Comparative Language Analysis

[Shenz0r]

Hey guys, this is the 3rd piece I've written this year. It's a language analysis with an article from The Daily Tribute on graffiti, and a letter from a council member in response.  My teacher said it was excellent and couldn't find much to say, but of course, having more than one opinion is always better.

In recent times, graffiti has been utilised as a method of expression for youths in today's society. However, the line between graffiti and art is a difficult one to discern, and consequently some people are pushing for tougher measures against it. Such a polemic is echoed by the writer of the editorial The good, the bad and the ugly, published in The Daily Tribute on the 16th of July 2009, which argues in a predominately outraged and infuriated tone that graffiti should be actively condemned by council officials in order to prevent it from affecting small businesses. The editorial is poignantly complemented by a photograph of graffiti scrawled over an unknown wall. Michaela Whitehouse's rational response to the editorial, published in The Daily Tribute on the 17th of July 2009, argues that the hysterical overreaction generated from the article has lead the paper to dismiss crucial pieces of information at the expense of damaging the reputation of graffiti.

The writer of the editorial condemns graffiti as an "eyesore" and "disgrace" - loaded words rife with shame and disgust, which sensationalises graffiti artists as uneducated "thugs" who harbour no sense of civility and culture. Consequently, sentiments of fear and revulsion may be aroused in the reader, particularly landowners who live in areas where graffiti is rampant. The writer undermines graffiti artists as silly and child-like by suggesting that they are full of "ingratitude" and "selfishness" who "insist" on spreading "puerile cultural vandalism". Readers may be empowered to condescend upon graffiti artists as the writer implies that any "self-respecting citizen" would feel the same way. The writer continues to illustrate locals as being "confronted" with an "imposing mixture of lurid and tasteless sexual diagrams". The words "imposing", "confronted", "lurid" and "tasteless" are heavily attached with shock, awe and revolt - unpleasant feelings which one will not wish to feel - inviting the reader to perceive graffiti as a culturally unacceptable form of art. Consequently, readers may be compelled to feel a sense of outrage towards graffiti artists for putrefying the beautiful urban landscape. In addition, the writer portrays parents as having neither the "vocabulary" or the "fortitude" to explain to their children "what some of the more colourful phrases [on graffiti] meant". The words "more colourful phrases" is ironically tinged with allusions to the offensive profanity commonly seen on graffiti, possibly generating a sense of ill-feeling in readers, who may feel more protective of their children in the face of the malign impact graffiti may cause. Furthermore, the photograph of graffiti is used to support the writer's condemnation of graffiti artists. The graffiti community is shown to exhibit a lack of respect, depicted as the scrawling of graffiti over some more artistic elements. The anonymity of the wall also suggests that such a practice is very commonplace.

Furthermore, the writer develops a personal connection between the reader and the Bergers, who are depicted as not only being victimised by graffiti, but also left to defend for themselves by the government. By describing them as a "struggling" young couple of "recent entrepreneurs", the reader is positioned to feel a sense of rapport and sympathy for their plight against graffiti. The writer illustrates the council's aloofness by highlighting that the council stubbornly "refused" to offer support after "dragging its heels for months", creating an impression of stubbornness and indecisiveness on the council's behalf. Consequently, readers may feel resentful at the council for their lack of aid towards a young couple that faces a difficult, "daunting" challenge of fighting against graffiti without financial support, and as a result the reader may question the rationality of such a decision. Finally, the writer describes graffiti artists as having "[desecrated]" the wall. The word "desecrate" implies that the cafe wall was the most precious asset of the couple, only to be severely mistreated in a mere "seven hours" after its restoration. This is intended to strike at the reader's sense of justice, who may question the morality of such an action, in particular working families, who may perceive graffiti artists as ruthless nuisances on their businesses.

In a tone that completely contrasts the editorial, Michaela Whitehouse is far more measured in her attitude towards graffiti. She dismisses the editorial's "less enlightened remarks" of the council "condoning" vandalism by suggesting that the lack of measures against graffiti does not necessarily equate to the council actively embracing it. This revelation may not only persuade the reader to think less emotionally and more logically in their attitude towards the council's relationship with graffiti, but to also view the paper as less knowledgeable than it deems itself to be. Hence the reader may view the editorial as being too rash in their inappropriate judgement of the council, embarrassing the editorial team as unprofessional. While the editorial calls on the reader to see graffiti as a harmful pollutant towards al of society, Whitehouse refrains from condemning graffiti artists by indicating that the council does accept that graffiti can be "culturally acceptable form" of "youth culture", suggesting that the purpose of graffiti as a language of street art has been over-generalised as obscene profanity in the media. This is in sharp contrast to the "narrow-minded" attitude adopted by the editorial, which implied that all forms of graffiti were detrimental for society. As a result, the reader, in particular the "disaffected [youthful] generation" may be enlightened to feel less apprehensive to the council due to their willingness to tolerate graffiti and to showcase it in a more positive light.

