Feedback Please!

[VCEstress]

This is the start of my Language Analysis, but I would just like some feedback to know if I'm on the right track.
Thanks

In response to Professor Julian Savulescu’s medical journal Melisa Donchi writes a letter to the editor opposing the views presented in the journal. With a tone that is sympathetic but yet hovering on the edge of been livid, Donchi’s concern is unveiled as she counters those who arrange for the imperfection of their child.  Thus, with the aid of her prevailing position as writer she condemns the subject of denying someone’s right to being ‘normal’ therefore, reducing them to the comparison of a ‘defective’, manufactured object.
The headline dramatises the ‘defect’ of “deafness” with a powerful repetitive triplet in the opening lines. Using the striking sound of the letter ‘D’ Donchi instantly creates a mood of confrontation and unease. This positions the reader to directly ‘sympathise with the deaf community’. Therefore, establishes  her credibility within the readers mind. The writer exploits the reader’s sense of sympathy by dwelling and repeating the word ‘normal’ implying a faulted object and also striving to illustrate and keep constant the image of vulnerable, abnormal children.
The writer sets the stage through the use of an anecdote to exemplify the feelings encountered by someone once deprived of being ‘normal’. Through this Donchi achieves reliability as she presents a scenario of someone who had been ‘cheated’ and unwillingly lost their right. The final question proposed by the writer attempts to draw logic and reason in the reader’s mind, leading them to further question the morals of the professor whom endorsed such actions.
Donchi creates an affinity and affiliation between herself and the reader by the use of inclusive language, ‘I and you’. With the statement ‘but I ask you what the difference could be’ the writer polarises people in two groups. Using this she clearly establishes a sense that one is right and the other is wrong, placing an onus on the reader, as they begin to feel compelled to help and refuse the wrong, selfish parents. With the use of the terms ‘a parent’s wish’ the parents are positioned as egocentric and inconsiderate of the difficulties their child will stumble upon. This point is reinforced as the parents behaviour is questioned in the final line, underpinning their position in the erroneous side.

[dilks]

With the exception of some errors in expression, the analysis seems to be on the right track.

However, that said, in my opinion you could make it stronger still by connecting the devices the author uses to the larger strategy (or strategies) they are using to try and persuade the reader of the validity of their point of view, which would give the reader of your piece a stronger sense of why the author is using those particular devices. Try and figure out what the larger points of her argument are, then try, and link their use of persuasive devices to position the reader, back to these points, in addition to her overall strategy (which overlaps with this) in order to show how she furthers and develops her argument over the course of the whole piece. You don't have to do this all the time, but doing this will give your analysis a clearer focus, and help you capture the essence of the article.

[VCEstress]

Thanks alot for the advice
But just wondering, do you mean I should connect the strategies she is using to the overall contention of the article or do you mean I should connect it to the way she positions herself in relation to the issue?

[dilks]

I tend to think of it as being that an author has a contention, and they use an overall strategy to convince the audience of the validity of the contention, and this is reflected in what devices they use and how they are trying to position the reader.
An example of a strategy would be that the author wants to discredit the opposition's argument, and to make their argument seem irrefutable through the use of statistical evidence, facts, and the opinions of experts.

It is up to you whether you want to introduce the strategy first, and then focus on how the devices complement it, or whether you want to analyse the devices and deduce the author's strategy from your analysis. Looking at the author's strategy is just a method I use in order to create a more cohesive analysis. It allows you to show the logic behind the author's choices, rather than simply analysing devices in isolation, which is a wholly reductionistic approach, you do still need to do that, but you should also aim to, if possible, demonstrate an insight into how the piece works as a whole, which requires you to use a holistic approach as well. Note that you don't need to be relating every single device back to the author's strategy, but you should be aiming to give us a sense of how everything fits together.

[VCEstress]

Makes sense, thanks alot for the help