English Language essay submission and marking

[rohanj]

Could I get some feedback on this lang analysis essay I wrote in preparation for tomorrow's VCE English exam?
Any help will be appreciated!

Biodiversity, a crucial part of our existence in the world today is an ever growing issue that has been up for debate. During the International Biodiversity Conference 2010 in Nagoya Japan on the 25th to the 27th of October, Professor Chris Lee delivered a speech “Taking Stock” regarding the issue of Governmental action regarding the issue of biodiversity loss. The speech was delivered to the public consisting of many scientists, government officials and others witnessing Lee’s presentation as he expressed his view in a distressed, enthusiastic, formal and frank manner. Lee wished to review the progress made towards achieving the target to reduce biodiversity loss and took beyond 2010.
Throughout his speech, Lee makes the use of many rhetorical questions with a goal of creating a worry and to get the public thinking about the issue. He asks the audience “What have WE – what have YOU and YOUR country actually done since 2002?” and this gets the desired response. The use of the inclusive terms such as ‘we’, ‘you’, and ‘your’ make the audience engaged as these terms personalize the issue due to the fact these words refer to us as individuals. The fact that this was an International level conference means that many professionals in the field of biodiversity would have been present and by using inclusive terms in his rhetorical questions, he makes an appeal to the responsibility people of such stature feel. By asking what we have “actually done” he is able to create a sense of guilt that the public feel as by saying “actually” it magnifies the fact that our behaviour was not enough to create any positives. The fact that many professionals in the field of biodiversity and science were present at such a conference, these audience members in particular feel guilty. Lee uses an attack on the opposition in a concerned way via the use of rhetorical questions.
Emotions create the basis of us to respond to a situation, it gives us the motivation to change a situation. In his speech, Lee uses many emotive terms to further enhance the engagement of the audience. He states the situations that the poorer people in the world have to face and the rates of poverty to make the public feel the effects the issue has on the less fortunate people of our world. He says an emotive statement “the poor are particularly vulnerable because they are directly dependent on biodiversity for their survival”. This touches a nerve in the audience as most people like to believe they have a sense of care for others in despair. It makes them feel a touch of sympathy due to their sufferings as well as make the audience of those in power feel guilty about their lack of action regarding biodiversity loss. The use of the word “poor” has a strong sympathetic and negative connation attached as they refer to people who don’t have the honor to live life like the majority of Lee’s speech’s audience do. By using the word “vulnerable”, which has strong helpless and pitiful connotations attached, Lee is able to touch the hearts of people that care about the issues the loss of biodiversity has on the less fortunate people our Governments claim to care for. Finally, by stating they are “dependent of biodiversity” Lee is able to make a strong link back to the major issue as it means biodiversity loss is making the lives of poor people even more complicated than it already is. It makes his audience feel emotionally connected to his concerns and those of the poor.
Lee makes the use of slides with images that go with his speech to add another dimension and an extra effect to further enhance his point of view. The use of the logo of the Conference, Lee is able to make sure everyone knows the main topic of debate. The logo that has “2010” on it, has photos of carefully constructed photos of elements of biodiversity. The involvement of water animals such as fishes, land animals such as birds, humans as well as aspects of nature like the tree, clearly states the harmony that biodiversity brings to the world. It creates an overall balanced feel of the logo which stays relevant to the issue. The contrasting nature of a white background that has colored numbers in the foreground creates a clarity in which the focal point of the image, biodiversity in 2010, remains in the audience’s minds. The creation of the logo has the numbers overlapping and joined together, similar to the way biodiversity joins all aspects of the Earth together. This creates a strong sense of likeness to the issue of biodiversity as well as ensuring the logo is relevant to the main topic of debate.
Hands joining together in unity are an aspect that is required to change an issue such as biodiversity. The image on the closing slide of Lee’s slide shows exactly that as a globe is placed on joining hands to state the fact the unity is required to create a positive effect on biodiversity loss. By placing the globe and hands in the foreground, the emphasis remains on the main issue as the hierarchy of image placement ensure the eyes focus on the focal point first and foremost. The accompanying text that states the words of ecologist “Thomas Eisner” say “Biodiversity is the greatest treasure we have. Its diminishment is to be preserved at all costs”. This remains very much relevant to the issue that Lee is discussing in his speech and the use of an expert opinion make his speech that much stronger. The words “greatest treasure” have connotations that regard to great things in life that are precious to lose as by saying “greatest” the audience think of grand positives. The use of “treasure” states that the gained benefits of biodiversity are precious and something that is priceless.
Biodiversity is the “greatest treasure we have” and this is the concerned emotion that Lee expresses in his speech with a means to review progress and form the building blocks for further improvements. By using rhetorical questions his audience which includes many professionals, they are made to think about the inaction regarding biodiversity. It allows Lee to form the basis for creating a sense of urgency regarding the matter. Together with the use of emotive language and inclusive terms, Lee is successfully able to persuade his intended audience of professionals in the field of science and Government to reduce biodiversity loss. The added use of images on his slides enhances the potential as it ensures visual learners are also persuaded to the full extent.

Thanks!

[lzxnl]

Profanity is an emotive communicative tool which plays a variety of roles in contemporary Australian society. Discuss.

Contemporary Australia profanity has quite varied functions phrasing a bit awkward, showing that it is quite a dynamic entity. In certain social groups swearing is encouraged, primarily due to its benefactors I don't quite like the use of this word of building a 'mateship'  a mateship? something like reducing social distance or create solidarity would be fineamong interlocutors. However it is still governed by context and taboo as seen in mediums such as the newspaper, television and interviews probably better to mention appropriateness. Swearing cam spelling also serve to function as defining one's socioeconomic status and place on the social hierarchy in a certain social group so contention is where?



Swearing in Australia, quite recently, has gained some encouragement in certain groups. This is because it creates friendships, reduces social distance, and more commonly gives insight into an individual's identity it CAN do these; you really need that modal verb, otherwise your argument is actually incorrect. If I said "fuck you all the way to hell" every day of my life to you, would that create friendships and reduce social distance?. Profanity is thrown around often at social locations such as a bar, or a social event like the footy, or more commonly on on technological mediums like Facebook and Twitter. This not because grammar of a exclamatory function but rather it functions to create solidarity between members of the club explain how so, with a concrete example Essendon, or a bunch of 'blokes' at the bar. For example the profanity "cunt" is being used in a interesting way, among friends, it is being tagged along in sentences "Steve, you cunt" as a rapport building tactic see, your argument makes more sense with an example. Furthermore swearing creates this relaxed atmosphere among participants that further encourages rapport to built grammar. Again. Swear words also increase sense of expression phrasing; swearing facilitates communications?, when it is quite difficult to access adjectives, profanities are perfect to describe something or someone. This seen past participle! Needs auxiliary verb with the former Prime minister Kevin Rudd "shit storm" or even in advertisements of dangerous driving "don't be a dickhead"- VicRoads Analyse the point of these!. The advertisement also reaches out to "young people on their level" - O' Brien's. Many individuals swear in Australia that it is now become part of their national identity, creating sense of values  for the nation you're jumping around when you haven't made your point clearly. It was seen in the advertisement that was promoting Australian tourism, where Lara Bingle used "where the bloody hell are ya" showing "bloody" has changed its role in Australian society to the point Australian's embrace it, and code profanity to their "DNA"- Kate Burridge I only know what you're talking about because I've done the course; to an outsider this would be very unclear and you don't want that


While there may be positive attitudes towards swearing it still has taboo and context which undermine its role in society phrasing, by its negative uses and influences. Mediums such as popular newspaper Herald Sun, The Age still censor profanity from their content even if it fits the context. Commonly also seen with the A current Affair on channel 7 with their 'bleep' sound when a profanity is thrown out. This shows bad language is governed by taboo mention appropriateness, the newspapers try to keep up with political correctness and taboo's to maintain the reader's positive face this isn't positive face...positive face is when someone feels accepted and that people are interested in them; this is just appropriateness. Use the term!. Remember too colloquial for the essay not all readers believe swearing is good, this is mostly seen with upper class citizens who abide with standards of Australian English metalanguage? Prescriptivists?. It is also a generalised   aspect as surveys show teenagers/ middle- aged individuals are more likely to throw out a profanity on the basis of solidarity than older people Is this really a strong point?. A reason for this could be older generations still believe in their values and attitudes towards swearing, whilst generation X, Y,Z are more open to new values and dogmas. You're straying from your topic sentence Furthermore it may be also because older generations are restricted to newspapers and are unable to access sites like Twitter are you saying old people can't use Twitter? which delivers the public domain in a "taboo free fashion " more required on online language. Profanity is catching on, however, it still somewhat restricted by taboos and popular news outlets and media even if it fits the context. Here I really became lost


