ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: Loren_T on May 28, 2019, 08:20:10 pm
-
Hey
My english teacher is taking weeks to give me feedback on my practise language analysis because she has huge amounts of other work to do...
Could anyone mark this to give me an idea on how I am going before I try to write another one? btw this is the first la I have done since last year, so I basically have no idea what I am doing.
Have a look at the document attached if you are willing! ;D
Thankyou!
-
Hi Jessica! Comments below in red/blue :D (some parts are a little rambly since I wanted to explain myself properly, so don't be put off by all the red - this is a really great piece!)
Language Analysis Practice SAC
The death of The Cliffsofmoher at the 2018 Melbourne Cup triggered outrage throughout Australia, as the shameful euthanising of the race horse sent warning signals from to(?) the epicentre of the horse racing industry. Clare Stephens’ own opinion article, “The Cliffsofmoher’s death isn’t the real tragedy of this years horse racing,’ uses the incident, along with an effective photo of a horse in bondage, as a springboard for her campaign to close down the industry. Although it's fairly clear which industry you're talking about, given the context, since this sentence is a really important part of your essay (i.e. you're telling the assessor you understand what the contention is!) it could pay to be more specific - for example, 'her campaign to bring about the end of the racing industry for the sake of animal wellfare.' This distressed and pushy word choice is a bit too colloquial - try a synonym like assertive, abrasive, or forceful article, which appeared in the feminist website, Mammamia, argues that The Cliffsofmoher’s death is part of a much more complex and much sadder story, and therefore, she exhorts Australians to choose not to support horse racing in this country. Great remark about the intended effect on the reader, and I like that you've linked this with a 'therefore' to an authorial choice (i.e. tone) rather than just including a standalone sentence like 'the author tries to make readers feel X.' This feels really fluent and effective! :) Stephens’ view is, however, contradicted in the following comments by Pauline Grimmer and Ingrid, who both believe that her approach is too extreme. While Pauline takes on a melodramatic tone, predicting horrific outcomes if the industry was to shut down, Ingrid asserts that it is illogical to end the sport because the industry is not as corrupt as Stephens’ claims. Excellent summary of the comments' contentions - short, sweet, and sufficient ;D Being able to do this so well is a huge plus in the exam if you get a comparative task, as it's quite common for students to get stuck overexplaining the arguments of supplementary pieces, or worse, completely misunderstand their arguments and be unable to link them to the 'main piece.'
Firstly, Stephens seeks to impress the cruelties suffered by racehorses on the reader. She achieves this by retelling though not 'wrong,' this word is a bit of a missed opportunity for more descriptive metalanguage. Has the author perhaps delineated something, in a logical, sequential way, or has she portrayed something, almost like an artist painting a certain picture? More specific verbs like 'enumerates,' 'catalogues,' or 'characterises' would be better here many stories of incidents at the Melbourne Cup, which are parallel with the statistics she offers and serve to prove I know this is kind of silly, but NEVER EVER EVER use the word 'prove' in an English essay!!! It's a huge red flag to assessors, since you're meant to be talking about intended effects and attempts to persuade, rather than definitely proving you know exactly what the author is doing and how readers will respond. Words like 'suggest,' 'imply,' or 'infer' are ALWAYS preferable! ;) her accusations of the industry. Okay, your identification of important language features is great, but the explanation of the effect just needs a bit more detail! Namely, what are her accusations about the industry?? This is only the second sentence of this paragraph, so we don't know what accusations you're talking about yet. Also, you should try to fully explain this effect before jumping over to the visual, and here's why: put yourself in an assessor's shoes... when you read the first few lines of a student's first body paragraph, what are you looking for? Ideally, you'd see them talk about the WHAT, HOW, and WHY - what is the author doing, how is it intended to affect readers, and why does this contribute to the overall argument? If a student does that early in their essay, your job is way easier, because you can already pretty much tell they're a high-range student! By contrast, if you read the first few sentences and they're all just listing different techniques and telling you what the author is doing... you'll probably be more annoyed because you have to pay super close attention to see whether there are any statements about the HOW and WHY. The more your essay can do to minimise this assessor annoyance, the better! ;D The use of the image serves as a visual representation of how horses suffer under bondage Is there a more specific link you could go for here to connect the written and visual material? What ideas is the image communicating, and how are these similar to Stephens' points? and is key to capturing the reader’s attention as well as enforcing a sense of reality and urgency, thanks to the photo’s demonstration of a horse “appearing agitated”. The already-familiar story of The Cliffsofmoher’s euthanising opens the piece and, through using negative wording Include a quote or two here for extra cred!! in describing the incidents of The Cliffsofmoher and others, Stephens creates a scene of horror and corruption which is climaxed towards the end when she reveals culminates in her revelation that the announcement of The Cliffsofmoher’s death appeared before the race was even run; an action that was “chillingly strategic”. The emphasis on this story-telling style is further utilised as Stephens goes over the “more complex and much sadder story”, while repeating the words, “One about” to open each of her points. Stephens ensures that her readers are suitably shocked, thanks to her outraged tone, and even spooked by the wording, “haunting”, “unsettling” and “chillingly”. Good! Love that you've picked out which specific words are having this effect! :) Furthermore, the article implies at the industry is a shady, dangerous force which gets away with murder. One particular phrase, “ethical landmine” is noteworthy as it is suggestive of a sudden movement which has resulted from the incident at the 2018 Melbourne Cup, not too sure about this point - I think it may be suggesting that audiences have been ignoring (looking away from) a substantial moral problem... though it's a weird expression so not 100% sure about it :/ I don't think it has anything to do with 'sudden movements' though; could you explain what you meant here? as well as drawing attention to the fact that Australians, including the reader, can’t look away any longer. The article stirs a feeling of upset and exposes distress and guilt on our country. expression is a little clunky here; do you mean it exposes the distress our country feels, or that it engenders distress amongst people in our country? In other words, is the author exposing emotions that already exist, or is she creating new emotional responses in us by sharing this information? (You could argue for both, but I think the first option would be better in this case!) Stephens’ article appeals to the reader’s sympathies, forcing them to take an interest in the plight of The Cliffsofmoher, positioning them to accept her demand that they should not support the horse racing industry.
Minor point, but I'm a big advocate for starting paragraphs off with simple linking words like 'Furthermore...' just to make for a slightly smoother transition for your marker. Obviously they're not going to insta-fail you if you don't do this :P but it's a nice, easy way to show that you're 'building' upon your ideas across the whole essay. Stephens feels that the ‘real tragedy’ is not only the cruelty suffered by race horses, but also, she deceptive nature of the horse racing industry. V good topic sentence ;D She stresses that The Cliffsofmoher was the story only because ‘haunting images’ caught the ‘public’s attention’. This is teamed with her general inference that horse racing is a billion-dollar industry, making the readers read between the lines to come to the conclusion that the greed of the industry directly results in ‘the whipping, the slaughter, the jump racing, and the racing of horses before they are physically mature’. AMAZING! Really great cumulative analysis ("this is teamed with") and a clever insight on the complexities of the author's argument! Statistics and general statements give the article further credibility, allowing little basis of arguments. not sure what you mean here? Little basis for counter-arguments? For example, her claim that The Cliffsofmoher is one of over 100 horses to die on Australian race tracks in the last 12 months, is general and gives the impression that Stephens experiences these happenings. Thus, Stephens is portrayed is well-informed in the matter, obliging the reader to have confidence in her view. However, she also uses other sources to confirm her statistics and implications, which dispels any doubts that the reader may have had by confirming the support of professionals. The reader is therefore positioned to have faith in Stephens and are obliged more so to follow her demands. Overall, this is a good paragraph, but it would be soooo much stronger if you changed these final three words! A really common mistake in AA essays is for students to write solid analysis about what the author is doing, and what language features are being employed, but then ending it by saying something like 'Therefore this makes readers agree with the author's contention.' <-- I've put that in orange because orange is ugly and my least favourite colour. And to assessors, this is a super ugly sentence :P They don't want to read any generalities like this - they know the author is trying to persuade us to agree with them - it's your job to BE MORE SPECIFIC! It sucks, because your point is obviously right, and most markers will see what you're getting at (a few nice ones might even give you marks for this) but the vast majority of them will have to be brutal about these last few words, because you haven't explicated what 'demands' or arguments the author is strengthening here. But just rewrite this paragraph ending, and the whole thing is instantly better! As a general rule of thumb, any phrase or sentence that is generic enough to fit into any AA essay (e.g. 'Hence, the author attempts to rally readers' support to drive public opinion towards her views') should be avoided at all costs! Make it more specific to that contention/issue, or just get rid of it entirely!!
