Language Analysis

[Syndicate]

Hey guys,

This is another one of my year 10 Language Analysis texts. I am unsure about the mark I received for this text. Any comments (criticism welcome) will be greatly appreciated 

My school as asked me to write in the structure:

Introduction (I am missing parts of my Intro)
Contention
Tone
Persuasive Language 1
Persuasive Language 2
Persuasive Language 3
conclusion (I am missing this here)

Is this the correct structure, or can I somehow "enhance" it?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Langauge Analysis

The debate amongst Islamic community and Australian Government has triggered a nation-wide controversy to interdict the burqa, which has symbolises a great meaning to the Islamic community, however, instigated a vigilance in the non-Islamic Australian community.

Waleed Aly in his opinion piece ‘Burqa ban a political excuse for persecution’ (The Age 03/10/2014) contends that the Australian Government must not target Islamic women to represent a “generalised enemy”. In contrast, Paul Zanetti argues that the Australian Government must interdict the burqa, following several Islamic countries also interdicting the “facial coverings”.

Aly commences with an outraged tone complaining about the issues, Islamic women face by often getting “assaulted or abused in [the] public”. The explanation influences Islamic men to believe the freedom rights, Islamic women deserve. However Aly had a slight tonal shift to a belligerent tone, as he sarcastically proposed a “ban on all disguises used by bandits”. The explanation informs several religious communities that their traditions and symbols are not respected by the national authorities. In contrast, Zanetti strikes with a concerned tone, suggesting the Australian national authorities to “ban the burqa”, indicating that “some Islamic countries [have also banned]… facial covering [and]... head scarves”. The explanation influences non-Islamic communities to consider that the Australian Government should interdict the burqa, as some Islamic Countries have already engaged the phase for their own safety. Zanetti had a tonal shift to a factual but an aggressive tone, displaying the “Islamic dress code in Islamic countries”, and concluding with the “justification for banning the burqa in Australia”. The explanation influence the Australian authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa, as “in a democratic country, the wider national interest must prevail over personal choice”.

The metaphor “divisive issue is dealt with and put to bed” draws a link with this “poisonous debate” emphasising Zanetti’s argument as he believes that the Australian national authorities must proceed upon the public opinion. The facts displayed that “between 60% and 98%” agreed that the burqa must be interdicted in Australia, positioning the national authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa to “have cohesion in this country”. In stark contrast. Aly utilises humour, by apologising to “kids” as “Spider-Man [would] be illegal”, urging parents to view this controversy, considerably more comical and humorous and resulting them to agree with Aly and understand the sufferings of an Islamic woman.

The illustration provided by Simon Letch, “Team Australia” symbolises to “all Australians”, their history also insinuating the awareness that Australia has had several historical role models with disguises and facial coverings, and must not interdict the burqa. The explanation influences the Australian Government to believe that they must not interdict the burqa, as the Australian History is rich with role models, wearing disguises or facial coverings. In stark contrast, Zanetti provides an illustration of an Islamic woman, wearing a burqa, signifying that the burqa is disguising the identity of that individual. The explanation influences the Australian national authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa for the security of the public society.

Zanetti’s appeal to patriotism, tends to inform that several “Aussies are proud of [their] history of immigration”. As, Zanetti points out that there should only be “one rules for… all Australians”, it influences several patriotic Australians, that the burqa must be interdicted, as “Australian has [its own] strong cultural and societal grounds to consider the banning of all facial covering in public”. “Bloody hell, we need to see ya so we can at least say gidday” emphasises Zanetti’s argument, as it would urge several Australian citizens to believe that everyone in Australia must follow the “Australian tradition”, and the burqa must be interdicted. In contrast, Aly utilises Inclusive Language, “we”, which positons Islamic communities to believe that they must work together to prevent the Australian Government from interdicting the burqa.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks 

[Syndicate]

bump 

[heids]

My school as asked me to write in the structure:

Introduction (I am missing parts of my Intro)
Contention
Tone
Persuasive Language 1
Persuasive Language 2
Persuasive Language 3
conclusion (I am missing this here)

Is this the correct structure, or can I somehow "enhance" it?

Welllll, there's no exact 'correct'

Don't have time to go into it now, but I'd recommend you reading some of the posts in the Language Analysis spoiler in the first database post in English Q&A - especially the links under 'Essay Structure' and 'Body Paragraphs'.

The debate amongst the Islamic community and the Australian Government has triggered a nation-wide controversy to interdict the burqa, which has symbolises a great meaning to the Islamic community, however, instigated a vigilance in the non-Islamic Australian community. you probably don't need to give this much background since they mainly hand out marks for the analysis - even something as simple as 'With recent controversy about whether the Government should ban the burqa or not...' is actually okay.