Swearing can also function to determine what, so if I swear more I'm going to become a construction worker? Be careful of wording one's socioeconomic status, or where they stand on the social hierarchy as an individual. It can be said hard labor workers like construction workers often use profanities in their workplace, this will occur occasionally. Such behaviors induce the idea that profanity is directly proportional to one's job occupation I don't like the phrasing. Furthermore Aborigines often throw out profanities, and people assume it is due to their lack of education. Additionally a way a student talks outside of school can give an insight into the school the student goes to, semicolon! if the student swears, people will think he or she is from a bad school people more judge your level of education; and it does not say anything about the school at all. People at my school, supposedly one of the best in Melbourne, still swear a lot; your point is?. If an individual was subjunctive? to swear at a train station people would assume he or she is of low status, this is dependent on the individual itself but generally speaking this is what occurs. you haven't said anything to me yet...you're repeating things. Give a concrete example. While on the other hand being well spoken and staying updated with political correctness swearing isn't politically incorrect; it does not discriminate and taboo of Australian society can earn an individual a good reputation among the society. huh? I'm confused This shows profanity can affect both negatively and positively depending on how it is used. This will determine one's place in the society and socioeconomic status.  huh? I'm confused. Again. And you don't want the reader to be confused


Swearing is seen as a dynamic state in Australia. Most people believe it functions to increase friendship or even create them by inducing a relaxed atmosphere. Profanity is catching on even if it is still restricted by media and taboo and it has useful purposes. One of Profanity's purpose is to determine one's socioeconomic status and their place in society.     

I couldn't really see your points in this essay. Clarity of expression is something which would really help your essays. Think about the big ideas of swearing, and then try and explain them clearly to someone. Don't go off on tangents (PC language isn't really relevant here). Also, pay attention to your grammar (examiners will hate non-Standard syntax) and phrasing, as some of your wording is a bit off.
Concrete examples are a must. For something as practical and everyday as swearing, real-life examples from the media are an absolute must.

Could I get some feedback on this lang analysis essay I wrote in preparation for tomorrow's VCE English exam?
Any help will be appreciated!

Biodiversity, a crucial part of our existence in the world today is an ever growing issue that has been up for debate. During the International Biodiversity Conference 2010 in Nagoya Japan on the 25th to the 27th of October, Professor Chris Lee delivered a speech “Taking Stock” regarding the issue of Governmental action regarding the issue of biodiversity loss. The speech was delivered to the public consisting of many scientists, government officials and others witnessing Lee’s presentation as he expressed his view in a distressed, enthusiastic, formal and frank manner. Lee wished to review the progress made towards achieving the target to reduce biodiversity loss and took beyond 2010.
Throughout his speech, Lee makes the use of many rhetorical questions with a goal of creating a worry and to get the public thinking about the issue. He asks the audience “What have WE – what have YOU and YOUR country actually done since 2002?” and this gets the desired response. The use of the inclusive terms pronouns? such as ‘we’, ‘you’, and ‘your’ not quite related to rhetorical questions make the audience engaged as these terms personalize the issue due to the fact these words refer to us as individuals. The fact that this was an International level conference means that many professionals in the field of biodiversity would have been present and by using inclusive terms in his rhetorical questions, he makes an appeal to the responsibility people of such stature feel. By asking what we have “actually done” he is able to create a sense of guilt that the public feel as by saying “actually” metalanguage? it magnifies the fact that our behaviour was not enough to create any positives. The fact that many professionals in the field of biodiversity and science were present at such a conference, these audience members in particular feel guilty. Lee uses an attack on the opposition in a concerned way via the use of rhetorical questions. you've looked at ONE rhetorical question...
Emotions create the basis of us to respond to a situation, it gives us the motivation to change a situation. You want a topic sentence directly connected to language In his speech, Lee uses many emotive terms to further enhance the engagement of the audience this is where pronouns would be handy. He states the situations that the poorer people in the world have to face and the rates of poverty to make the public feel the effects the issue has on the less fortunate people of our world. He says an emotive statement “the poor are particularly vulnerable because they are directly dependent on biodiversity for their survival”. This touches a nerve in the audience as most people like to believe they have a sense of care for others in despair "It appeals to their sense of compassion and humanity"? Phrasing could be reworked. It makes them feel a touch of sympathy due to their sufferings as well as make the audience of those in power feel guilty about their lack of action regarding biodiversity loss. The use of the word “poor” has a strong sympathetic and negative connation connotation attached as they refer to people who don’t have the honor to live life like the majority of Lee’s speech’s audience do. By using the word “vulnerable”, which has strong helpless and pitiful connotations attached, Lee is able to touch the hearts of people that care about the issues the loss of biodiversity has on the less fortunate people our Governments claim to care for and perhaps stress the magnitude of the issue at hand?. Finally, by stating they are “dependent of biodiversity” Lee is able to make a strong link back to the major issue as it means biodiversity loss is making the lives of poor people even more complicated than it already is to me it looks like biodiversity is a large part of these people's lives; remove it, and their lives will be in strife. It makes his audience feel emotionally connected to his concerns and those of the poor.
Lee makes the use of slides with images that go with his speech to add another dimension and an extra effect to further enhance his point of view. The use of the logo of the Conference, Lee is able to make sure everyone knows the main topic of debate not a complete sentence. The logo that has “2010” on it, has photos of carefully constructed photos of elements of biodiversity. The involvement of water animals such as fishes, land animals such as birds, humans as well as aspects of nature like the tree, clearly states the harmony that biodiversity brings to the world. It creates an overall balanced feel of the logo which stays relevant to the issue. The contrasting nature of a white background that has colored numbers in the foreground creates a clarity in which the focal point of the image, biodiversity in 2010, remains in the audience’s minds. The creation of the logo has the numbers overlapping and joined together, similar to the way biodiversity joins all aspects of the Earth together. This creates a strong sense of likeness to the issue of biodiversity as well as ensuring the logo is relevant to the main topic of debate.
Hands joining together in unity are an aspect that is required to change an issue such as biodiversity. The image on the closing slide of Lee’s slide shows exactly that as a globe is placed on joining hands to state the fact the unity is required to create a positive effect on biodiversity loss. By placing the globe and hands in the foreground, the emphasis remains on the main issue as the hierarchy of image placement ensure the eyes focus on the focal point first and foremost. The accompanying text that states the words of ecologist “Thomas Eisner” say “Biodiversity is the greatest treasure we have. Its diminishment is to be preserved at all costs”. This remains very much relevant to the issue that Lee is discussing in his speech and the use of an expert opinion make his speech that much stronger add authority to his speech?. The words “greatest treasure” have connotations that regard to great things in life that are precious to lose as by saying “greatest” the audience think of grand positives. The use of “treasure” states that the gained benefits of biodiversity are precious and something that is priceless.
Biodiversity is the “greatest treasure we have” and this is the concerned emotion that Lee expresses in his speech with a means to review progress and form the building blocks for further improvements. By using rhetorical questions his audience which includes many professionals, they are made to think about the inaction regarding biodiversity. It allows Lee to form the basis for creating a sense of urgency regarding the matter. Together with the use of emotive language and inclusive terms, Lee is successfully able to persuade his intended audience of professionals in the field of science and Government to reduce biodiversity loss. The added use of images on his slides enhances the potential as it ensures visual learners are also persuaded to the full extent.

Thanks!

I regret to inform you that your language analysis is sadly in the wrong section. I would like to advise you that this is the English Language forum, in which our exam preparation is solely directed towards an exam in two weeks time.

Although going from what you've written, I wouldn't include "inclusive terms" as part of a rhetorical questions paragraph. The former constitutes lexis; the latter is syntax, or sentence structure, and your topic sentence doesn't seem to cover syntax.
Metalanguage would help at times.
Also, we don't actually have the text, so even if we were to try and help, it's quite difficult. All we can do is point out things you have rephrased better, as opposed to what else there is to say.

[Scooby]

Can someone have a look at this analytical commentary? It's Text 2 from the 2011 exam
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/englishlanguage/2011englang-cpr-w.pdf


The text is part of a commentary from 774 ABC Radio during the 2011 Australian Open. The commentary is of a tennis match between two women, the Italian Francesca Schiavone and the Danish Caroline Wozniacki. The function of the text is for the commentators to describe the events of the match to listeners of ABC radio, and also for L and D to build rapport using a variety of strategies. This spoken discourse is largely conversational and as a result of its spontaneity the register is highly informal. 