Pauline Gimmer’s and Ingrid’s comments both accuse Stephens of over reacting to the issue. In an attacking and dramatic tone, Grimmer points out that the horse racing industry supports ten of thousands of families, and if it were to close down many would commit suicide. woah, I can't find this comment, but was this actually her contention?... 'dramatic' is right :P This sense of exaggeration makes her personal attack more forceful and demanding. In another paragraph, Grimmer’s tone becomes reasoning as she asks the readers to consider the killing of other animals for meat. Sarcasm is prevalent in the questions that she directs towards Stephens, downgrading her reliability in the eyes of the readers. Grimmer then implies that she doesn’t support the horse racing industry in a curt, short sentence. This is a statement to enhance her argument, to give a sense that even though she has no part in the industry, she cares about the fate of the people who will suffer if it were to be shut down. Good summation of this comment - you could perhaps do more with the intended effect on readers at the end here. Ingrid’s tone differs with Grimmer, with as it is a more sensible, passive one, as she draws on her own experiences in the industry to convince the reader that Stephens' logic is flawed. Like Grimmer, Ingrid alludes to the suffering of other animals on farms, claiming that she has seen it. In addition, the comment counters Stephen’s claim that whipping, slaughter and cruelty towards the horses is an everyday occurrence in the horse racing industry when Ingrid alludes to the care that she has seen within the industry, which far surpasses that show towards sheep and cattle beef. The reader is likely to react positively to Ingrid’s confidence because she sounds like a fair, mature person with lots of experience in the field. Again, can you be more specific about the effect here? What kind of 'positive' reactions would be elicited? How does Ingrid want her audience to view the issue?
Conclusively, Clare Stephens leaves the reader assuming that horses are collapsing almost every day in the horse racing industry, especially with her use of general statistical statements. She forces her perspective on the reader, using a harsh and pressing tone, which becomes slightly too exaggerative, making readers question; is this really allowed to happen? Although you can do some evaluation and comparison in the conclusion, a safer approach is to assume the argument is persuasive, and just explain how. So, rather than critiquing the extent to which something is persuasive, or whether the author is effective, you can just comment on the broader intentions of the author - the way I thought of this was that the conclusion was for talking about the author's 'best case scenarios' - what does the author want to happen? And how do they use language to try and bring this about, or make people desire the same outcome? As well as her claims, the image, too, is slightly out of proportion. Most readers would see nothing wrong with a horse rolling while restrained with a halter; only extreme animal sympathisers would object to the confinement the halter presents. Some inconsistency here with your previous analysis of the image as an example of "bondage" and "suffering" - you can interpret the visual in multiple ways, but you have to maintain your interpretation across your essay. (If the visual is the same as the one here, then I don't think the halter is the main point. That image seems to be communicating the idea of injury, in the violently kicked up sand and the tense but vulnerable position the horse is in, etc.) The question whether to close down the horse racing industry following the incident of The Cliffsofmoher’s collapse becomes complicated thanks to the comments from Grimmer and Ingrid which enforce these doubts by showing up Stephens’ extreme response to The Cliffsofmoher’s death. Both comments attempt to dissuade readers from supporting the closure of the industry, yet provide no assisting credible evidence, making them less official and more just an assertion of opinion based on their experience. The reader is caught between opposing demands and both are shown to have devastating effects.
Overall, it seems like you have an EXCELLENT grasp on the arguments, including the core contention, and your essay structure was on point! The main thing I'd suggest would be to incorporate more of a focus on the intended effect on the readers using sentences like:
- Through this, Stephens attempts to elicit/evoke/engender...