Waleed Aly in his opinion piece ‘Burqa ban a political excuse for persecution’ (The Age 03/10/2014) contends that the Australian Government must not target Islamic women to represent a “generalised enemy”. In contrast, Paul Zanetti argues that the Australian Government must interdict the burqa, following several Islamic countries also interdicting the “facial coverings”. this is sharp, concise and to the point - I like

Aly commences with an outraged tone complaining about the issues, no commaIslamic women face by often getting “assaulted or abused in [the] public”. The explanation influences Islamic men to believe the freedom rights, no comma Islamic women deserve. However Aly had a slight tonal shift to a belligerent tone, as he sarcastically proposed a “ban on all disguises used by bandits” try to always stick to present tense – Aly shifts to a more belligerent tone, as he sarcastically proposes…. The explanation informs several religious communities that their traditions and symbols are not respected by the national authorities so how will this make them feel?. In contrast, Zanetti strikes with a concerned tone, suggesting the Australian national authorities to should “ban the burqa”, indicating that “some Islamic countries [have also banned]… facial covering [and]... head scarves”. The explanation influences non-Islamic communities to consider that the Australian Government should interdict the burqa, as some Islamic Countries have already engaged the phase for their own safety so why would the decisions of Islamic countries make them think that we should ban the burqa?  This basically says ‘he says Islamic countries have done it, so people will agree with him because…  well, k'now, Islamic countries have done it’ (do you get how that attempt at explanation doesn’t actually explain?)  I get though that this is super hard, I always found it really hard to articulate why a certain argument had effect and that's the hardest bit of LA we all struggle with; so, it just takes a lot of practice and constantly trying to improve. Zanetti had a tonal shift remember to stick to present tense, and also saying ‘had a tonal shift’ can sound a bit ‘clunky’ and like a list-of-techniques-I-need-to-tick-off’.  Instead, you could try ‘Zanetti’s tone/voice becomes more factual yet aggressive’, or even without saying the word ‘tone’, you could try ‘Zanetti then more aggressively displays…’ (see how you turned the adjective tone word into an adverb? Doing this can make it feel smoother and less formulaic) to a factual but an aggressive tone, displaying the “Islamic dress code in Islamic countries”, and concluding with the “justification for banning the burqa in Australia”. The explanation influences the Australian authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa, as “in a democratic country, the wider national interest must prevail over personal choice”.
so you mention a lot of tonal shifts, which is a tick, but now I want you to think about why they're there - what's the purpose? how do they aim to influence the audience?

The metaphor “divisive issue is dealt with and put to bed” draws a link with this “poisonous debate” emphasising Zanetti’s argument as he believes that the Australian national authorities must proceed upon the public opinion ’emphasising the author’s argument’ is fairly vague, and you could probably say that with almost any quote in almost any LA piece – as a rule of thumb, if you could apply a sentence in any LA, it’s too vague and you should try to be more specific about the impact on the audience.   Instead, how does it influence the audience?  Maybe try looking at how calling it ‘divisive’ makes us feel, or 'poisonous'. The facts displayed that “between 60% and 98%” agreed that the burqa must be interdicted in Australia, positioning the national authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa to “have cohesion in this country” this is a really good start, but you could take it to a higher level by explaining HOW those facts position the national authorities to believe that; and why do they care about ‘cohesion’?  How does saying that it’ll lead to cohesion make them feel about the issue, and why?  How does quoting stats affect us?. In stark contrast beautiful comparison . Aly utilises humour, by apologising to “kids” as “Spider-Man [would] be illegal”, urging parents to view this controversy, as considerably more comical and humorous and resulting them to agree with Aly and understand the sufferings of an Islamic woman. cool start, this really is good; now I just want you to take it further, and think about HOW making it comical will make them agree.

The illustration provided by Simon Letch, “Team Australia” symbolises to “all Australians”, their history comma placement – this is better: The illustration provided by Simon Letch, “Team Australia”, symbolises to all Australians their history, also insinuating… also insinuating the awareness that Australia has had several historical role models with disguises and facial coverings, and must not interdict the burqa. The explanation influences the Australian Government to believe that they must not interdict the burqa, as the Australian History is rich with role models, wearing disguises or facial coverings. In stark contrast, Zanetti provides an illustration of an Islamic woman, wearing a burqa, signifying that the burqa is disguising the identity of that individual. The explanation influences the Australian national authorities to believe that they must interdict the burqa for the security of the public society. I really like that sentence – it explains a little bit more why people are positioned to agree; you say X signifies Y which influences Z, rather than just jumping straight X to Z.  I'm pleased!

Zanetti’s appeal to patriotism, tends to inform that several “Aussies are proud of [their] history of immigration”. As, Zanetti points out that there should only be “one rules for… all Australians”, it influences several patriotic Australians, that the burqa must be interdicted, as “Australian has [its own] strong cultural and societal grounds to consider the banning of all facial covering in public”. a bit much quoting here – so you end up describing what the author’s doing a bit much, without then analysing why or how it influences us.  Try to make your quotes short so you can focus on how one little piece of language influences us, because you’re making it real hard on yourself if you give yourself a whole massive sentence to try and analyse all in one go   Instead, pick out ‘strong cultural and societal grounds’ or something and have a go at dealing with that on its own. “Bloody hell, we need to see ya so we can at least say gidday” emphasises Zanetti’s argument, as it would urge several Australian citizens to believe that everyone in Australia must follow the “Australian tradition”, and the burqa must be interdicted same thing again, could do with explaining how and why.  This one’s actually pretty rich – you can think about how the language (using colloquial Aussie slang which is iconic of Aussie culture blah blah) influences us to think that they’re against our. In contrast, Aly utilises Inclusive Language, “we”, which positons Islamic communities to believe that they must work together to prevent the Australian Government from interdicting the burqa.

