hi all! hoping to seek feedback on this language analysis (re. the VCAA 2010 article). wrote under time constraints so probably not my best work, criticisms/advice are immensely appreciated
________________________________________________
A commitment to assist both the impecunious and species on Earth through abating biodiversity loss, along with the necessity to review the progress made in doing so, and make future considerations have acted as the impetus for the orchestration of the International Biodiversity Conference (2010). A speaker, Chris Lee, dogmatically contends that society’s failure to engender a significant reduction in biodiversity has led to not only the abandonment of the prior commitment, but also to biodiversity’s progressive ruination. Through the utilisation of media slides, Lee permits his audience to visualize the subject matter, and illustrates the exigency for them to excogitate the repercussions of their inaction on biodiversity.
By commencing his speech with the declaration that the year is of ‘vital significance’, Lee aligns his audience to believe that the present plays a pivotal role in reshaping ‘our world’, in turn manoeuvring them to envisage the present as a crucial moment in time. Reiterating the United Nations invitation for individuals to ‘take action’ inclines the audience to surmount their unwillingness to remedy the steady decline in biological diversity, and take steps to preserve the ‘variety of life on Earth’, specifically the organisms depicted in Lee’s opening slide. The illustration of plants, animals, and ocean waves, each within the enlarged header, 2010, reinforces the notion that audience members should act now, rather than wait for a forthcoming opportunity to do so. The image of a young child grasping the hand of an adult is perhaps reminiscent of the idiomatic expression of holding ones hand, which carries connotations of guidance and assistance. This inspires the audience to lead younger generations in the direction of safeguarding biodiversity, in order to ensure its preservation in the long term.
Having mobilised the audience’s support, Lee queries the rationality behind characterising 2010 as a year of ‘action’ and ‘celebration of life’. Employing the term ‘honestly’ before questioning the progress made towards minimising biodiversity loss compels audience members to acknowledge reality, rather than prevaricate, and concede that negligible measures have been taken in this area. Lee articulates the plausibility of reducing biodiversity loss to facilitate ‘poverty alleviation’ and ‘life on Earth’. Emphatically enunciating the word ‘exactly’, before further alluding that this is indeed what society ‘set out to do’, manoeuvres the audience to reflect on their endeavours to preserve biodiversity. Upon doing so, audience members discern that the progress in eradicating poverty and guarding life on Earth has stagnated due to their apathy in preventing biodiversity loss, further compelling them to work towards engendering a ‘significant reduction’ in biodiversity. Lee utilises statistics to inform the audience of the wildlife they have already lost, before insinuating that their ‘thoughtless human actions’ are responsible for this outcome. The assertion that ‘35% of mangroves, 40% of forests and 50% of wetlands’ are now non-existent, coupled with the claim that extinction is occurring at ‘100 times the natural rate’ elicits astonishment and fear in conference attendees. Such sentiments position the audience to concur with Lee’s argument, in that the death of the aforesaid ecosystems resulted from their selfish and careless decisions. Lee’s shift to a despondent tone further evinces the biological devastation that has occurred over the ‘last one hundred years’. Citing the IUCN’s ‘Red List’ to accentuate that it is ‘too late’ for the 804 animals declared extinct coerces the audience to not merely yearn for what has been lost, but to also contemplate the irrevocable consequences arising from their actions, in turn educing sentiments of nostalgia and compunction.
Adopting a categorical tone, Lee alleges that, unlike the animals mentioned previously, it is not ‘too late’ for society to reverse the present situation, in which biodiversity’s abundance is steadily decreasing. Lee’s articulation of ‘in truth’, before his postulation that the audience belongs to the most ‘educated’ generation not only serves to avow the veracity of his argument in their minds, but also angles them to regard individuals in their generation as knowledgeable and hence capable of ‘commit[ing] to action’ and reversing the ‘grim situation’ concerning biodiversity. Sardonically portraying society’s ‘haphazard’ attempts to make reparations as ‘wonderful words, glossy brochures and inspiring documentaries’ is effective in awakening the audience to the futility of their actions, and positions them to feel guilty that instead of taking ‘real action’, they are ensconced in an ‘air conditioned and sumptuously catered’ environment while their outdoor environment is gradually diminishing. The forceful pronunciations of the personal pronouns ‘you’ and ‘your country’ are further employed by Lee in questioning the contributions made to achieve goals, concurrently imbuing disappointment within individual conference attendees as they discern that they, along with their nation have contributed insubstantially.
Lee further purports that there is ‘no need’ to recall the significance of biodiversity in contemporary society, and simultaneously angles the audience to presume that this information is rudimentary knowledge. Asserting that ‘rampant’ illnesses, ‘deepening’ poverty and ‘continuing’ patterns of inequitable growth are repercussions of society’s inability to manage biodiversity serves to not only inform audience members of the severity of their incompetence, but also mobilise them to act before additional adversities surface. Through their connotations of ubiquity and uncontrollability, the labels employed by Lee to precede the aforesaid adjectives further invokes a sense of fear in conference attendees that the notion of attaining a ‘healthy ecosystem’ is legitimately inconceivable. Lee’s explication of the predicament encountered by ‘poor rural communities’, in which they rely on biodiversity for their ‘health’, ‘nutrition’ and ‘crop development’ is efficacious in widening the perceptions of individuals who initially deemed biodiversity to serve a negligible purpose to appreciate its role in certifying the welfare of impoverished citizens. Further illustrating the correlation between biodiversity loss and the ‘food supply’ of the penurious, in that the reduction of biodiversity ascertains the proportions and quality of their nourishment, evinces to the audience the inextricable relationship the rural poor share with biodiversity; if biodiversity ceases to exist, so too do they. Though Lee’s portrayal of conference attendees as ‘powerful economic giants’ is merely verbal, it aligns them to envision themselves as monstrous figures that prioritise financial security over eradicating the destitution faced by ‘1.1 billion people’. From having conjured the mental image afore, the audience is more susceptible to Lee’s attempts to stop them from ‘kidding [them]selves’ and accept the ultimatum presented to them by Lee, which involves them minimising their hunting and gathering expeditions and preoccupy themselves with conservation and preservation.
Concluding his oration by openly querying if ‘any of this’ is unfamiliar information, and subsequently exclaiming ‘of course not,’ Lee invites the audience to formulate a contrasting assertion, but upon doing so discern that Lee is justified in his reasoning and emphatically agree with him, in that society is indeed cognizant of the irrevocable ramifications of their lifestyle onto their planet. One ramification pertains to the Earth’s fragility, as insinuated by Lee’s closing slide. The depiction of the Earth positioned in a cupped pair of hands aligns the audience to postulate that the Earth is too fragile to support itself, whilst assuming that man-kinds ‘greatest treasure’ is being presented to them to safeguard from diminishment. Rather than engaging in discussion, Lee advocates the notion of embarking on ‘serious action’, ideally by reiterating the imperative for change, not just to influential figures but also to the ‘everyday householder’.
Home
Help
Search
Login