The lexical choices of Q in this conversation allow him to establish himself as an expert commentator. He uses a wide range of jargon, including the nouns “deuce” (54) and “half volley” (5), and the present tense verb “overhits” (53). In doing so, Q demonstrates to listeners of ABC radio that he is well-versed in tennis commentating and is therefore a reliable source of information. In addition to Q, L and D speak predominantly in the present tense, which is appropriate, given that they are describing to listeners an event which is happening right before them. The spontaneity and fast-paced nature of this spoken discourse is indicated in the use of many contracted lexemes, such as “it’s” (eg. 7 and , the third person pronoun “she’s” (eg. 45 and 47), and “isn’t” (eg. 83 and 85). The use of such contractions, in addition to a variety of abbreviations, contributes to the informal nature of the text.

The syntax of this commentary is largely non-standard, which contributes to its informality. The coordinating conjunctions “but” and “and” are used to begin a sentence by D on line 19 and Q on lines 57 and 72 respectively, which is a common feature of spontaneous spoken discourse. The dominant sentence type in the text is declarative, which allows the commentators, particularly Q, to convey information about the tennis match to listeners clearly and succinctly. “Here’s the first ball” (60) and “They love a fight” (37) are examples of the many declaratives that pervade the text. In addition, interrogatives are used occasionally, particularly by L and D, whose communication is mostly conversational, rather than descriptive. “Danni, did she do that on purpose?” (13) and “It’s so much, Danni, isn’t it?” (83) are used by L to invite D into the commentary. Q uses interrogatives for a different purpose. “Can she finish it?” (76) is used by Q to genuinely question whether Schiavone can finish off the point, and he follows it up on line 78 with “Yes, she can.” Interrogatives are used by Q to engage listeners rather than support other commentators in the discussion. The sentence structure is predominantly compound, with several independent clauses coordinated by commas, rather than the conjunction “and”, which is another non-standard feature of the text. “Schiavone pumps the forehand… It’s another winner from Francesca Schiavone” (3-8) is such an example of this non-standard sentence structure.

A variety of conversational strategies are used by the participants in this commentary. Communication between L and D is largely conversational. These two participants support each other conversationally using a number of back channeling signals, including “yeah” (eg. 22 and 86) by L. Lexical repetition is also evident in communication between the pair, such as that of the pronoun “they” by D on line 38 after it is used by L on line 37. This allows L to indicate to D that she is listening to her and vice versa, reducing social distance between the pair and allowing each to meet the positive face needs of the other. Q is the dominant speaker in this conversation, but his discussion is limited mainly to describing the events of the match; he converses little with the other interlocutors. Q maintains control of the floor when he has it by using a raised pitch on each of the final utterances from line 27 to line 31. D and L support Q at the beginning of this part of the commentary by using the minimal response “Wow” (9) and by laughing on lines 6 and 10, respectively. However, towards the end of the discourse, L and D respond scarcely to Q’s remarks.

[ECheong]

Hey, long time lurker here so take my feedback with a grain of salt but I'll do my best! (and try to follow in line with the formatting etiquette here haha)

Can someone have a look at this analytical commentary? It's Text 2 from the 2011 exam
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/englishlanguage/2011englang-cpr-w.pdf


The text is part of a commentary from 774 ABC Radio during the 2011 Australian Open. The commentary is of a tennis match between two women, the Italian Francesca Schiavone and the Danish Caroline Wozniacki. The function of the text is for the commentators to describe the events of the match to listeners of ABC radio, and also for L and D to build rapport using a variety of strategies. This spoken discourse is largely conversational and as a result of its spontaneity the register is highly informal. 

The lexical choices of Q in this conversation allow him to establish himself as an expert commentator. He uses a wide range of jargon, including the nouns “deuce” (54) and “half volley” (5), and the present tense verb “overhits” (53). In doing so, Q demonstrates to listeners of ABC radio that he is well-versed in tennis commentating and is therefore a reliable source of information. In addition potentially don't need this adverbial to Q, L and D speak predominantly in the present tense, which is appropriate, given that they are describing to listeners an event which is happening right before them. The spontaneity and fast-paced nature of this spoken discourse is indicated in the use of many contracted lexemes, such as “it’s” (eg. 7 and , the third person pronoun “she’s” (eg. 45 and 47), and “isn’t” (eg. 83 and 85). The use of such contractions, in addition to a variety of abbreviationsexamples?, contributes to the informal nature of the text. How?Efficiency in speech? relate this to the mode/context

The syntax of this commentary is largely non-standard, which contributes to its informality. The coordinating conjunctions “but” and “and” are used to begin a sentence by D on line 19 and Q on lines 57 and 72 respectively, which is a common feature of spontaneous spoken discourse. The dominant sentence type in the text is declarative, which allows the commentators, particularly Q, to convey information about the tennis match to listeners clearly and succinctly. “Here’s the first ball” (60) and “They love a fight” (37) are examples of the many declaratives that pervade the text. In addition, interrogatives are used occasionally, particularly by L and D, whose communication is mostly conversational, rather than descriptive. “Danni, did she do that on purpose?” (13) and “It’s so much, Danni, isn’t it?” (83) are used by L to invite D into the commentary Is this to keep the exchange entertaining? remember this is a radio broadcast. Q uses interrogatives for a different purpose. “Can she finish it?” (76) is used by Q to genuinely question whether Schiavone can finish off the point, and he follows it up on line 78 with “Yes, she can.” Interrogatives are used by Q to engage listeners rather than support other commentators in the discussion. The sentence structure is predominantly compound, with several independent clauses coordinated by commas, rather than the conjunction “and”, which is another non-standard feature of the text. “Schiavone pumps the forehand… It’s another winner from Francesca Schiavone” (3-8) is such an example of this non-standard sentence structure.This final example/point, relate to 'why'. Is it potentially because in the context they don't have time to be linking clauses together with adverbials, or could it be a technique to drum up tension?

A variety of conversational strategies are used by the participants in this commentary. Communication between L and D is largely conversational. These two participantsMight just be me, but the anaphoric reference with 'these' feels a bit clumsy here support each other conversationally using a number of back channeling signals, including “yeah” (eg. 22 and 86) by L. Lexical repetition is also evident in communication between the pair, such as that of the pronoun “they” by D on line 38 after it is used by L on line 37. This allows L to indicate to D that she is listening to her and vice versa, reducing social distance between the pair and allowing each to meet the positive face needs of the other. Q is the dominant speaker in this conversation, but his discussion is limited mainly to describing the events of the matchA very succinct reference back to your first paragraph points as to why might be nice here. (is Q here to be the expert? what is Q's role in conversation?) ; he converses little with the other interlocutors. Q maintains control of the floor when he has it by using a raised pitch on each of the final utterances from line 27 to line 31. D and L support Q at the beginning of this part of the commentary by using the minimal response “Wow” (9) and by laughing on lines 6 and 10, respectively. However, towards the end of the discourse, L and D respond scarcely to Q’s remarks.

Overall, a very clear and well written analysis. The analysis showed a good breadth of examples as well as depth of analysis. As you can probably tell, I really needed to nitpick to find things to feedback on! Very few momentary lapses in expression or examples and tbh they would've slipped by me if I hadn't expressly looked for them. In general, always think, 'why?'. With respect to this text, relate examples to the interplay between commentator roles (which I admit can be very difficult to infer) and the register (which you did). Lastly, you could also have related arguments and examples to the fact that the text is from a radio show, a speech-only medium. Discussion into lexical choice and its relationship to the need for the commentators to 'paint a word picture' would be interesting.

I hope that's somewhat helpful! If anyone else has anything to add though please by all means add.

Edit: expression and added point about radio broadcast that I just thought of

[teletubbies_95]

This is a commentary that I wrote in June this year ! Feel free to criticise. It doesn't have line numbers and when I was doing it , I had to put in line numbers myself.   Thank you!

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/paying-the-price-for-a-trip-to-the-cinema-20130530-2ne3d.html
"Paying a price for a trip to the cinema"


This text, “ Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” is from a newspaper, which has a function to express the writer’s feelings about her experience at the film, “Hangover Part III” in an entertaining manner. The register of text is relatively informal, as well as showing formal register features reflected by the linguistic features and is directed towards an adult audience who are knowledgeable about films. This text is highly planned and conforms to the features of both the spoken and written mode.

