I am very confused as to how to write language anaylsis'!!
This language analysis is terrible! Please let me know where I can improve...Thanks!!!
Language Analysis- Chickens Range Free
In the article “Chickens Range Free’, written in January 2009, by Jo Smith, who is a writer and publicity officer for the Australians for Animal Rights, he points up the growing prevalence of the abusive conditions for livestock, with chickens been inhumanely caged. The picture used in the article reiterates Smith’s views as to how the chickens are cruelly caged. The main article outlines Smith’s and many other Australians view on the much debated topic of animal abuse and mistreatment.
The picture of the caged chooks in the top right hand corner has been placed in that position to immediately attract the audience’s attention. The image of the caged chickens is immediately recognised and informs the audience of the context and topic. The chickens look unlawfully squashed and brings about a sense of inhumanity on the audience. The image also outlines the context, pointing up that the article is about chickens. Furthermore, the image is a direct contradiction of the heading, ‘Chickens range free’. In this picture it is clear that chooks cannot just range free and they are incarcerated in inhumane cages. It points up the clear sarcasm of the heading and draws attention to the critical tone of the article.
The image is an emotional piece that is used to capture the audience’s attention. It appeals to an individual’s sense of self-preservation and rights to humanity. On the other hand, the article is a more rational and formal piece. The message in the article is delivered in a clear, forthright manner. The article also attempts to be very persuasive on the audience as Mr Smith is, ‘a member of Australians for Animal Rights (AAR)’. He is an expert in the field dealing with animal inhumanity. Furthermore, his expertise brings about respect from the audience as specialists are renowned and respected in society. The article is written in a formal manner, but although it is formal, the article does not lack emotion, Mr Smith uses words such as ‘injustice’ and ‘drastically’. These words create an emotive effect on the reader pointing up how terribly these animals are being treated. However, despite these techniques, the article appeals more to the audience’s sense of logic.
Mr Smith starts his article with an anecdote of a current incident that happened last week, ‘Last week a truck was intercepted by activists and hundreds of chickens were given their freedom.’ The anecdote is specific and it is drawing on the experiences of real people. It makes the article more authentic to the reader as these are events that are actually happening in our society. Mr Smith also uses another powerful technique to get the audience on his side so he has more chance of persuading them. He uses inclusive language, such as, ‘we Australians’ and ‘we believe’. The use of inclusive language makes the audience feel compelled to agree and they are more likely to get involved in the prevention of inhumanity against animals. In addition, Mr Smith makes his argument stronger by the use of fact and expert opinion. He gives details as the size and conditions of the cage. He states, ‘Being trapped in cages only 450 square centimetres in size, unable to move, and without proper ventilation.’ This use of actual figures and evidential information makes the author’s point stronger. He also uses expert opinion by referring to a statement that a philosopher, Jeremy Bentham once made. ‘The question is not, can they reason?...But, can they suffer?’ This sums up the core message; if the animals feel pain then they deserve fair treatment.
Mr Smith also takes negative quote from other sources such as the media and a radio presenter. The parts that he has chosen to add in his article are extremely critical and harsh and reflect negatively on Smith’s opponents because they have no basis in fact or proof. Such as the inclusion of what the radio presenter said, ‘the activists are idiotic…clowns’ and ‘anti-social hippies and bludgers’. These harsh names used, make the audience believe what the radio presenter has said is not truthful, as it is over exaggerated and biased. This therefore, makes the audience believe more strongly on Mr Smith’s arguments and views.
The two aspects of the article, although one is emotional and the other is rational, work cohesively to bring about a contention that animals are been treaded inhumanly and action should be taken to prevent this.
Home
Help
Search
Login
