Language analysis please rate

[Kotza]

Hubble therefore successful persuades his viewers to side by his arguments and his opinion.

I don't think you should input your own opinion e.g. commenting on the success of a technique.
I was advised by an assessor that you should avoid this.
What other people have said about you being too general is pretty spot on.
Maybe try identifying the intended audience and the writer's specific argument to show a more in depth analysis.

P.S: I'm an average english student (who is worried about not getting 30 for english) so you geniuses out there, please correct me if i'm wrong  

(I tried my best to help my twin (Y))

I'm confused. How is saying whether the writer was successful in the article stating her own opinion? It is a language analysis, so isn't it the aim to analyze whether he did it right or not. In my intros, i ALWAYS write for eg. the writer successfully utilizes several persuasive techniques to blablablabla...

Is this bad? D:

yea dont do it. Language analysis asks for you to give an in depth discussion about how an article is written to persuade and the effects of such language. It doesnt ask for the effectiveness.

So if you were to say "the writer successfully utilizes......"
perhaps it would be more wise to say, "the writer utilizes (insert technique here) to a great extent."

my teacher also used to tell me off when i judged, in one of my essays i wrote;
"the outlay of the piece is quite insipid and bland," and she write "avoid making judgements"
although a student on the VCAA assessors report did such a thing and received a high mark

[physics]

thanks everybody i think i will practise some more

and high there my other twin!
we'll both get 30+ cause that what i aim for too! talk about twins...lol
and we want to get into the same course too!

i think my writing would furthermore suck if i did not have a thesarus

[HERculina]

yea dont do it. Language analysis asks for you to give an in depth discussion about how an article is written to persuade and the effects of such language. It doesnt ask for the effectiveness.

So if you were to say "the writer successfully utilizes......"
perhaps it would be more wise to say, "the writer utilizes (insert technique here) to a great extent."

my teacher also used to tell me off when i judged, in one of my essays i wrote;
"the outlay of the piece is quite insipid and bland," and she write "avoid making judgements"
although a student on the VCAA assessors report did such a thing and received a high mark

Oh ok, thanks.
How would I state the tone of the article in my intro btw.
Would I say, " ...in an aggressive tone/manner/fashion" or "writes aggressively"

[Kotza]

yea dont do it. Language analysis asks for you to give an in depth discussion about how an article is written to persuade and the effects of such language. It doesnt ask for the effectiveness.

So if you were to say "the writer successfully utilizes......"
perhaps it would be more wise to say, "the writer utilizes (insert technique here) to a great extent."

my teacher also used to tell me off when i judged, in one of my essays i wrote;
"the outlay of the piece is quite insipid and bland," and she write "avoid making judgements"
although a student on the VCAA assessors report did such a thing and received a high mark

Oh ok, thanks.
How would I state the tone of the article in my intro btw.
Would I say, " ...in an aggressive tone/manner/fashion" or "writes aggressively"

Well what i do is, in order to make it flow, is this;

"Adopting a "___" and "____" (i always use two) tone, the author attempts to highlight/emphasize "insert contention here" OR persuade/influence the reader's perception on "insert contention here." 

the reason why i do it in such a manner is that when i describe the tone being employed throughout the article, it is too difficult to have a decent 15-20 word sentence and it ends up being much like yours! Also, by conducting it like this, you will tick off 2 of the 5 things you have to state in the intro;
-Contention (stated in the box on previous page of the exam)
-Outline of topic discussed (what it is about)
-Audience
-Style (opinion piece, online journal)
-Tone

so just remember th acronym COAST!

 

[HERculina]

you ze best. :smitten:

[Kotza]

haha thank you!
good luck

[shinny]

I'll go out on a limb here and say probably around 5-6 IMO. There's not much actual analysis because most of the time you're summarising sentences which present an argument and then say that this then causes readers to agree with the writer's contention. However, most of the time you don't actually point out what particular aspect of the sentence is causing readers to agree with that. I mean you're practically saying the writer writes 'X', therefore readers will agree with 'X' with no justification whatsoever. Really, the whole 'agree with the writer's contention' is a sentence that should never be used whilst analysing individual techniques. Agreement with the contention is the net effect of the article; not the result of an individual technique. In a similar vein, individual techniques don't represent the entire contention. My tutor's rule was that the word contention basically should not even appear in your body paragraphs at all. You've used the word to represent each individual argument, but that's all they are - arguments. A single line from the article does not represent the author's contention.