The lexical and morphological features support the function, spoken mode, informal yet formal register and the intended audience of the text. The use film related jargon such as “ comedy”(38) , “credits” (40) and “bonus scene” (42) demonstrate that the article is intended for readers who are knowledgeable about films. Personal pronouns, such as “you”(13,26) and “you’re”(32) is used to engage with the audience and personalizes the text, thus supporting the entertainment function. The author uses adjectives, such as “impeccable” (37) and “malevolent” (34) is used to describe her experience of the film and further contributes to the formal register. The use of superlative adjectives, such as “loudest, longest…” (21) emphasises the authors’ annoyance at the other people playing with food packaging in the cinema. It is further emphasised with the alliterated /l/ phoneme.  On the other hand, dysphemistic expletive “bloody” (28) is used to express the authors’ annoyance at the price of the movie ticket and further contributes to the informal register. Contractions, such as “ everyone’s “(33) and “I’d”(20”) , morphologically contributes to the informal register and the spoken mode. This provides a more casual and conversational tone, thus supporting the entertaining function . The use of shortening, such as “ads” (25) and blended “ seething”(23)  further contributes to the informal register . This feature aids the entertaining function through expressing the authors’ feelings of watching “The Hangover III”.

The syntactic and phonological features support the informal, yet formal register, as well the spoken mode features, consequently reflecting the function of the text. The use of sentence-initial conjunctions, such as “but”(37) and “then”(20) reflects the relatively informal register with the use of typical informal spoken features. The feature creates a casual and conversational tone, which aids to support the expressive function regarding to author’s feelings of the film. Declarative sentences such as “It was $19”(12) and “I was the last one out of the theatres, because I always read the credits” (40) are used to aid the function of the authors’ feelings about her movie experience. Phonological features of elision is present when the author elides /ən/ in “til” (42) , contributing to the informal register creating a conversational tone , thus enhancing the expressive function.

Cohesion and coherence are maintained throughout the text. This is shown through clear formatting through paragraphing to separate the authors’ ideas. This feature is used to so the reader can clearly understand what the author is trying to express and also conforms to the written mode. Furthermore, there is a large bolded heading for the title "  Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” , which signposts and engages the reader , as well as the date , " May 31 2013" and the authors' name " Cal Wilson" . These features which are typical of the conventions followed by newspapers, show where the text was found. The audience is, newspaper readers who are interested in films,  is reflected through the extensive reliance on implication. The reader has to infer what is the author is implying when the author refers to “Torana “ which is a type of vehicle and who” Peter Jackson” (an actor) is , to clearly understand what the author is attempting to express. Cohesion is maintained through anaphoric reference, shown through the use of “it” (11) to noun referent  “The Hangover Part III” . This provides links between the noun referent and reference and avoids repetition. This cohesive tie aids cohesion, as well as the expressive function. The use of hyponymy, with references to “animal” (17)  and co hyponyms “lions”(18) and “zebras”(17) , creates associations between animal and its type, to emphasis the behavior of people at the cinema . This feature provides humour, thus supporting the entertaining function.

Indeed through the use of lexical, phonological , syntactic and morphological features indicate the expressive , yet entertaining function of the text, as well as the informal register . The cohesive ties and coherence features further emphasises both the written and spoken modes and the intended audience as being the people who are knowledgeable about films.

^^ I haven't talked about info flow

[ECheong]

Hi, I'll have my best shot at it

This is a commentary that I wrote in June this year ! Feel free to criticise. It doesn't have line numbers and when I was doing it , I had to put in line numbers myself.   Thank you!

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/paying-the-price-for-a-trip-to-the-cinema-20130530-2ne3d.html
"Paying a price for a trip to the cinema"


This text, “ Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” is from a newspaper, which has a we want a definite article here 'the' function to express the writer’s feelings about her experience at the film, “Hangover Part III” in an entertaining manner Expression slightly awkward here. The 'from a newspaper' talks about medium whereas the rest of your sentence brings up function, if your intention with the 'a' indefinite article was to say that it had more than one function then further elaboration would've been needed. The register of text is relatively informal, as well as 'as well as' makes the reader think that the two concepts are equally prominent and are 'together', perhaps 'however' would be better here (more on this later) showing formal register features reflected by the linguistic features and is directed towards an adult audience who are knowledgeable about films. This text is highly planned and conforms to the features of both the spoken and written mode.

The lexical and morphological features support the function, spoken mode, informal yet formal register and the intended audience of the text.Heavy sentence The use [of?] film related jargon such as “ comedy”(38) , “credits” (40) and “bonus scene” (42) demonstrate that the article is intended for readers who are knowledgeable about films. Personal pronouns, such as “you”(13,26) and “you’re”(32) is verb agreement, 'are' used to engage with the audience and personalizes the text, thus supporting the entertainment function. The author uses adjectives, such as “impeccable” (37) and “malevolent” (34) is used to describe her experience of the film and further contributes to the formal register explore why? Are these adjectives special in any way?. The use of superlative adjectives, such as “loudest, longest…” (21) emphasises the authors’ annoyance at the other people playing with food packaging in the cinema. It is further emphasised with the alliterated /l/ phoneme.  On the other hand this adverbial phrase is typically used to contrast, perhaps something along the lines of 'In addition' instead ., dysphemistic expletive “bloody” (28) is used to express the authors’ annoyance at the price of the movie ticket and further contributes to the informal register. Contractions, such as “ everyone’s “(33) and “I’d”(20”) , morphologically contributes info flow here, it's the lexemes  that are contributing, rather than the morphology. Perhaps reorder. to the informal register and the spoken mode. This provides a more casual and conversational tone, thus supporting the entertaining function . The use of shortening, such as “ads” (25) and blended “ seething”(23)  further contributes to the informal register . This feature aids the entertaining function through expressing the authors’ feelings of watching “The Hangover III”. Does the informal register help the entertainment function?

The syntactic and phonological features support the informal, yet formal register, as well the spoken mode features, consequently reflecting the function of the text. The use of sentence-initial conjunctions, such as “but”(37) and “then”(20) reflects the relatively informal register with the use of typical informal spoken features. The feature creates a casual and conversational tone, which aids to support the expressive function regarding to author’s feelings of the film. Declarative sentences such as “It was $19”(12) and “I was the last one out of the theatres, because I always read the credits” (40) are used to aid the function of the authors’ feelings about her movie experience. Phonological features of elision is present when the author elides /ən/ in “til” (42) , contributing to the informal register creating a conversational tone , thus enhancing the expressive function. referencing back to the 'informal, yet formal' this paragraph presented a missed opportunity to examine why it was still formal (and evidence it). You discussed and supported why it was informal very well, but could possibly have discussed how the medium's demands meant that the author still needed to use formal features

Cohesion and coherence are maintained throughout the text. This is shown through clear formatting through paragraphing to separate the authors’ ideas. This feature is used to so the reader can clearly understand what the author is trying to express and also conforms to the written mode. Furthermore, we need a link here, your first sentence discusses coherence through distinct ideas whereas this, and the following sentence, discusses conforming to newspaper standards (with signposting added in) there is a large bolded heading for the title "  Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” , which signposts and engages the reader , as well as the date , " May 31 2013" and the authors' name " Cal Wilson" . These features which are typical of the conventions followed by newspapers, show where the text was found. The audience is, newspaper readers who are interested in films,  is reflected through the extensive reliance on implication. The reader has to infer what is the author is implying when the author refers to “Torana “ which is a type of vehicle and who” Peter Jackson” (an actor) is , to clearly understand what the author is attempting to express. Cohesion is maintained through anaphoric reference, shown through the use of “it” (11) to noun referent  “The Hangover Part III” . This provides links between the noun referent and reference and avoids repetition. This cohesive tie aids cohesion, as well as the expressive function. The use of hyponymy, with references to “animal” (17)  and co hyponyms “lions”(18) and “zebras”(17) , creates associations between animal and its type, to emphasis the behavior of people at the cinema . This feature provides humour, thus supporting the entertaining function. This paragraph is metalanguage impressive!

Indeed through the use of lexical, phonological , syntactic and morphological features indicate the expressive , yet entertaining function of the text, as well as the informal register . The cohesive ties and coherence features further emphasises both the written and spoken modes and the intended audience as being the people who are knowledgeable about films.

^^ I haven't talked about info flow

Overall, decent analysis. Displayed very good understanding and identification of features along with their associated metalanguage. Occasionally further elaboration needed in terms of 'why' the feature is present or what it reflects. Importantly, ideas need to be expressed in a clear and logical order. In some places the ideas seemed to meld together as noted in the last paragraph. Perhaps, (speaking from experience as I do this a lot!) as you're writing you think "omG That is such a good example/point! I'LL ADD IT IN," this tends to break up the coherence of a paragraph as a seemingly tangential idea can appear to be embedded in an already logical paragraph. Finally, some grammatical errors here and there in terms of definite/indefinite articles and verb plural agreements.