Whitehouse elaborates upon the exact reasons for the council's refusal to offer support to the Bergers, stating that they "have no legal recourse" to council assistance "because it is their wall". She repeats "their" to exemplify the belief that the couple bears responsibility for the wall's maintenance as it is their private property, positioning the reader to see the council as being inappropriately held responsible for issues that were out of its control. This is further supported by Whitehouse's correction of the editorial's hyperbolic statement that the council "dragged [their] heels for months", indicating that the Bergers were notified that "support was not possible" in "less than three weeks". Consequently, readers may feel sympathetic towards the council, who have been perceived as victims of "irresponsible journalism". Whitehouse proceeds to denigrate the feasibility of offering financial support by warning that it will lead to a budget "blowout" - an undesirable outcome that aims to strike at the reader's hip-pocket nerve, particularly at homeowners. Ultimately, the reader is lead to view the issue at a new level of financial complexity and may dismiss the editorial as being ignorant to the real underlying issues present.

The crux of the editorial stems from its strongly critical demeanour towards graffiti and its strong criticism of the council's refusal to support the Bergers, accompanied by a visual image that exemplifies the rampant disrespect shown by the graffiti community. On the other hand, Whitehouse's letter argues in a more rational and measured tone that such assistance is impossible and that the issue will only be further aggravated by the paper's antagonistic attitude towards graffiti. While the editorial aims to evoke sentiments of outrage and infuriation, Whitehouse's letter calls for readers to think more logically and portrays the paper as unprofessional.

[dilks]

In recent times, graffiti has been utilised as a method of expression for youths in today's society. However, the line between graffiti and art is a difficult one to discern, and consequently some people are pushing for tougher measures against it. Such a polemic is echoed by the writer of the editorial 'The good, the bad and the ugly', published in The Daily Tribute on the 16th of July 2009, which argues in a predominately outraged and infuriated tone that graffiti should be actively condemned by council officials in order to prevent it from affecting small businesses. The editorial is poignantly complemented by a photograph of graffiti scrawled over an unknown wall. Michaela Whitehouse's rational response to the editorial, published in The Daily Tribute on the 17th of July 2009, argues that the hysterical overreaction generated from the article has lead the paper to dismiss crucial pieces of information at the expense of damaging the reputation of graffiti. (Could mention the audience if possible. I was going to suggest analysing the title as well because it is an allusion to a notorious film (now considered a classic incidentally, go figure) which when it was originally released was heavily criticised for its vagrant depictions of violence, and decried as not being art, however in an exam you are unlikely to have the benefit of knowing something like that, but you could still have said something about how the title is creating a distinction between good and bad art, and things which cannot possibly be art because they are deplorably ugly owing to lewdness.)

The writer of the editorial condemns graffiti as an "eyesore" and a "disgrace" - loaded words rife with shame and disgust, which sensationalises graffiti artists as uneducated "thugs" who harbour no sense of civility and nor culture. Consequently, sentiments sensations of fear and revulsion may be aroused in the reader, particularly landowners who live in areas where graffiti is rampant. The writer undermines graffiti artists as silly and child-like by suggesting that they are full of "ingratitude" and "selfishness" who "insist" on spreading "puerile cultural vandalism". (You could explore the connotations of these words in more depth. For example, 'ingratitude' might appeal to parents who feel their adolescent children don't show gratitude for them bringing them up, and draws on this sentiment, to position them to agree with the author. 'Selfishness is similar to this but also connotes that these are people who don't give back to society, and are therefore disruptive to the proper functioning of society. 'The word 'puerile' serves as an anathema to the notion of graffiti as art, by suggesting that graffiti, unlike art, does not have a deeper meaning, it is merely 'vandalism', in other words, a crime.) Readers may be feel empowered to condescend upon graffiti artists as the writer implies that any "self-respecting citizen" would (and ought to! Thus meaning that they actually have a social responsibility to combat graffiti.) feel the same way. The writer continues to illustrate portray locals as being "confronted" with an "imposing mixture of lurid and tasteless sexual diagrams". The words "imposing", "confronted", "lurid" and "tasteless" are heavily attached with shock, awe and revulsion - unpleasant feelings which one will not wish to feel - inviting the reader to perceive graffiti as a culturally unacceptable form of art. (and put themselves in their shoes.) Consequently, readers may be compelled to feel a sense of outrage towards graffiti artists for putrefying (nice word) the beautiful urban landscape. In addition, the writer portrays parents as having neither the "vocabulary" nor the "fortitude" to explain to their children "what some of the more colourful phrases [on graffiti] meant". The words "more colourful phrases" is ironically tinged with allusions to the offensive profanity commonly seen on graffiti, possibly generating a sense of ill-feeling in readers, who may feel more protective of their children in the face of the malign impact graffiti may cause. Furthermore, the photograph of graffiti is used to support the writer's condemnation of graffiti artists. The graffiti community is shown to exhibit a lack of respect, depicted as the scrawling of graffiti over some more artistic elements. The anonymity of the wall also suggests that such a practice is very commonplace.