So - I think you've got a really great, solid basis here.  You can write, you get what LA is all about, you're not doing anything massively wrong.

So from here, it's just always pushing yourself to go that step further.

Basically, you do a fair bit of this: quote/technique --> therefore audience believes they should/shouldn’t interdict burqa.

Okay.  You claim that the author's use of colloquial slang in '___' makes the audience think that the burqa should be inderdicted.

Well.  I don't believe you.  Prove it to me!!  If you don't explain to me how and [/i]why[/i] it makes the audience think that, then I simply don't believe you.

Picture your assessor like a four-year-old.  They get whatever you say, but they can't think for themselves.  Okay, sure, it might 'feel' obvious why that language leads to that effect, but... the assessor is super dumb, and they can't fill in the gaps for you.

So instead of trying to make them jump over gaps to get from X quote to B effect, step them carefully through each piece of logic (X --> Y --> Z --> A --> B).  So that colloquial language, how does it make them feel? (part of in-group, reminder of Aussie culture, etc.)  Why does it make them feel that way?  Why do they care?  And THEN, and only then, how does that make them feel about the burqa?

^Poor explanation, but hopefully you get the point.  You'll often have a 'feeling' that a certain quote influences the audience in a certain way, and the hard part of language analysis is articulating why and how - but that's why you've got heaps of time to practise!  We ALL find it hard, and all take a lot of practise (I'm not great at it meself, and I've been doing it longer than you)

[Syndicate]

Welllll, there's no exact 'correct'

Don't have time to go into it now, but I'd recommend you reading some of the posts in the Language Analysis spoiler in the first database post in English Q&A - especially the links under 'Essay Structure' and 'Body Paragraphs'.

So - I think you've got a really great, solid basis here.  You can write, you get what LA is all about, you're not doing anything massively wrong.

So from here, it's just always pushing yourself to go that step further.

Basically, you do a fair bit of this: quote/technique --> therefore audience believes they should/shouldn’t interdict burqa.

Okay.  You claim that the author's use of colloquial slang in '___' makes the audience think that the burqa should be inderdicted.

Well.  I don't believe you.  Prove it to me!!  If you don't explain to me how and [/i]why[/i] it makes the audience think that, then I simply don't believe you.

Picture your assessor like a four-year-old.  They get whatever you say, but they can't think for themselves.  Okay, sure, it might 'feel' obvious why that language leads to that effect, but... the assessor is super dumb, and they can't fill in the gaps for you.

So instead of trying to make them jump over gaps to get from X quote to B effect, step them carefully through each piece of logic (X --> Y --> Z --> A --> B).  So that colloquial language, how does it make them feel? (part of in-group, reminder of Aussie culture, etc.)  Why does it make them feel that way?  Why do they care?  And THEN, and only then, how does that make them feel about the burqa?

^Poor explanation, but hopefully you get the point.  You'll often have a 'feeling' that a certain quote influences the audience in a certain way, and the hard part of language analysis is articulating why and how - but that's why you've got heaps of time to practise!  We ALL find it hard, and all take a lot of practise (I'm not great at it meself, and I've been doing it longer than you)

Thanks Bangali (aka heidi  )

I have a LA sac coming up in 3 days, do you believe that something like that would be able to get me an A/ A+?


Secondly, my teacher said that I should not use the word tone in my LA, is there any better way to address the tones?

Thanks so much! 

[literally lauren]

my teacher said that I should not use the word tone in my LA, is there any better way to address the tones?

Just on this second point, you can do this using adverbs.

So if you've got a sentence like:
   'The author suggests that banning the burqa is misguided'
then you can insert an adverb just before the verb 'suggests' to give:
   'The author emphatically/enthusiastically/triumphantly/mockingly etc. suggests that...'

Basically any adjective with '+ly' added to the end of it can fit in that context:
- aggressively
- abruptly
- delicately
- weirily
- mournfully
- rationally
- calmly

That's an easy way to comment on tone without having to do the 'the author uses a ____ tone' format

[Syndicate]

Just on this second point, you can do this using adverbs.

So if you've got a sentence like:
   'The author suggests that banning the burqa is misguided'
then you can insert an adverb just before the verb 'suggests' to give:
   'The author emphatically/enthusiastically/triumphantly/mockingly etc. suggests that...'

Basically any adjective with '+ly' added to the end of it can fit in that context:
- aggressively
- abruptly
- delicately
- weirily
- mournfully
- rationally
- calmly

That's an easy way to comment on tone without having to do the 'the author uses a ____ tone' format

Thanks Lauren!