Language Analysis

[chris94]

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this language analysis piece. Thanks!

With the federal elections rapidly approaching, debate surrounding the climate change policies of each political party has been spotlighted by the media. In his cynical and jocular opinion piece, “Good news for people who like bad news,” (Melbourne Gale, 11/09/2007) Stephen Jones contends that the current government is content to take a negligent and stagnated approach to developing climate policies as our own earth deteriorates before our eyes.

Stephen Jones cleverly intertwines a comedic attitude with the serious nature of the issue. This refreshing wit helps mask the sinister tones that underscore the piece. By aligning himself with the reader, having ‘restless nights of late’ he elicits a sense of trust from the reader as they share similar unnerving thoughts. The conversational tone of ‘But seriously,’ engenders a response of relief amongst the audience but also prepares them for the more serious issue. The interplay between humour and Jones’ pessimism as he juxtaposes ‘terrorism’ with the mockery of  ‘reality TV and George Bush’ incites an increasingly anxious response from the reader as the ominous tone comes to the fore.

Having gradually prepared the reader, the unavoidable ‘Well too bad, here it is,’ confirms the heavy-handed side of the issue. With statistical evidence from an international source the ‘IPCC’, the writer boosts his own credibility which inveigles the reader to accept the findings without too much opposition. The disturbing figure of ‘ 3°C by 2100’ is almost ironic; as such a small number carries such damaging implications. This figure coupled with the phrase ‘it’s probably all our fault’ creates a pervading miasma of guilt and the audience is left feeling shameful. In addition, the reader immediately desires to right the wrongs and willingly agrees with the writer.

Similarly the personification of the Earth, ‘she has a fever,’ makes the issue more personal, and therefore elicits a feeling of impassioned outrage from the reader. The brooding billows of smoke in the attached photograph evoke a feeling of pure horror and shock. The fact that the clouds of smoke engulf most of the image suggests that our current methods of providing power are corrosive to the environment. The lighting of the picture places stress on the smoke clouds and this image is left haunting the reader and reinforces the shame and disgust they have.

Furthermore Jones’ embittered attack on John Howard alienates the Prime Minister through the use of dogmatic phrases such as ‘big cheese’ and ‘poster child.’ These aim to denigrate the Prime Minister and undermine his authority. By attacking his authority, the reader is hard-pressed to side with John Howard. Even more damaging is the fact that he adamantly opposes ‘expert opinion.’ This appears ludicrous to the reader as the experts clearly have a greater understanding of the issue at hand and how best to resolve it.

Stephen Jones also targets the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd. Despite his support of the renewable energy industry there is a sarcastic tone emanating from the sentence ‘ to brand himself the political eco-giant.’ This incites an onslaught of outrage from the reader as they realise even the seemingly admirable Kevin Rudd is cunningly selfish. These attacks are further strengthened by the opinion of Katherine Murphy (The Age) describing John Howard as ‘trying to dismiss global warming’ and combating ‘hemp-wearing eco-warriors’ which position the reader to dismiss John Howard’s view on climate change.

Although Jones has bombarded the reader with pessimistic views and ‘bad news’ there is solace in knowing that we can do our part. By listing relatively simple fixes like ‘using more public transport’ the reader is inspired and advocates this new mindset of thinking green. This works because the reader is left harbouring feelings of shame and resentment for the politicians’ indecisive attitude to climate change. The return to the conversational style of writing comforts the reader and reminds them that there is still optimism for the future.

Jones’ piece, although entertaining and facetious at times evinces the struggles and hardship that our ‘Mother Earth’ faces ahead of her. The light-hearted humour alleviates the shame and guilt, but ultimately we are left carefully analysing our own reprehensible actions as well as the government’s. The cynicism and pessimism that permeate the piece are partially subdued by the reminder that the future still contains optimism.

[Somye]

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this language analysis piece. Thanks!

With the federal elections rapidly approaching, debate surrounding the climate change policies of each political party has been spotlighted by the media. In his cynical and jocular opinion piece, “Good news for people who like bad news,” (Melbourne Gale, 11/09/2007) Stephen Jones contends that the current government is content to take a negligent and stagnated approach to developing climate policies as our own earth deteriorates before our eyes.try and briefly mention image contention and intended audience for the article

Stephen Jones cleverly intertwines a comedic attitude with the serious nature of the issue. This refreshing wit helps mask the sinister tones that underscore the piece. By aligning himself with the reader, having ‘restless nights of late’ he elicits a sense of trust from the reader as they share similar unnerving thoughtsbit more analysis. ask yourself why? what imagery does the connotations of 'restless' evoke?. The conversational tone of ‘But seriously,’ engenders a response of relief amongst the audience but also prepares them for the more serious issue Don't understand how?. The interplay between humour and Jones’ pessimism as he juxtaposes ‘terrorism’ with the mockery of  ‘reality TV and George Bush’ incites an increasingly anxious response from the reader as the ominous tone comes to the fore.

