ATAR Notes: Forum

VCE Stuff => VCE English Studies => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE English Work Submission and Marking => Topic started by: CaptainAwesome on January 28, 2011, 02:06:46 am

Title: [English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis
Post by: CaptainAwesome on January 28, 2011, 02:06:46 am

Hello, all. I am a bit out of practice due to doing English 1&2 in year 10 and then doing Literature 1&2 in year 11, but I shall try my best.

Texts:
Cosi
The Member of the Wedding
Growing Up Asian in Australia
On the Waterfront

Context:
Identity and Belonging

Study Score Aim:
40+

__________________________________________________________________________________

January Essays:
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Language analysis

February essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Language analysis
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Good copy

March essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Language analysis
Week 3: Language analysis
Week 4: Good copy

April essays:
Week 1: Text response
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Text response
Week 4: Good copy

May essays:
Week 1: Context piece
Week 2: Context piece
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

June essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

July essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

August essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy
Week 5: Good copy

September essays:
Week 1: Language analysis
Week 2: Text response
Week 3: Context piece
Week 4: Good copy

October essays:
Week 1: Practise exam analysis

Title: Re: CaptainAwesome's Thread
Post by: CaptainAwesome on January 28, 2011, 10:53:55 pm

January Week 3 - Language Analysis: Don't blame me, blame Julia Gillard

In his opinion piece, titled ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’, published in the Herald Sun on December 17th 2010, Andrew Bolt contends that the people to blame for the rising number of deaths at sea by refugees attempting to reach Australia is the Labor Government, particularly Julia Gillard. Throughout the piece he carries a disgusted, condescending and slightly arrogant tone.

Bolt starts his piece with several rhetorical questions such as ‘But why?’, ‘And if not now, when?’ and ‘Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ in order to prompt the audience to ask themselves these questions. This causes the audience to respond to the issue more actively and to accept his contention. Bolt then presents evidence to the reader: ‘28… people…drown[ed]’, followed by yet another rhetorical question. This begins to drive the message into the reader’s minds.

However, this introduction to his piece is only mild compared to what is to come. Bolt makes several blunt attacks at the government, and even puts forward the idea that Julia Gillard is solely to blame. He implies that Gillard is a liar, as indicated by ‘as Gillard deceitfully implied’. Using Gillard as a scapegoat of an issue that is in fact quite complex, Bolt breaks down the issue so as to make the cause of the increased deaths completely obvious to the reader: Gillard. This ‘simplifies’ the problem, which will help readers to be able to accept his views, rather than looking at the whole issue. Bolt exploits the reader’s tendency and need to place blame on someone in order to understand an issue and perhaps even alleviate their own guilt.

To further highlight his message, Bolt uses a large amount of repetition. He starts off by saying ‘No one then thought it the right time’, and then ‘No, too early then to talk’ and ‘nor was it time to talk’, and continuing to say ‘too soon’ over and over again. When he says this, he was reflecting the government and the media’s views, not his own, which he made sure that the audience understood extremely well. Later on, he contrasts this with further repetitions of his own opinion; ‘It's not too soon’.

Bolt made sure that he included plenty of inclusive language in order to engage the audience and make them feel like they were a part of the issue. He claims that ‘all the facts we need are in our hands’, and at one point he writes ‘you read that rightly’. He ensures that the audience understands that they are part of this issue, and should be very concerned about ‘Gillard's weak laws’ as it affects the reader’s nation. It creates a sense of the audience versus the government, that they are the ‘in-group’ and that the government are the ‘out-group’. As a result, the audience feels that the government is inferior, and that Gillard is an unworthy leader of their country. Bolt uses emotive language and very personal examples of those who have been affected by these laws, such as ‘Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his nine-year-old son, Mounir’ in order to appeal to the reader’s sense of compassion and justice. The reader is made to feel sorry for those who were victimised, and to hope for these laws which ‘must not even be discussed’ are abolished. This causes the reader to feel even more angered by the government’s alleged insensitivity, and the reader will then place further blame on the government.

In conclusion, Bolt has produced a piece in which the intention is very clear: to blame the Labor Government. He employs several techniques to back up his argument. Numerous attacks are made on the government in order to place blame. He incorporates the use of inclusive language in order to make the reader feel included and to outcast the government. Finally, he makes use of repetition and rhetorical questions to further impound his contention into the reader’s minds that were made clear by his use of other methods.