Furthermore, the writer develops a personal connection between the reader and the Bergers, who are depicted as not only being victimised by graffiti, but also left to defend for themselves by the government. By describing them as a "struggling" young couple of "recent entrepreneurs", the reader is positioned to feel a sense of rapport and sympathy for their plight against graffiti. The writer illustrates the council's aloofness by highlighting that the council stubbornly "refused" to offer support after "dragging its heels for months", creating an impression of stubbornness and indecisiveness on the council's behalf (Maybe even indifference?). Consequently, readers may feel resentment at towards  the council for their lack of aid towards a young couple that faces a difficult and "daunting" challenge of fighting against graffiti without financial support, and as a result the reader may question the rationality of such a decision. Finally, the writer describes graffiti artists as having "[desecrated]" (You can't do this. You can do something like: "desecrat[ed]" in order to match the tense with your sentence, but if you do what you did (putting the whole thing in brackets) it means that this isn't even a word they used in the article, thus making it a misquotation.") the wall. The word "desecrate" implies that the cafe wall was the most precious asset of the couple, only to be severely mistreated in a mere "seven hours" after its restoration. This is intended to strike at the reader's sense of justice, who may question the morality of such an action, in particular working families, who may perceive graffiti artists as ruthless nuisances on their businesses.

In a tone that completely contrasts the editorial, Michaela Whitehouse is far more measured in her attitude towards graffiti. (CATTFLAP? I don't think you have properly introduced the second article.) She dismisses the editorial's "less enlightened remarks" of the council "condoning" vandalism by suggesting that the lack of measures against graffiti does not necessarily equate to the council actively embracing it. This revelation may not only persuade the reader to think less emotionally and more logically in their attitude towards the council's relationship with graffiti, but to also view the paper as less knowledgeable than it deems itself to be. (For this reason some readers may even feel indignation for having been tricked by an article which doesn't even have sound logic.) Hence the reader may view the editorial as being too rash in their inappropriate judgement of the council, embarrassing the editorial team as unprofessional. While the editorial calls on the reader to see graffiti as a harmful pollutant towards al of society, Whitehouse refrains from condemning graffiti artists by indicating that the council does accept that graffiti can be "culturally acceptable form" of "youth culture", suggesting that the purpose of graffiti as a language of street art has been over-generalised as obscene profanity in the media. This is in sharp contrast to the "narrow-minded" attitude adopted by the editorial, which implied that all forms of graffiti were detrimental for society. As a result, the reader, in particular the "disaffected [youthful] youth[ful] generation" may be enlightened to feel less apprehensive towards the council due to their willingness to tolerate graffiti and to showcase it in a more positive light. (In other words the council are not being naive, they are being open-minded, in contrast to the editorial's "narrow-mind[edness]".)

Whitehouse elaborates upon the exact reasons for the council's refusal to offer support to the Bergers, stating that they "have no legal recourse" to council assistance "because it is their wall". She repeats "their" to exemplify the belief that the couple bears responsibility for the wall's maintenance as it is their private property, positioning the reader to see the council as being inappropriately held responsible for issues that were out of its control. This is further supported by Whitehouse's correction of the editorial's hyperbolic statement that the council "dragged [their] heels for months", indicating that the Bergers were notified that "support was not possible" in "less than three weeks". Consequently, readers may feel sympathetic towards the council, who have been perceived as victims of "irresponsible journalism". (good) Whitehouse proceeds to denigrate the feasibility of offering financial support by warning that it will lead to a budget "blowout" - an undesirable outcome that aims to strike at the reader's hip-pocket nerve, particularly at homeowners. Ultimately, the reader is lead to view the issue at a new level of financial complexity and may dismiss the editorial as being ignorant to the real underlying issues present.

The crux of the editorial stems from its strongly critical demeanour towards graffiti and its strong criticism of the council's refusal to support the Bergers, accompanied by a visual image that exemplifies the rampant disrespect shown by the graffiti community. On the other hand, Whitehouse's letter argues in a more rational and measured tone that such assistance is impossible and that the issue will only be further aggravated by the paper's antagonistic attitude towards graffiti. While the editorial aims to evoke sentiments of outrage and infuriation, Whitehouse's letter calls for readers to think more logically and portrays the paper as unprofessional.

Some good stuff here, definitely on the right track. You might want to revise the rules on square brackets in quotations as you are using them incorrectly sometimes. The essay could have been a bit longer I think (covering more of the second article), but I understand that you may have had some difficulties with the time constraints. I think your conclusion could use some work, and your introduction for the second article. They appear to be the weakest and least convincing parts of the piece to me. In order to make your analysis even stronger you could have related the devices back to the author's intention. For example in the second article, one of the author's main intentions is to discredit the editorial, if you state this in the outset, then you can refer back to it in your analysis, in order to show how the article has been crafted to this purpose. Similarly in the first article one of the author's main intentions is to convey the impression to the audience that graffiti is a cur and a menace on society, and relate the devices he uses back to this as well.) So yes, there is some more room for improvement, but there is nothing here that strikes me as being plain out bad or ugly (if you will excuse the pun).