So we have a SAC for language analysis soon and I was wondering if anyone could have a look at my piece and give me some feedback. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Google Docs link :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FoEQSL3vuDt1iuATQGEOn8dzsiIukrOtTWSl53HUNyI/editParents need to butt out of children’s lunchboxes: Language Analysis
The opinion piece “Parents need to butt out of children’s lunchboxes,” was written by Susie O’Brien for The Herald Sun. O’Brien contends that school lunches have become “a measure of of a parent’s commitment, adoration and creativity” and that the aim of getting kids to eat healthier food has been taken too far, to the point where “it’s no longer just about feeding kids, it’s more about feeding the ego of the parents.” O’Brien utilises a tone that ranges from humorous and sarcastic to stern and self-satisfied, and writes for an audience of other parents. This is maintained through the piece by the alternation between her humorous depiction of other parents and the lunches they make, critically mocking the lunch suggestions of the government and stern iterations of her own opinion.
O’Brien’s amusing portrayal of other parents is best illustrated in the semi rhetorical question and answer; “Vegemite sandwiches on day-old bread rather than sweet potato and squash tortilla? The 2XU mums at the school gate won’t be impressed.” This statement communicates to the audience her impression of other parents as well as what she believes constitutes is a normal lunch compared to what the “2XU mums” believe is a normal lunch. This also creates an appeal to conformity in the audience; they either fall into the category of a “2XU mum” or a normal parent like O’Brien.
The sarcastic tone of this statement is best exemplified in the use of 2XU as an adjective to describe mums. 2XU is a fitness clothing brand that is notable for its compression workout range. However the use of this as an adjective implies that these parents are pretentious and self-obsessed; more interested in appearing to be health conscious than in practicality and pragmatism. The association of sweet potato and squash tortilla with such parents extends these implications to the dish itself (undeservedly so) and paints the vegemite sandwich on day-old bread to be a more realistic alternative. This compels the audience to feel that the vegemite sandwich is better without an actual comparison between the two lunch alternatives.
O’Brien criticises the government’s lunch suggestions in a similar fashion, however she is more condescending and caustic. She states ‘Suggestions included fresh fruit washed and cut up, raw vegetables, dairy foods, meat or “meat alternatives” such as chicken strips, boiled egg and hummus dip… Really? Do the people writing these things actually have kids?’ O’Brien sees these ideas as ridiculous and idealistic and questions the awareness of those making such suggestions. This serves as an example of how out of touch the government are when it comes to school lunches and suggests that O’Brien - an experienced mother, is more of an expert in this topic.
The critique and judgement of the government’s lunch suggestions as well as of those that share similar views is an attempt by O’Brien to downplay their opinions while portraying O’Brien as a straightforward, practical individual who actually cares about her children, rather than about feeding her ego. In isolation, her stern assertions of opinion seem unnecessarily strong and severe, however in the context of this piece these are pragmatic pieces of advice from an expert in the field. For example, O’Brien contends “My kids will never have food with faces drawn on them. They will not have food cut into funny shapes or made into mini nature scenes. There will be no themes, no excitement, no creativity. Their lunch boxes will continue to contain good, plain food they are expected to eat, or they can go hungry.” The sentiment of good, plain food is what O’Brien hopes is the government’s message to parents, rather than the ridiculous and idealistic suggestions that are currently being made.
The emphasis on “plain” in the phrase “good, plain food” conveys the literal meaning of straightforward especially in contrast with the fancy and “lovingly crafted” food that other parents are giving their kids. However the connotations of the word, especially in this text, stretch far further to stress O’Brien’s contention. In this article, “plain” implies normal, unadulterated and uncomplicated; that the food O’Brien gives to her kids is simply food. This aims to further differentiate O’Brien from the idealistic and fanciful government and the pretentious parents that share similar ideas, while portraying herself as practical individual who actually cares for her children.
The result of these variations in tone and careful selection of language is an article that criticizes parent’s and the government’s attempts to ensure that kids are eating healthily, while portraying O’Brien as a normal parent. This provides a contrast and causes the issue to be seen simplistically as normal parents vs “2XU mums” and the government that encourages them. The contrast is emphasised by O’Brien’s sarcastic criticism and comical representations of some parents thus serving to place the audience on her side; the side that is normal, pragmatic and practical.
Home
Help
Search
Login