Title: Re: *CaptainAwesome's Thread: January Week 3 - Language Analysis
Post by: Water on January 28, 2011, 11:38:54 pm

In his The opinion piece, titled ‘Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard’, published in the Herald Sun on December 17th 2010, Andrew Bolt contends that the people to blame for the rising number of deaths at sea by refugees attempting to reach Australia is the Labor Government, particularly Julia Gillard. Throughout the piece he carries a disgusted, condescending and slightly arrogant tone. Standard introduction, though no intended audence?
Bolt starts his piece with several rhetorical questions such as ‘But why?’, ‘And if not now, when?’ and ‘Before the next boat sinks, or after?’ in order to prompt the audience to ask themselves these questions. This causes the audience to respond to the issue more actively Better expression could be utilized  and to accept his contention. Bolt then presents evidence to the reader: ‘28… people…drown[ed]’, followed by yet another rhetorical question Wheres the other rheotorical questioning. You stated evidence, however did not explain its effect on the article as a whole..  This begins to drive the message into the reader’s minds. Generic, vague, need to be deeply analyzed? What else does it effect the reader? What emotions does it stir? anger? does it make the reader want to be on bolt's side?  

However, this introduction to his piece is only mild compared to what is to come Unnecessary sentence and far too coloquial . Bolt makes several blunt attacks at the government, and even puts forward the idea Word is too simple. Perhaps "implants into the minds of the reader, the notion that Julia Gillard is to blame for .....  is   at Julia Gillard is solely to blame. He implies that Gillard is a liar Liar is offensive and insulting, you need to appear neutral. Gillard appears to be deceitful through ....,  as indicated by ‘as Gillard deceitfully implied’ The quote is an exact same of your beginning sentence? Whats the point?. Using Gillard as a scapegoat of an issue that is in fact quite complex I thought Bolt was attacking Gillard and her government, how is gillard the scapegoat? She is afterall the cause of the problem with her policy. unless there is some backroom organization working behind?,  Bolt breaks down Word choice the issue so as to make the cause of the increased deaths You should of put your statisitics into this paragraph and explained it, there is no statistical evidence to back up your explaination. completely obvious to the reader: Gillard. This ‘simplifies’ the problem The problem itself is simple though? Its asylum and the policy, which will help readers to be able to accept his views, rather than looking at the whole issue Are you implying that the reader should be biased and not well informed?. Bolt exploits the reader’s tendency Tendency to what?  and need to place blame on someone  in order to understand an issue People place blame because they do not want to confront the truth, or will rather be ignorant. Placing blame does not equate to enlightenment and perhaps even alleviate their own guilt.  

To further highlight his message Unnecessary, GET TO THE POINT!, Bolt uses a large amount Unnecessary again. So long as you state the technique, it is good of repetition. He starts off Weak by saying ‘No one then thought it the right time’, and then ‘No, too early then to talk’ and ‘nor was it time to talk’, and continuing to say ‘too soon’ over and over again Why so many quotes? use 2 or 1 to convey your effect. 4 is overkill.. When he says this Not neccessary, he was reflecting Too childish the government and the media’s views, not his own Huh? Are you trying to defend the author here, which he made sure that the audience understood extremely well Rewrite your sentence.. Later onUnnecessarily, he contrasts this with further repetitions of his own opinion; ‘It's not too soon’ What does it convey, why are you stating this? how does it affect the audience in what way? Does it evoke anything? .         