Hope that's helpful!

edit: grammar LOL

[Scooby]

The lexical and morphological features support the function, spoken mode, informal yet formal register and the intended audience of the text.

I probably wouldn't write that. You're contradicting yourself a bit

[emilyhobbes]

Hey hey, could anyone maybe check out this essay for me? Thank you! 

The question to ask is: Why not use Standard English all the time? Discuss

We, as a society, have attributed the Standard English variety with characteristics of “correctness, precision, purity [and] elegance” (Professor Kate Burridge), a measure of linguistic prestige which is idealised as the zenith of the English language. Yet despite this socially respected position, Standard English is prevalent in only some contexts rather than all, for whilst it does serve to promote socially distant but harmonious relationships, our social purposes are diverse and varied with non-standard language often better equipped to facilitate these. The overt prestige of the standard may not always be valued within a particular social group, in which case non-standard language can often be preferable in establishing and maintaining group identity, and similarly, social discord rather than social harmony may be the intended result of discourse in which case the “elegance” of the Standard is a hindrance rather than an assisting factor. Standard English has also lost some of its influence on those in the younger generations, as attitudes towards its use have relaxed in tandem with our transforming environment and social values.
Non-standard English can be pivotal in establishing an in-group identity, engendering a sense of solidarity within a particular social group. Standard English is the variety of English most widely understood across the globe, hence enabling it to be inclusive to all speakers and the language of diplomacy. This universal inclusivity, however, is redundant in creating linguistic distinctions between in-group and out-group members, and in this way, non-standard language is better able to promote a strong in-group identity and solidarity. As expressed by Sterling, “linguistic variation is a tool for us to construct ourselves as social beings”. The ability of the non-standard to distinguish between in-group and out-group members is amply demonstrated in the realms of gamertalk, in which slang, acronyms and gaming jargon alienates those outside the gaming group whilst strengthening the social bonds within it. Examples of this, within the Pokemon gaming community in particular, include slang and jargon such as “Ubers”, “sweepers”, “walls”, “legendaries” and “counters”, whilst acronyms and initialisms such as “IVs” (individual values), “EVs” (effort values), “OU” (overused) and “OHKO” (one hit knock out) abound. Accompanying this non-standard lexis is a covert prestige, which can be equally or even more powerful than the overt prestige of Standard English within the gaming context, its usage a demonstration of deep, exclusive contextual knowledge and belonging to the gaming group. This covert prestige exists only within the group, however, and therefore the usage of non-standard gaming language is appropriate and comprehendible in only gaming related contexts. In terms of audience, the use of non-standard English is capable of reaching a much more narrow scope than its standardised counterpart, but it is this exclusivity which lends it its power.
The versatility and more emotionally charged language available in the unbounded realm of non-standard language enables it to be a more effective linguistic medium with which to cause offence to others. Whilst Standard English is the language of diplomacy, political correctness and euphemism, integral in a functional society, these qualities also render it ineffective when our purpose is to actively cause offence, to rebel against the rules of politeness and impede upon the positive and negative face needs of others. Dysphemism, euphemism’s unruly younger sibling, is often exploited when linguistic abuse is necessary or desired, magnifying the emotionally associative power of the given sentiment. Rather than being merely inconsiderate, rude, disliked, arrogant or any of the plethora of flawed human characteristics, one is transformed into the dysphemistic and immeasurably more offensive and abusive “motherfucker”, “shithead” or the unequivocally irredeemable “cunt”. Being taboo and outside of what is considered ‘pure’ language, such lexis is attributed the factor of being shocking, a blatant affront to positive face needs, giving non-standard dysphemisms the power to offend in a way that the codified and prestigious Standard English struggles to. Furthermore, given the recent “expansion of moral concern” (Noam Chomsky) in politically correct language in Australian society, non-standard discriminatory language also has a more potent capacity to offend and insult. Indeed, discriminatory language which marginalises minority groups according to variables such as race, gender, age, religion and sexuality is one of the most powerful linguistic weapons we have today, capable of causing public outrage and insult, as demonstrated through the situation earlier this year, during which AFL player Adam Goodes was labelled as an “ape” by a young, female spectator, and “King Kong” merely days later by Eddie McGuire, President of the Collingwood Football Club. The series of social gaffes and racially discriminatory and “disgusting” comments were followed by public calls for Eddie McGuire’s resignation from his position, illustrating the offence which non-standard lexis and discriminatory language is capable of inflicting. Where Standard English mitigates and nullifies, the non-standard wounds and exacerbates. As such, the variety employed by a speaker is dependent on their social intention.
Compounding these propensities of non-Standard English is the phenomenon of Australian society drawing away from the strict and rigid prescriptivist views of language usage. In contrast to the era of our history in which elocution lessons and unyielding style guides were prevalent, deviations from Standard English are no longer the indicators of being ill-educated. They are instead representative of a freedom to investigate and test the boundaries of our language, with less focus being placed in the upholding of artificially inflicted grammatical and syntactical rules. Indeed, those still entrenched in the belief of Standard English’s inherent superiority and dictate its usage in all contexts are perceived by the majority as archaic, pretentious or supercilious. It is people such as Lynne Truss, author of style guide “Eats Shoots and Leaves”, who believes non-standard usage of apostrophes deserving of speakers being “hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave”, that are labelled the pejorative descriptor of “grammarnazi”. The intensely negative connotations of this reflect the burgeoning intolerance towards rigid prescriptivism and artificial restrictions of language use in modern Australian society. Instead, what seems to be arising is a more accepting, and positive descriptivist view of language change and non-standard usage of language, liberating modern language users from the restraints of the Standard. Without these standardised rules being collectively enforced, we are able to express the linguistic creativity and innovation which is so remarkable in the human condition, but this creativity is not entirely unchained, it is still subject to the propriety of contextual factors. So whilst non-Standard English is no longer so denigrated by the majority of modern Australians, the use of Standard English is still significant in its role of asserting a educated and prestigious identity.
Standard English and non-Standard English are both incredibly powerful, capable of achieving different social purposes at an optimal level. Standard English is a “benchmark of excellence” (Kate Burridge), a prestigious variety useful in binding together people from a diverse background, but non-Standard English is pivotal in achieving in-group solidarity and provoking social discord. As attitudes towards Standard English change, so too will the contexts in which non-Standard English is appropriate.

[eddybaha]

I think you have a strong grasp of this topic. I think your 1st and 3rd points are well structured and you provide good examples to back them up. But i do not quite understand your second point, your contention is that non standard varieties allow for use of dysphemism, coarse language and neglecting face needs but you haven't stated why this may be advantageous to the user or why it may be preferred over the standard. I'm not quite sure how the second paragraph relates to the topic, Maybe you should write that emotive langauge -using the examples you have given- is achieved through non standard varieties more effectively than standard English. Then give an example of which context this would be the case.
Overall, great essay, good use of metalanguage and suitable examples!

[teletubbies_95]

Thanks guys!
Okay! My teacher said we can say "informal features, with formal features as well" , which was true in some cases in the text . But now I understand , it's better not to use it Thank you!

Thanks ECheong ! Great feedback ! Thank you !

[ECheong]

Thanks guys!
Okay! My teacher said we can say "informal features, with formal features as well" , which was true in some cases in the text . But now I understand , it's better not to use it Thank you!

Thanks ECheong ! Great feedback ! Thank you !

I personally wouldn't say it's better not to use it if you're able to evidence both sides, contrast the two, and say why it's mainly informal with formal features thrown in. To make it clearer to understand, I would lean slightly to one side e.g. "it's mostly informal but a couple formal features seep in because...". It shows to the examiner depth of understanding. Of course, it all depends on the text, we could very well just get a crazily informal text in the exam in which case this won't apply.

[maturegambino]

Attached here is a section C practice essay where feedback would helpful! Always looking for second opinions
The topic is Standard English

[lzxnl]

I did this once...it was fun

Can someone have a look at this analytical commentary? It's Text 2 from the 2011 exam
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/englishlanguage/2011englang-cpr-w.pdf


The text is part of a commentary from 774 ABC Radio during the 2011 Australian Open. The commentary is of a tennis match between two women, the Italian Francesca Schiavone and the Danish Caroline Wozniacki. The function of the text is for the commentators to describe the events of the match to listeners of ABC radio, and also for L and D to build rapport using a variety of strategies is that REALLY a function of the text? That is probably a means to an end, but not the end. The commentary is for an audience. This spoken discourse is largely conversational and as a result of its spontaneity the register is highly informal.  the viewers can't see the tennis match; point this out. Extra detail is needed

The lexical choices of Q in this conversation allow him to establish himself as an expert commentator you've missed the point. He uses a wide range of jargon, including the nouns “deuce” (54) and “half volley” (5), and the present tense verb “overhits” (53). In doing so, Q demonstrates to listeners of ABC radio that he is well-versed in tennis commentating and is therefore a reliable source of information yes, but it also enables clearer communication of the tennis match. In addition to Q, L and D speak predominantly in the present tense, which is appropriate, given that they are describing to listeners an event which is happening right before them examiners like examples. The spontaneity and fast-paced nature of this spoken discourse is indicated in the use of many contracted lexemes, such as “it’s” (eg. 7 and , the third person pronoun “she’s” (eg. 45 and 47), and “isn’t” (eg. 83 and 85). The use of such contractions, in addition to a variety of abbreviations, contributes to the informal nature of the text.