My advice would be to read lynt.br's language analysis guide and follow his structure completely until you get the hang of it, and only then should you try mixing things up. Language analysis is FAR easier when you take a heavily structured approach as is outlined lynt's guide rather than writing whatever comes to mind. Sorry if this has been a bit harsh, especially at this time of the year, but only trying to help =/

[Chavi]

Overall, it requires work. Not mentioning the associated image (the massive plume of sediment behind the trailing ship) can cost you many marks (2+ according to chief examiner Ross Huggard)
Target audience as well as the impact on the audience is something that the piece failed to consider. Also the prose and writing can be worked upon - you should watch verb agreements and grammar - because some parts didn't flow so well.

In the first paragraph, simply listing the techniques may negatively impact on the quality of the piece. (I did the same thing unwittingly at the beginning of the year. My teacher took of a mark)

by creating fear, using emotive language, connotative language, factual evidence and rhetorical questions.

the audience are challenged to question

Who is this "audience" you speak of? Is the piece being performed in a theatre? hint: identifying the target audience is one of the requirements of the lang analysis task.

The author states that there are “more than 5000 species” that will be affected by the dredging of “up to 48 million tonnes” of sand and rocks “to allow a few more” large ships to pass conveniently. This proposal will take “thirty years to recover.”

Examiners are familiar with the content of the piece. No need to paraphrase entire paragraphs - as this isn't actually fulfilling the task requirements. It shows you have an understand of 'what is said' and to a lesser extend 'how it is said' - but by leaving out the "why" altogether, you will lose marks.

Port Phillip Bay has always been famous for its breath taking landscapes

Personal opinion. Big no no.

he author introduces this issue as “the awful reality that many of us feared.”

Why repeat this now, after mentioning it in the intro?

Readers are let into the harsh reality

This sentence makes no sense. Consider rephrasing the term "let"

are made to double think before disagreeing with the author’s contention

this hasn't been demonstrated in any way.

By supporting his arguments with factual evidence, Hubble is more likely to gain credibility from his audience as viewers are persuaded more convincingly through the use of evidence.

This is the most pointless sentence in the entire piece, as you already open up the paragraph with:

Hubble uses factual evidence to make his argument seem more credible.

The reliance on repetition demonstrates that you ran out of points, or didn't think the piece through properly. Why not discuss the inclusive language and the impact that has on fellow Melbournians - rallying them against the dredging initiative?

Hubble attempts to persuade his audience by appealing to their sense of fear, through the use of connotative terms and strengthens his argument by using factual evidence. The audience are strongly directed to Hubble’s arguments as they persuaded by the credibility and believability of his factual evidence. The proposal of dredging Port Phillip Bay has created much controversy and until there is an agreement to this issue, there will be a never ending debate on

This conclusion is simply clumsy. Must rephrase.

Many of the mistakes are similar. I suggest you read through the study design and familiarize yourself with the conventions of the task. Understand what you have to do:

1. identify examples of verbal and non-verbal (including visual) language used by the authors of texts to persuade readers and viewers to share a point of view;
2. use appropriate metalanguage to discuss how the use of language in a persuasive text is designed to position readers and viewers;

You are much stronger on 1 than you are on 2. I suggest you work on identifying the impact on the target audience - as this is the point that examiners are looking for.
5.5-6.5 /10. Much more work is needed, but if you understand the task, I think you will able to create a high scoring response.
Good luck  

[kyzoo]

Quote
Port Phillip Bay has always been famous for its breath taking landscapes
Personal opinion. Big no no.

Wah...that's called personal opinion? Isn't it only personal opinion on the persuaive power of an article that we shuold be careful to avoid?

[taiga]

Not analyzing the image is a big mistake, without doing that I doubt you could get more than 7 or 8. I've done this piece and I don't think the image is THAT significant, but you need to include it. Try to say something about the scale of the size of dirt/sediment brought up to the surface in comparison the whole landscape of the image, or compare it to the size of the dredging ship. Then say how this sort of thing highlights the sheer impact it has on the marine ecosystem, appeal to environmental concern blablablabla

785 is a bit light as well, but I think the analysis is decent, but avoid sort of summarizing the contention of the article. You definitely know what you are doing, but I think you're going a bit light on your analysis.

You are fine to say that the Port Phillip Bay is beautiful and such, as Kyzoo said, you can not use personal opionion when analyzing, but for the conclusion I think it is fine. And what you said is more or less a general consensus of the beach.

Due to the lack of image analysis/a lack of depth to a minor extent, I would not be able to give it more than a 6.

But a good image analysis, and perhaps less summarizing, and more analysis (and a higher word count) and you will be hitting 8-9 by this weekend

keep it up