideas/arguments will almost always lead to a higher quality of analysis, so it's worth a try at least (...since you've got months to practice before the exam :P)
I think I might try it and talk to my English teacher re an ideas based approach (he’s pretty flexible unlike most of the other teachers in my school’s English faculty so he should be fine with it so long as I can do it well).Good plan. If he's not keen, stick with this for the SAC and you can do your own thing for exam prep. if you want. But if you're lucky, your teacher should be happy for you to approach it your own way, and may even work with you to refine a style that caters to your strengths.
Question 1: these rallies “have no place in our society.” What language technique is this? I actually have no idea… so I chucked in “cliché” because it’s my go-to when I have no idea what I’m doing.It doesn't really have a formal technique in it, but you might comment on the definitive, absolute tone/language in "no place in our society." There's also inclusive language, but that's boring. Remember, you can just talk about why language is persuasive in general sometimes; not every point will have a specific technique associated with it. If you think something is persuasive, it probably is, and if you can explain it well, that's more than sufficient. Technique identification is important, but doesn't have to be done every single time.
Question 2: When it’s an editorial, do I refer to the newspaper as a “they”, “it”, “he”, “she” or do I just word all my sentences so the problem never pops up? (e.g. first question in my conclusion) I have this same issue every time a gender isn’t designated to the writer where I have a 2 minute freak out session while I try to figure out what to do.Good question... 'it' is probably the most natural since you're talking about the newspaper as an entity. You can choose from 'the newspaper,' 'The Herald Sun (or w/e the name is,)' 'the editor,' 'the editorial,' or 'the piece' I suppose. If you're not given a specific gender, or you get a name like 'Morgan Bloggs' that could be male or female, just pick one and stick to it. You're not penalised for guessing wrong :P But this is a possibility on the exam unfortunately. My year (2013) had no author's name and it drove me nuts having to say 'the writer' so often, but recent years have been a bit better with this. It's only really a problem when you have to deal with comparative pieces (like 2014 & 2015) where saying 'the writer/author' can be confusing, so they'll usually give you names in those circumstances.
Question 3: Do you have an example of a language analysis essay that focuses on ideas? Tried looking on AN for an example but can’t find one.You could try here - apologies but I don't know which ones would demonstrate this, but I could have a look later.
Question 4: What do you mean by “I think it could be streamlined”?Basically you're doing a lot of stuff right, but if you were to do that stuff quicker and more efficiently without compromising quality, then it'd not only reflect better on your writing skills, but would also free you up to cover more ground and analyse more of the article (/visual(s) & other articles when the time comes.) A student who can conduct solid analysis in two sentences is going to be in a better position than someone who takes seven sentences to say exactly the same thing. That's not to imply that all of your points should be made in a single sentence every time or anything, but try to always simplify your expression or combine your points where possible.
Notes to self:^This is a freakin awesome thing to do, and I wish more students did this for all the feedback they receive! *hint hint* No need to post it publically unless you want my input (and my input is that your list is spot-on, incidentally) but the experience of boiling down the advice you receive from AN and your teachers is a great way to hone your self-evaluation skills and make you a more effective writer :) :)
Assessed on CLARITY not WRITING FLAIR.
Sentence structure and length
Avoid: This pieces labels X as Y. This is because Y has connotations of Z. (FORMULAIC RESPONSES)
Expression Issues
Chronology-based language analysis – weak transitions + repetitive – try language analysis ideas-based?
WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE DOING? Don’t mention and forget. (SO): EXPLANATION
UNPACK, UNPACK, UNPACK
Contextualise quotes
Omission of the word “THAT”
No more author “seems” to have done something – deliberate decisions made by author
Active > Passive Sentences
SYNONYMS
Impressed by your summary of the feedback, HLS. If you knew how much nicer it is to give feedback to someone that actually takes the effort to read it and learn from it...The best type of student.
Oops, Lauren beat me to saying this :P
Racial rallies prompted by recent Parisian terror attacks have prompted discussion regarding the need for an open and peaceful exploration of terrorist-related issues. Thus, the pragmatic, though thought-provoking editorial, “Don’t give in to extremists” (published in the Herald Sun on November 23, 2015) is adamant that solidarity is crucial in times of conflict and simultaneously warns audiences against partaking in the ensuing protests.
Opening with resentment and disgust, the editorial harshly repudiates racial rallies for their danger and harm.
That awkward moment when I remember tone exists and is something that needs to be addressed.1) No, you don't have to. But when introducing the type of text (whatever it may be: editorial, opinion piece, letter to the editor, speech etc.) you might want to chuck in a tone word to describe the attitude/demeanour of the entire piece
Question one: Do I need to make reference to the tone/changes in tone in the intro?
Question two: So you actually have to follow a TEEL structure in language analysis? :o ???
Question three: But definite improvement from my initial article or no? Is this one more ideas-based? Trying to figure out if I've done the ideas-based approach correctly and if it works better than my initial approach...