The syntax of this commentary is largely non-standard, which contributes to its informality not the point. The coordinating conjunctions “but” and “and” are used to begin a sentence by D on line 19 and Q on lines 57 and 72 respectively, which is a common feature of spontaneous spoken discourse. The dominant sentence type in the text is declarative, which allows the commentators, particularly Q, to convey information about the tennis match to listeners clearly and succinctly. “Here’s the first ball” (60) and “They love a fight” (37) are examples of the many declaratives that pervade the text. In addition, interrogatives are used occasionally, particularly by L and D, whose communication is mostly conversational, rather than descriptive. “Danni, did she do that on purpose?” (13) and “It’s so much, Danni, isn’t it?” (83) are used by L to invite D into the commentary. Q uses interrogatives for a different purpose. “Can she finish it?” (76) is used by Q to genuinely question whether Schiavone can finish off the point, and he follows it up on line 78 with “Yes, she can.” Interrogatives are used by Q to engage listeners rather than support other commentators in the discussion. The sentence structure is predominantly compound, with several independent clauses coordinated by commas, rather than the conjunction “and”, which is another non-standard feature of the text. “Schiavone pumps the forehand… It’s another winner from Francesca Schiavone” (3-8) is such an example of this non-standard sentence structure. you've missed the largest syntactic feature of the discourse: lines 11, 4, 5 for instance all use ellipsis, and this is a feature of the ENTIRE commentary to demonstrate the spontaneity of the commentary and to relay information to the audience as quickly as possible

A variety of conversational strategies are used by the participants in this commentary. Communication between L and D is largely conversational. These two participants support each other conversationally using a number of back channeling signals, including “yeah” (eg. 22 and 86) by L. Lexical repetition is also evident in communication between the pair, such as that of the pronoun “they” by D on line 38 after it is used by L on line 37. This allows L to indicate to D that she is listening to her and vice versa, reducing social distance between the pair and allowing each to meet the positive face needs of the other. Q is the dominant speaker in this conversation, but his discussion is limited mainly to describing the events of the match; he converses little with the other interlocutors. Q maintains control of the floor when he has it by using a raised pitch on each of the final utterances from line 27 to line 31. D and L support Q at the beginning of this part of the commentary by using the minimal response “Wow” (9) and by laughing on lines 6 and 10, respectively. However, towards the end of the discourse, L and D respond scarcely to Q’s remarks. relevance? explain

Overall, I feel as if you've seriously misread the text. The text isn't just a casual conversation between L and D about the tennis match. Sure, it is informal, but there are two sides to this commentary. Explain WHY it is informal, what does it do? In this case, an informal conversation is more engaging for the audience to listen to. Also, explain the significance of the commentators' emotions and their opinions. THAT is one of the main purposes of the text.
You don't go into enough detail here about the commentary on the action of the tennis match.
Also, where are the prosodics? Those play such a key part in this commentary...



I've been a bit picky, but the points about missing the important bits of the conversation still stand.

This is a commentary that I wrote in June this year ! Feel free to criticise. It doesn't have line numbers and when I was doing it , I had to put in line numbers myself.   Thank you!

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/paying-the-price-for-a-trip-to-the-cinema-20130530-2ne3d.html
"Paying a price for a trip to the cinema"


This text, “ Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” is from a newspaper, which has a function to express the writer’s feelings about her experience at the film, “Hangover Part III” in an entertaining manner. The register of text is relatively informal, as well as showing formal register features reflected by the linguistic features and is directed towards an adult audience who are knowledgeable about films. This text is highly planned and conforms to the features of both the spoken and written mode.

The lexical and morphological features support the function, spoken mode, informal yet formal register it's not formal; just because it's written doesn't make it formal and the intended audience of the text. The use film related jargon such as “ comedy”(38) , “credits” (40) and “bonus scene” (42) demonstrate that the article is intended for readers who are knowledgeable about films and for speed of communication. Personal pronouns, such as “you”(13,26) and “you’re”(32) is used to engage with the audience and personalizes the text, thus supporting the entertainment function. The author uses adjectives, such as “impeccable” (37) and “malevolent” (34) is used to describe her experience of the film and further contributes to the formal register I think it's just for further elaboration; not sure if it does make it more formal. The use of superlative adjectives, such as “loudest, longest…” (21) emphasises the authors’ annoyance at the other people playing with food packaging in the cinema good point. It is further emphasised with the alliterated /l/ phoneme.  On the other hand, dysphemistic expletive “bloody” (28) is used to express the authors’ annoyance at the price of the movie ticket and further contributes to the informal register Great Australian adjective? Create rapport with Australian audience?. Contractions, such as “ everyone’s “(33) and “I’d”(20”) , morphologically contributes to the informal register and the spoken mode rephrase; is reminiscent of spoken language. Linguistic features can't contribute to an opposite mode. This provides a more casual and conversational tone, thus supporting the entertaining function . The use of shortening, such as “ads” (25) and blended “ seething”(23)  further contributes to the informal register . This feature aids the entertaining function through expressing the authors’ feelings of watching “The Hangover III”. FIRST PERSON PRONOUNS!!! What about the capitals?

The syntactic and phonological features text doesn't have phonological features as such; they're morphological support the informal, yet formal register, as well the spoken mode features, consequently reflecting the function of the text. The use of sentence-initial conjunctions, such as “but”(37) and “then”(20) reflects the relatively informal register with the use of typical informal spoken features. The feature creates a casual and conversational tone, which aids to support the expressive function regarding to author’s feelings of the film. Declarative sentences such as “It was $19”(12) and “I was the last one out of the theatres, because I always read the credits” (40) are used to aid the function of the authors’ feelings about her movie experience. Phonological features of elision is present when the author elides /ən/ in “til” (42) , contributing to the informal register creating a conversational tone , thus enhancing the expressive function.

Cohesion and coherence are maintained throughout the text. This is shown through clear formatting through paragraphing to separate the authors’ ideas. This feature is used to so the reader can clearly understand what the author is trying to express and also conforms to the written mode. Furthermore, there is a large bolded heading for the title "  Paying the price for a trip to the cinema” , which signposts and engages the reader , as well as the date , " May 31 2013" and the authors' name " Cal Wilson" . These features which are typical of the conventions followed by newspapers, show where the text was found. The audience is, newspaper readers who are interested in films,  is reflected through the extensive reliance on implication. The reader has to infer what is the author is implying when the author refers to “Torana “ which is a type of vehicle and who” Peter Jackson” (an actor) is , to clearly understand what the author is attempting to express. Cohesion is maintained through anaphoric reference, shown through the use of “it” (11) to noun referent  “The Hangover Part III” . This provides links between the noun referent and reference and avoids repetition. This cohesive tie aids cohesion, as well as the expressive function. The use of hyponymy, with references to “animal” (17)  and co hyponyms “lions”(18) and “zebras”(17) , creates associations between animal and its type, to emphasis the behavior of people at the cinema . This feature provides humour, thus supporting the entertaining function. You've missed the chronological ordering of the entire text, which is essential because the text is written that way, from the tickets to the film. Also, cohesion is maintained through reference to previous topics, like "The Hangover III is one of those movies where you have to suspend your disbelief, which was fine by me, because I'd used all mine up over the ticket price"; refers back to the initial mentioning of the ticket price

Indeed through the use of lexical, phonological , syntactic and morphological features indicate the expressive , yet entertaining function of the text, as well as the informal register . The cohesive ties and coherence features further emphasises both the written and spoken modes and the intended audience as being the people who are knowledgeable about films.

^^ I haven't talked about info flow

You've also missed semantic patterning like the metaphors in "Zebras huddle together, because from a distance their markings make them look like one giant animal to a predator. As far as I could see, the cinema was completely devoid of lions. But apparently, the other viewers needed the security of sitting as close to me as if we shared our major internal organs."

