Language Analysis

[calcalcal30]

Hey could someone please mark my language analysis for me?

The recent death of a Brisbane schoolboy has sparked a national debate about the safety of children in schools from knife attacks. In an informative piece published in 'The Age' on the 20th of February 2010, Chris Johnston and his piece, 'Danger in the schoolyard,' brings fear and doubt on the readers about the safety of their kids whilst at school. Accompanied by a confronting photo by Judy Green, Johnston argues that the government, schools and parents should work together to create a safer environment for children which would consequently abolish knife attacks altogether.

In Judy Green's photograph we can see an imposing knife laying alongside innocent pencil case items, such as pens, pencils and highlighters. The photograph insinuates that knife crime is going unnoticed in our schools and makes the readers feel on edge because their children are no longer safe. Johnston uses expert opinion to back up his argument that knife crime is becoming an unstoppable problem in schools.

Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg admits that the presence of knives at school "shatters everybody's understanding of schools as being safe places." These negative connotations make the reader understand that the moral order has been broken and widespread destruction is bound to occur. This problem would really affect the reader because their kids safety is imperative and the thought of this issue not going away soon would make the reader feel panicked and anxious.

The informative facts Johnston uses really connect with the reader and further supports his point that knives are ever-present in the schoolyard, regardless of the denial received from principals. Tony Simpson, principal of Copperfield College in Melbourne, explains that there's "an entrenched culture of denial by schools" and also "every [other] principal will say it's not a problem," putting further fear and distrust in parents sending their kids to school, because it comes across to parents that principals are not reliable sources of information regarding their child's safety.

Johnston aims to bring forward the lack of safety and protection of our children at school and hopefully bring upon change. He is able to bring the reality of this issue to the readers through trusted expert knowledge, from a psychologist and a principal, and also through the shocking picture depicting the true seriousness of knives in school, provided by Judy Green. Ultimately, Johnston wishes for a safer and more protected schooling environment which parents should support, since it is their children, their own flesh and blood, whose lives are at stake.

[nisha]

I skimmed this piece, but didn't read the article so I'm going off what you wrote:::

1. WAY too short. Explain how the author does this, why he does this, what is his intention, what course of action does he encourage? They are discussed, but not in enough detail.
2. You are not discussing and explaining your ideas clearly, and your writing is clunky and not fluent. Try using connecting words. I felt like i'm reading dot points.
3. Delve into the arguments of the author and how he uses this to back up his contention
4. Its more a shopping list, and screams the overall gist of the piece. If I read the piece, I already know whats going on. Therefore tell me how the author constructs his article to favour a certain point of view. You need to think about this more.
5. Never hint or say that the author has done such and such successfully, and thus his piece is persuasive. This is not a judgement based piece that requires your opinion, its completely objective, and thus you cannot decide whether this was successful/unconvincing.

I know i'm being quite blunt here, but thats what will help you improve:)

[nisha]

Oh, and don't refer to the audience as "we", always "the audience" or "the reader"

[calcalcal30]

Thanks heaps

[Felicity Wishes]

Like Nisha said, it is too short. Also, you should mention the writers tone and how it may impact the audience. From this piece I gather that you understand how the techniques persuade the audience but you need to work on making your work flow and making the analysis less blocky.

At one point you say "Johnston uses expert opinion to back up his argument that knife crime is becoming an unstoppable problem in schools" and then you move to the next paragraph with the expert opinion but you don't talk about how the fact that Michael is an expert is effective. I don't know. I just felt that was weak and the break was confusing imo. You also need more depth in your analysis, you seem to understand but you just need to make that clear.

These are only pointers and my opinion. I'm still trying to master LA myself. Xx

[calcalcal30]

Okay thanks for the tips xx