- Thus, the author seeks to position readers to view ____ as...
- In order to communicate her view that ___, the author appeals to readers' sense of...
- Therefore, this use of ___ encourages the audience to think/feel/believe that...
You do still need to maintain that focus on language that you've got already, but adding a few more sentences like these should help elevate your piece and help you tick all of the assessors' boxes!
There also might be more you could do with visual analysis - at the moment you've got one sentence in your first body paragraph, and another in the conclusion, so it'd be good to try and practise this (possibly with a more important/detailed image in another piece!) just to give you a chance to hone your visual analysis skills :)
Best of luck with your pieces - let me know if you have any questions! ;D
-
Thank you!!! ;D
You have given me some awesome tips for my sac that is coming up...
My teacher just told me to not to use the phrase 'thanks to'
I have a few questions
- I used the word 'retelling' and you said though (not 'wrong,' this word is a bit of a missed opportunity for more descriptive metalanguage.) I was referring to the writer sort of reporting the incident and going over the events as they happened. Should I use the word catalogue in this sense? i.e. she achieves this by cataloging the events as they happened in the fateful race.
- In the second para, should I have launched straight into the use of statistics, then ended with a reference to the image? Also I should have said that bondage was demonstrated by the halter which the rolling horse wears.
- I was trying to use ADEFY (argument, device, evidence, feel, why). I said 'The reader is therefore positioned to have faith in Stephens and are obliged more so to follow her demands' to show the feel. Is this better: The reader is therefore positioned to have faith in Stephens and are stimulated to fight this overwhelmingly evil industry.
- Yeah, one of the comments did say that if the horse racing industry shut down, people would lose their jobs and commit suicide...
Thank you very much for taking this time to mark my analysis ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My teacher just told me to not to use the phrase 'thanks to'
Lol, if you want some alternatives, 'as a consequence of' or 'through the use of' would be a more formal way to say 'thanks to' :P
- I used the word 'retelling' and you said though (not 'wrong,' this word is a bit of a missed opportunity for more descriptive metalanguage.) I was referring to the writer sort of reporting the incident and going over the events as they happened. Should I use the word catalogue in this sense? i.e. she achieves this by cataloging the events as they happened in the fateful race.
'Cataloguing' could work here, as would 'delineating' or even 'listing.' These do express the same idea as 'retelling,' but they're just more descriptive, English-y words - kind of like the difference between 'the author says...' and 'the author assertively declares...'
- In the second para, should I have launched straight into the use of statistics, then ended with a reference to the image? Also I should have said that bondage was demonstrated by the halter which the rolling horse wears.
I actually think your second paragraph is great - I wouldn't change anything about the order of information there. I think including more visual analysis in the first paragraph would be the way to go. But I don't think that halter lead can be said to symbolise "bondage," necessarily. It seems like a fairly normal, comfy horse collar, and the lead that the human is presumably holding looks quite slack, so it's not as though the human is jerking the chain and dragging or abusing the horse. A safer interpretation of the image is probably that it is meant to evoke readers' discomfort at the thought of injured horses, as on its most basic level, the image is depicting a horse in an unnatural position (you don't usually see horses rolled over on their back kicking their legs in the air unless they're hurt... or maybe horses do this for fun...? I'm not the best horseyologist :( ) But the photo does seem like the horse is in distress, and you can see its muscles and limbs are quite taut (kind of like the horse is "agitated," as mentioned in the first paragraph of the article - so that could be a good opportunity for a link).
- I was trying to use ADEFY (argument, device, evidence, feel, why). I said 'The reader is therefore positioned to have faith in Stephens and are obliged more so to follow her demands' to show the feel. Is this better: The reader is therefore positioned to have faith in Stephens and are stimulated to fight this overwhelmingly evil industry.
Yep, that's already better! Always be specific about what part of the 'argument' or author's 'demands' you're talking about :)
- Yeah, one of the comments did say that if the horse racing industry shut down, people would lose their jobs and commit suicide...
Thank you very much for taking this time to mark my analysis ;D ;D ;D ;D
10/10 effective argument from that comment :P
No worries at all - hope this is helpful! ;D
-
Thanks :)