It's a pity; most of your analysis itself is quite sound, but there were other points to focus on that I feel were a bit more important. I would be wary of discussing the spoken mode itself; I would refer to it as 'reminiscent of the spoken mode'.

Also, your paragraph splitting, to me, seems a bit off. The way you've structured it, it's really hard to identify all of the important features in your paragraphs because unfortunately, the text doesn't just have lexical, morphological, syntactic features, cohesion and coherence. It has, as you've mentioned, information flow techniques, which here are more important to discuss than syntax. Your syntax paragraph, arguably, wasn't very informative.
You don't want to just list features; you need to find the most important features and analyse those in depth

Just a few of my suggestions; you can shoot me after you've read this ^_^

Hey hey, could anyone maybe check out this essay for me? Thank you! 

The question to ask is: Why not use Standard English all the time? Discuss

We I don't know if examiners like first person pronouns if they can be avoided, as a society, have attributed the Standard English variety with characteristics of “correctness, precision, purity [and] elegance” (Professor Kate Burridge), a measure of linguistic prestige which is idealised as the zenith of the English language. Yet despite this socially respected position, Standard English is prevalent in only some contexts rather than all, for whilst it does serve to promote socially distant but harmonious relationships, our social purposes are diverse and varied with non-standard language often better equipped to facilitate these. The overt prestige of the standard may not always be valued within a particular social group, in which case non-standard language can often be preferable in establishing and maintaining group identity, and similarly, social discord rather than social harmony may be the intended result intended result? of discourse in which case the “elegance” of the Standard is a hindrance rather than an assisting factor. Standard English has also lost some of its influence on those in the younger generations, as attitudes towards its use have relaxed in tandem with our transforming environment and social values. I like your introduction, but in the exam it'll be a bit long. You only have 45 minutes or so for the essay and this intro will take a sizeable chunk of that away
Non-standard English can be pivotal in establishing an in-group identity, engendering a sense of solidarity within a particular social group. Standard English is the variety of English most widely understood across the globe, hence enabling it to be inclusive to all speakers and the language of diplomacy. This universal inclusivity, however, is redundant in creating linguistic distinctions between in-group and out-group members, and in this way, non-standard language is better able to promote a strong in-group identity and solidarity. As expressed by Sterling, “linguistic variation is a tool for us to construct ourselves as social beings”. again, in the exam you won't have time to write all of this, which is good but your space is limited The ability of the non-standard to distinguish between in-group and out-group members is amply demonstrated in the realms of gamertalk, in which slang, acronyms and gaming jargon alienates those outside the gaming group whilst strengthening the social bonds within it just a matter of personal preference perhaps, but I would put the effects after your examples so that it is clearer . Examples of this, within the Pokemon gaming community in particular, include slang and jargon such as “Ubers”, “sweepers”, “walls”, “legendaries” and “counters”, whilst acronyms and initialisms such as “IVs” (individual values), “EVs” (effort values), “OU” (overused) and “OHKO” (one hit knock out) abound. I think it would be better if you separated the initialisms and the acronyms so that the examiners knew that you know the distinction between them. Accompanying this non-standard lexis is a covert prestige, which can be equally or even more powerful than the overt prestige of Standard English within the gaming context, its usage a demonstration of deep, exclusive contextual knowledge and belonging to the gaming group. This covert prestige exists only within the group, however, and therefore the usage of non-standard gaming language is appropriate and comprehendible in only gaming related contexts. In terms of audience, the use of non-standard English is capable of reaching a much more narrow scope than its standardised counterpart, but it is this exclusivity which lends it its power. I like your commentary, but examiners want more than one set of examples from one group. Try a second group as well?
The versatility and more emotionally charged language available in the unbounded realm of non-standard language enables it to be a more effective linguistic medium with which to cause offence to others LOL certainly a unique topic sentence and focus xD. Whilst Standard English is the language of diplomacy, political correctness and euphemism, integral in a functional society, these qualities also render it ineffective when our purpose is to actively cause offence, to rebel against the rules of politeness and impede upon the positive and negative face needs of others. Dysphemism, euphemism’s unruly younger sibling, is often exploited when linguistic abuse is necessary or desired, magnifying the emotionally associative power of the given sentiment. Rather than being merely inconsiderate, rude, disliked, arrogant or any of the plethora of flawed human characteristics, one is transformed into the dysphemistic and immeasurably more offensive and abusive “motherfucker”, “shithead” or the unequivocally irredeemable “cunt” be careful here; these terms can also be used to reduce social distance in a group as well. Being taboo and outside of what is considered ‘pure’ language, such lexis is attributed the factor of being shocking, a blatant affront to positive face needs, giving non-standard dysphemisms the power to offend in a way that the codified and prestigious Standard English struggles to although I must say, a well-crafted and expressive torrent of abuse constructed in Standard English would also be quite powerful; Julia Gillard's misogyny speech? I found that stronger than any combination of "cunt" or "shithead" which, after a while, seems hollow and devoid of substance. Furthermore, given the recent “expansion of moral concern” (Noam Chomsky) in politically correct language in Australian society, non-standard discriminatory language discriminatory doesn't JUST have to be non-standard also has a more potent capacity to offend and insult. Indeed, discriminatory language which marginalises minority groups according to variables such as race, gender, age, religion and sexuality is one of the most powerful linguistic weapons we have today, capable of causing public outrage and insult, as demonstrated through the situation earlier this year, during which AFL player Adam Goodes was labelled as an “ape” by a young, female spectator, and “King Kong” merely days later by Eddie McGuire, President of the Collingwood Football Club. The series of social gaffes and racially discriminatory and “disgusting” comments were followed by public calls for Eddie McGuire’s resignation from his position, illustrating the offence which non-standard lexis and discriminatory language is capable of inflicting. Where Standard English mitigates and nullifies, the non-standard wounds and exacerbates. As such, the variety employed by a speaker is dependent on their social intention. strong end to paragraph, but your paragraph is quite long; I generally find that more than 300 words per paragraph, and I'm running into trouble
Compounding these propensities of non-Standard English is the phenomenon of Australian society drawing away from the strict and rigid prescriptivist views of language usage. In contrast to the era of our history in which elocution lessons and unyielding style guides were prevalent, deviations from Standard English are no longer the indicators of being ill-educated. They are instead representative of a freedom to investigate and test the boundaries of our language, with less focus being placed in the upholding of artificially inflicted grammatical and syntactical rules. Indeed, those still entrenched in the belief of Standard English’s inherent superiority and dictate its usage in all contexts are perceived by the majority as archaic, pretentious or supercilious. It is people such as Lynne Truss, author of style guide “Eats Shoots and Leaves”, who believes non-standard usage of apostrophes deserving of speakers being “hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave”, that are labelled the pejorative descriptor of “grammarnazi” perhaps another example of being so uptight on grammar? One example, I feel, doesn't make the point clearly; do you label people pejoratively as grammar nazis just because they point out non-standard apostrophe usage?. The intensely negative connotations of this reflect the burgeoning intolerance towards rigid prescriptivism and artificial restrictions of language use in modern Australian society. Instead, what seems to be arising is a more accepting, and positive descriptivist view of language change and non-standard usage of language, liberating modern language users from the restraints of the Standard. Without these standardised rules being collectively enforced, we are able to express the linguistic creativity and innovation which is so remarkable in the human condition, but this creativity is not entirely unchained, internal grammar nazi says semicolon here, not comma xP it is still subject to the propriety of contextual factors. So whilst non-Standard English is no longer so denigrated by the majority of modern Australians, the use of Standard English is still significant in its role of asserting a educated and prestigious identity.
Standard English and non-Standard English are both incredibly powerful, capable of achieving different social purposes at an optimal level. Standard English is a “benchmark of excellence” (Kate Burridge), a prestigious variety useful in binding together people from a diverse background, but non-Standard English is pivotal in achieving in-group solidarity and provoking social discord. As attitudes towards Standard English change, so too will the contexts in which non-Standard English is appropriate.

Overall, your essay is quite strong and your commentary goes into lots of detail, which is good.
However, I feel you need more examples at times; one example for a grammar nazi, or one example for slang doesn't, I feel, prove your point clearly enough. Remember, this is an English Language essay and linguistic examples are the only basis for all of your arguments. It doesn't matter if I come up with a brilliant theory of how the language works; if people don't speak or use language that way, the theory is flawed.
Also, be wary of your word count. In the exam, you may not have the time to write 1000 words in an essay, and this essay borders on 1200. Your intro, while effective, is a bit long, and so is some of your pre-example discussion.
Final point: I think the topic does ask for at least a paragraph on Standard English somewhere. You sometimes mention that Standard English has its uses, but you haven't shown us that, and that is, I think, the largest issue in an otherwise well-constructed essay. As eddybaha said below, dysphemism, while interesting to discuss, is a bit of a grey area, as it depends on the context too; in certain contexts, a Standard English insult would also be very strong. I think a paragraph on Standard English would certainly help this essay in an exam.