Having gradually prepared the reader, the unavoidable ‘Well too bad, here it is,’ confirms the heavy-handed side of the issue. With statistical evidence from an international source the ‘IPCC’, the writer boosts his own credibility which inveigles the reader to accept the findings without too much opposition. The disturbing figure of ‘ 3°C by 2100’ is almost ironic; as such a small number carries such damaging implications. This figure coupled with the phrase ‘it’s probably all our fault’ creates a pervading miasma of guilt and the audience is left feeling shameful. In addition, the reader immediately desires to right the wrongs and willingly agrees with the writer a little generic. Try and focus on EXACTLY what the figures represent

Similarly the personification of the Earth, ‘she has a fever,’ makes the issue more personal, and therefore elicits a feeling of impassioned outrage from the reader. The brooding billows of smoke in the attached photograph evoke a feeling of pure horror and shock. The fact that the clouds of smoke engulf most of the image suggests that our current methods of providing power are corrosive to the environment. The lighting of the picture places stress on the smoke clouds and this image is left haunting the reader and reinforces the shame and disgust they have. Good.

Furthermore Jones’ embittered attack on John Howard alienates the Prime Minister through the use of dogmatic phrases such as ‘big cheese’ and ‘poster child.’ These aim to denigrate the Prime Minister and undermine his authority. By attacking his authority, the reader is hard-pressed to side (?) with John Howard. Even more damaging is the fact that he adamantly opposes ‘expert opinion.’ This appears ludicrous to the reader as the experts clearly have a greater understanding of the issue at hand and how best to resolve it.

Stephen Jones also targets the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd. Despite his support of the renewable energy industry there is a sarcastic tone emanating from the sentence ‘ to brand himself the political eco-giant.’ This incites an onslaught of outrage from the reader as they realise even the seemingly admirable Kevin Rudd is cunningly selfish. These attacks are further strengthened by the opinion of Katherine Murphy (The Age) describing John Howard as ‘trying to dismiss global warming’ and combating ‘hemp-wearing eco-warriors’ which position the reader to dismiss John Howard’s view on climate change.Don't understand how an attack on John Howard compromises the position of Kevin Rudd?

Although Jones has bombarded (tense) the reader with pessimistic views and ‘bad news’ there is solace in knowing that we can do our part. By listing relatively simple fixes like ‘using more public transport’ the reader is inspired and advocates this new mindset of thinking green. This works because the reader is left harbouring feelings of shame and resentment for the politicians’ indecisive attitude to climate change. The return to the conversational style of writing comforts the reader and reminds them that there is still optimism for the future.

Jones’ piece, although entertaining and facetious at times evinces the struggles and hardship that our ‘Mother Earth’ faces ahead of her. The light-hearted humour alleviates the shame and guilt, but ultimately we are left carefully analysing our own reprehensible actions as well as the government’s. The cynicism and pessimism that permeate the piece are partially subdued by the reminder that the future still contains optimism.

Not too bad. I like your vocabulary, good usage of metalanguage.
But, at times you border on generic analysis. As an exercise, when you look at any language analysis and pick up any key 'persuasive devices', really keep asking yourself WHY this persuades the reader a certain way. It is quite tough to start off, but you'll see your language analysis skills improve hugely. Try to see what in the author's writing is really appealing his case, and you should start to pick up on word connotations and single word analysis. For example, a word that often pops up in language analysis is 'claims'. Now, most people wouldn't pick up the persuasive nature of the word, but if you really examine what it represents, it contains connotations of unresearched and unquantified conclusions, generally portraying people who say it in a negative light as remiss and uneducated about the specific issue. And given a particular context, you should apply such a technique as tailored to what you're talking about, not simply 'hence readers are positioned to view them negatively'.

[Shenz0r]

... you should start to pick up on word connotations and single word analysis. For example, a word that often pops up in language analysis is 'claims'. Now, most people wouldn't pick up the persuasive nature of the word, but if you really examine what it represents, it contains connotations of unresearched and unquantified conclusions, generally portraying people who say it in a negative light as remiss and uneducated about the specific issue. And given a particular context, you should apply such a technique as tailored to what you're talking about, not simply 'hence readers are positioned to view them negatively'.

Somye is spot on the ball on this point. You really want to analyse why the author uses particular words, and you HAVE to relate it to their overarching argument. Try not to be so vague when you say stuff like this:

...Stephen Jones cleverly intertwines a comedic attitude with the serious nature of the issue. This refreshing wit helps mask the sinister tones that underscore the piece. By aligning himself with the reader, having ‘restless nights of late’ he elicits a sense of trust from the reader as they share similar unnerving thoughts...

...Having gradually prepared the reader, the unavoidable ‘Well too bad, here it is,’ confirms the heavy-handed side of the issue...

Try to be as specific as possible in a language analysis. What are those unnerving thoughts...what is the heavy side of the issue?

There are some good opportunities for word-level analysis, especially in:

Furthermore Jones’ embittered attack on John Howard alienates the Prime Minister through the use of dogmatic phrases such as ‘big cheese’ and ‘poster child.’

If it helps, try imagine those labellings of Howard in your head. Imagery should help you write more effectively on the subtle effects the words have.