Bolt made sure that he included plenty Again. Unneccessary of inclusive language in order to engage the audience and make them feel like they were a part of the issue Expression is too weak. "Bolt employs inclusive language to engage his audience through the guilt ridden "in our hands". He claims that ‘all the facts we need are in our hands’, and at one point Unnecessary  he writes ‘you read that rightly’. He ensures that the audience understands that they are part of this issue Reword? He provokes discussion amongst his audience?, and should be very concerned  Too simplistic again  about ‘Gillard's weak laws’ as it affects the reader’s nation. It creates a sense of the audience versus the government, that they are the ‘in-group’ and that the government are the ‘out-group’ This is slang writing here, hard to understand and unsophisticated.  As a result, the audience feels that the government is inferior Completely wrong effect, government is elected, they hold authority and power. government therefore cant be inferior, and that Gillard is an unworthy leader of their country the author just wants a policy change or a change in attitude. "Their country" change to Australia. Shifting leaders will provoke anger/ lashes/ and the country or government must be in, let me frank ,"shit" before leader change.. Bolt uses emotive language and very personal examples of those who have been affected by these laws State one technique, not both. there is much to be discussed about those two. espically emotive language as it is broad. For examplle, The credentials of Norooz Ali, an asylum seeker, who has become a victim of Gillard's policy....,  such as ‘Afghan Norooz Ali Iqbal and his nine-year-old son, Mounir’ in order to appeal to the reader’s sense of compassion and justice. The reader is made to feel sorry for those who were victimised Better word than lazy? Surely? Slack here and to hope Again. for these laws which ‘must not even be discussed’ are abolished. This causes the reader to feelLazy word. Arouse Provoke Invoke Evoke even more angered by the government’s alleged insensitivity indifference?,  and the the further blame, shudnt be put there. not sure if its necessary at all  reader will then place further blame on the government.

In conclusion, Bolt has produced a piece in which the intention is very clear: to blame the Labor Government. He employs several techniques to back up Lazy wording his argument. Numerous attacks are made on the government in order to place blame lazy again.. He incorporates the use of inclusive language in order to make the  reader feel included Inclusive , included, too similar, think of something different  and to outcast the government. Finally Weak, he makes use of repetition and rhetorical questions to further impound his contention into the reader’s minds that were made clear by his use of other methods State them, this is bad, it makes you appear once again, lazy and slack to the examiner.  Posted on: Today at 02:06:46 AMPosted by: CaptainAwesome  

Overall comment: i think leaving it till the next day caused my brain to lapse on the essay lawl.

I think one of the problems in this essay was not in identifyin the technique, but explaining it. Such as "the issue is quite complex." The issue is infact quite simple. You have policy, Gillard, asylum seekers. Three words that sums up the issue. You also at times, move to using overly simplistic words such as "liar", "inclusive...included," you want to the examiner to know that you have a good vocabulory and a certain level of sophistication. Also, this is year 12, and you have to be your own reviewer. Is this effect analyzed deep enough? Is there more to be analyzed? If so, how do I convey it in such a way that appears sophisticated yet simple to the reader? How does it position the reader and the article"? Language analysis is all about analyzing techniques as we are all well aware.
Also, look out for vocab words. read through some of lexitu's guides. In this subthread alone, there are some 7.5 / 10 essays or 8/10 essays that would generally be marked higher in school I would be guessing, that will be extremely helpful. Try abnd emulate some phrases, such as X provokes Y. Z is intended to do C. Such these little phrases add sophistication and maturity to your essay. At the moment, it is a standard language analysis essay and everyone knows its structure. Your goal is to add sophistication to your structure, jot down the techniques that you can find in the article and then reflect deeply. Ask yourself,m What are those techniques aimed to do? Very important to keep questioning yourself. That way, you'll be more confident in your writing but you will also create your own mini discussion, which in turn will help you put it on paper. If you have doubts in the effect of the technique, ask yourself, does this seem logical and reasonable to me?

Remember the basic structure
Technique
Evidence
Effect

Score: 5

Title: Re: * CaptainAwesome's Thread: January Week 3 - Language Analysis
Post by: ech_93 on January 30, 2011, 06:57:26 pm

I think Water covered pretty much everything.
Though, I think you could vary your sentence starters much more instead of saying 'He', 'The', 'This', etc. most of the time. This would just make your writing more sophisticated and more interesting for the reader.

Title: Re: CaptainAwesome's Thread: January Week 3 - Language Analysis
Post by: CaptainAwesome on February 03, 2011, 01:21:58 am

Thank you for the feedback. You both have addressed issues that I hope to rectify in the future (although probably not immediately, but rather over time). Some of which I had already been aware of (eg. poor vocab range), and some that never even occurred to me. I constantly get teachers telling me to 'delve deeper', but I've never known how. This feedback should hopefully help me to improve and to be able to finally 'delve deeper'. I am going to write in this post things that I need to improve on.

Things I need to improve:

• Break away from standard introductions
• Include intended audience
• Use less colloquial language
• Explain the techniques with more depth
• Vary sentence starters
• Don't keep using the same words over and over
• Use more sophisticated language
• Appear neutral
• Watch the use of quotes; use less and explain more