But overall, good job! I don't normally say this to people on this thread sorry guys

[lzxnl]

Section C Essay: Question 2. 30 marks.
Why is Standard English perceived as intrinsically superior to other varieties? Discuss the contexts in which non-standard varieties are more appropriate than Standard English.
“When communicating with friends and family, online or in other informal situations, “vernacular” or “colloquial” language is more appropriate… Not everyone will attain the vocabulary of Sir Humphrey Appleby or the linguistic style of Wordsworth, and while the use of highly vernacular language by others may be frustrating or grating, attempts to force people to speak or write in certain ways are usually met with resistance or resentment.” – Brendan Black, National Times, December 2 2010
“At least 3 major aeroplane crashes have been blamed on poor communication and misunderstanding… Speaking some English is not enough. It has to be the right kind of English, one agreed on by all flying nations.” – Philip Gooden, the Story of English: How the English Language Conquered the World
“All varieties have the same potential for complexity and richness of expression and there are no linguistic grounds for saying one is better than another. A non-standard dialect is as valid a communication system as the Standard. All dialects have rules; they just do things differently. Sentences like ‘I done all the cookin’ meself’ or ‘I don’t want nothin’ to eat’ are not errors of English, but errors of Standard English and labels like ‘sloppy’ and ‘bad’ are not only offensive but scientifically wrong-headed” – Kate Burridge, Proper English: Rhetoric or Reality?, 2003

The Standard English can be perceived, exclusively to prescriptivists, as intrinsically superior to other varieties due to the fact that it serves a vital purpose in many aspects of life; a standard language can be utilized as a vehicle of information delivery or as a common means of education, to name a few instances. While prescriptivists have good reason to place a high value of Standard English, there are also applicable circumstances wherein non-Standard varieties are far more appropriate to use as opposed to Standard English. Particularly in such a multi-cultural and diverse society in Australia, “when communicating with… family, ‘vernacular’ language is more appropriate” (Brendon Black, National Times). Similarly, the disregarded social dialect of Teenspeak is another form of colloquial, non-standard English that is far better suited for those that fit in with this age group. Solid intro, but is SE only valued by prescriptivists?
The Standard English, equipped with grammatically correct rules and usage, is undoubtedly seen as a superior variety. Philip Gooden in ‘the Story of English: How the English Language conquered the World’, attributes the necessity of properly and correctly speaking ‘the right kind of English’ as it could have prevented miscommunication and its subsequent major aeroplane crashes. Through this anecdote, Gooden makes clear the necessity for a uniform language with an established set of rules, ‘one agreed on by all flying nations’. Not only does the Standard English prove itself to be valuable in this sense, but the SE goes on to be incredibly essential in other instances too that justifies its perception as a ‘superior’ language. A standard language is not only ‘superior’ by its very nature, but can effectively elevate the social status of the speech community who utilizes it how?. This is particularly relevant for politicians who constantly speak the Standard Language on a daily basis as the language they use is closely linked to their public personas and is an essential element of their careers. Political speeches, much like the public apology former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered in 2008, are one of the most clear-cut situations wherein the Standard English was not only superior to the other colloquial or foreign varieties he could have used, but also essential for his reputation and to uphold the sense of respect he held for the Indigenous audience he targeted. Give an example? More often than not, any instances where a politician is involved in the public eye are the very same contexts in which non-standard varieties are far from being appropriate be slightly mindful of Kevin Rudd's propensity to use non-Standard English; he called the Chinese people ratfuckers once. Ultimately, the purpose of a standard language serves within society, even one ravaged by colloquialisms and ethnolects, is what makes it to be perceived as intrinsically superior to others. no need to mention colloquialisms or ethnolects
Journalist Brendan Black brings attention to instances wherein people communicate “with friends… online or in other informal situations…” to be the most appropriate circumstances to speak in a non-standard variety. Teenspeak, for one, is perhaps the most viral dialect widely used in both verbal and online mediums among those in the ages of 13 to early 20s. Particularly in an online environment, more often than not where Teenspeak originates from these past two years, the presence of formalized English wouldn’t be welcome if the purpose of online communication was to socialize, chat and interact. In fact, standard or ‘correct’ language would be regarded as somewhat ‘pompous’, ‘snobby’ or ‘pretentious’ in online forums. This attitude is reflected in many popular YouTube channels such as ‘BrockBaker’ and ‘Jacksfilms’ as they regularly mock YouTube comments and when confronted with long-winded, correctly punctuated and elevated language, they address these comments as if they are not completely in touch with the online community and even adopt an exaggerated cultivated accent to emphasize the snobby nature of the comment.  examples? Too theoretical; you need concrete examples here. Also don't use contractions if you can help it. Link paragraphs; "however"?
Instead, the online community is laidback with its language, free to communicate in abbreviations and acronyms without having to capitalize letters and adopt various phrases and words that require a certain level of pop culture references to understand the semantics behind it examples of these abbreviations and acronyms?. All the while, despite abandoning a large majority of Standard English grammatical rules, the online speech community can be guaranteed that their audience will know that ‘Insta’ is short for ‘Instagram’, the popular photo-sharing social networking app and that viral phenomenon such as the dances ‘Harlem Shake’ and ‘Gangnam Style’ originated from online YouTube music videos. I'm not sure about the strength of these last examples; they don't prove much of a point to me
It is within the online community where the speech community witnesses a relaxation of the rules of the English language and adopts its own rules, all the while rejecting the formality of a Standard. only the online community?
In intimate social gatherings, perhaps with family members, with whom one shares the same ethnic background, it seems logical and almost necessary to adopt an ethnolect when speaking. That is, a second language that is highly influenced by their first. this sentence not needed An individual’s ethnolect is a reflection of a person’s value of their background and culture. While they have adopted a second language to speak, English in most cases, the influence of their first language illustrates a lingering connection that is closely tied with how a person perceives their own identity; a member of their cultural group. To share this language with others who feel the same way can go towards strengthening a relationship maybe less commentary? You have limited space in the exam. In the Filipino community within the Western Suburbs of Melbourne, many teenagers of second generation Filipinos often bond over their mutual heritage and nationality. Common topics of conversation among Australian-Filipinos include favourite places to visit within Philippines, referring them by their ‘correct’ Filipino pronunciation- Boracay, a hot spot for tourists, is pronounced in Tagalog as ‘boh-rah-ky’ as compared to the usual mispronunciation, ‘boh-rah-kay’ IPA would be great here if possible.  In addition to this, favourite foods are typically discussed, referring to them by their Tagalog names- ‘Adobo’ is one of the iconic Filipino savoury dishes which is Tagalog for soy chicken stew with vegetables.  explain the significance of this!
Ethnolects aid in developing bonds and is particularly exclusive to specific cultural groups. This non-standard dialect is a reflection of an individual’s background and identity. If replaced with a Standard English, then any trace of that person’s vulture everyone, awaken your internal vulture! would be removed from the way in which they speak and they would be out of place in an ethnic group who proudly uses this ethnolect on a daily basis. is an extra paragraph needed for  this? Also not sure how useful this commentary is
A Standard English proves itself to be valuable and even essential to many aspects of society revolving around international communication and political affairs. Hence, this may lead prescriptivists to perceive the Standard as a superior variety. However Kate Burridge in ‘Proper English: Rhetoric or Reality?’ acknowledges that this attitude is “offensive [and] scientifically wrong-headed”. She also alludes to the fact that a number of varieties, albeit non-standard, “is as valid a communication as the standard.” Teenspeak, online colloquialism and ethnolects have proved to be essential and far more appropriate in phatic communication than a standard ever will be. Their value as a dialect proves itself to be noteworthy and should, by no means, be considered as ‘inferior’.



Yay lots of quotes (:
Sometimes I feel you don't explain your examples, or you don't give enough examples. Your commentary is fine though
One thing to bear in mind; this essay is about 10% too long for the exam. Don't plan on writing 1000 word essays in 45 minutes, as there just isn't enough time. Which is something I'm still working on ):
But overall, good job (:



On the topic of Standard English, could someone look at mine? I've done lots of criticising; now it's your turn to return the favour
Yes, it's a bit too long. I'm still working on that bit. And yes I'm aware that I could have put in ethnolects, but I decided not to for this essay, otherwise it would have become even longer

[maturegambino]

thanks for the feedback! i'll definitely work on the examples (and the typos)