HSC Stuff > Marking Thread Archives
English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only)
bahiahalwani:
I have an essay that needs editing. I didn't get the best of marks and I don't know how to better the essay in order to improve my future mark.
Can you please help me with what needs fixing and how to fix it. Thank you in advance.
Module B: Critical Study of Texts
Speeches, Advanced English.
The enduring power of speeches rest in their ability to transcend contextual boundaries, which can be attributed to their extraordinary appeal to a universal audience through effective rhetoric and perennial values. Anwar Sadat’s ‘Speech to the Israeli Knesset’ and Noel Pearson’s ‘An Australian History for us all’ explores underlying concepts of the human experience enduring its integrity across different contexts. The perennial value of the speeches are attributed to the underlying momentous theme and value of peace, unity and justice that will continue to resonate with audience of any context. The paradigms and spirit in these texts transcend time and retain value to contemporary audiences.
Noel Pearson’s speech ‘An Australian history for us all’ explores the underlying atrocities of Australia’s past and critiques those who discredit the injustices towards Indigenous Australians. Pearson’s success and timeless nature stems from the textual integrity and effective manipulation of rhetoric to integrate purpose and value appropriate to the responder. Noel adopts a formal and analytical tone as he exemplifies the notion of guilt from historical injustices that transcend contextual boundaries. Noel’s deliberate use of inclusive lexicon “we, us, all, Australians” encourages an open, harmonious and hopeful vision of collective reconciliation which transcends time and is culturally appropriate for all contexts. The composers personal jargon “I, my, myself” engages the audience and captures the passion and importance of reconciliation between Aborigines and Australians.
Pearson argues for appreciation of the complexities of the past and an acknowledgement rather than appealing to a feeling of guilt, thus his purpose resides. Academic evidence from contemporary, respected figures including politicians, professors and historians are employed to support Pearson’s arguments and convey its importance behind his personal and calm tone. Pearson appeals to the responder’s pathos through the use of rhetorical question, “has the so called black armband view of history been about apportioning guilt?” The colloquial term “black armband view of history” allows Pearson to connect with his audiences.
Noel further emphasises the significance of an injustice to discredit and neglect responsibility for historical atrocities as he argues through emotive language that Australians should collectively take responsibility for the “present, future and past”. He also discusses how “guilt is not a useful emotion” and thus highlights the need for humanity to take responsibility for their actions rather than embodying guilt by appealing to our pathos. The anaphora of “our nation” further underlines the responsibility for all Australians collectively to accept the past and accept responsibility; thus appealing to responders on a humanitarian level. Through effective rhetoric, Pearson’s significance stems in the noticeable specified goals of peace, unity and justice. Pearon’s decorum is very much sarcastic as he allows for colloquialism when he explicitly mentions the controversial topic of the past injustices “Australia’s colonial history is a what the Americans would call a hot button issue.” The extended metaphor “hot button” has been used to highlight his ironic tone as he invites audiences to sympathise with him against their critic. While Pearson’s speech offers textual integrity, its purpose becomes universal as audiences of any context resonate with the rhetoric and perennial values.
Like Pearson, Sadat’s ‘Speech to the Israeli Knesset’ is an excerpt that exemplifies the values of peace, unity and justice after inevitable conflict in the human condition. These principles are stemmed from the Arab-Israeli conflict, however, Sadat strategically draws on the wider international appeal to retain universal value and transcend contextual boundaries. The composer controversially contends for “the establishment of peace” and reconciliation during tense times in an apprehensive macrocosm as he insists for social and political change. The exordium of Sadat’s speech produces a peaceful and devout tone as the composer alludes and worships god in the reference “In the name of God, the Gracious and Merciful.” The allusion to Abrahamic religions continues throughout the speech as Sadat unites devout audiences through the inclusive language “We all, Muslims, Christians, Jews…” compounded by the religious reassurance “God willing” highlighting that religion is a relative factor to universal audiences that endures value and transcends time. Sadat’s purpose is made clear when he explicitly addresses the “impetus to all international efforts exerted for peace” which presents him as a world leader aspiring to establish reconciliation and unity through collective justice. The further use of anaphora through the repetition of “peace” emphasises the importance of its nature and value to Sadat.
This speech appeals to common values of peace, unity and justice utilised in a sequence of adjectival clauses in order to build a climax; which is perceived in the principle phrase “let us be frank.” It is through Sadat’s first person narration that we are able to connect and allude to his purpose and language. Sadat combines inclusive pronouns “us all” to emphasise the importance of peace through unity. Throughout the kairos of his speech he uses the cliché phrase “ladies and gentlemen” to impose that he is a dignified diplomat. As the speech concludes, Sadat illustrates images through the accumulation of vivid inclusive pronouns that have cruel connotations to condemn the atrocities of injustices of the past including “bloodshed, death, wailing of victims.” Like Noel, Sadat encourages social and political change through his rhetorical questioning “why don’t we stand together?” persuading audiences to challenge against oppression for peace and unity. The rhetoric question leaves a lasting impression on the responder and thus creates a consensus where “the bells of peace ring.” Thus, Sadat exemplifies the enduring values of peace, unity and justice that is relevant to universal audiences and the human experience.
Through critical analysis of Anwar Sadat’s “Speech to the Israeli Knesset” and Noel Pearson’s “An Australian History for Us All” we are able to explore the value of rhetoric in articulating paradigms. Their focus on human aspirations of reconciliation and peace continue to resonate in modern audiences, with their underlying compassion contributing to a universal understanding for human bonding. Despite different interpretations of the text influenced by contextual circumstances, these humanistic beliefs continue to transcend contextual boundaries.
heids:
Bahiahalwani, what's the topic? I'll give you feedback if you give me the topic :D because remember that the most important thing with an essay is its relevance and how it addresses the topic!
heids:
Hi there! Welcome and hope you get lots out of this site :)
Someone else might, but I'm not giving feedback on a generic topic-less essay, sorry.
Think about it this way. Examiners want to give you marks based on the skills you show that you have, right? But if you churn out a beautiful but not relevant piece that you memorised, maybe you’ve just paid a tutor to write that for you. They have no proof that you have any writing skills at all, maybe just that you’re rich!
So. My very firm opinion: examiners will give you better marks for a mediocre writing piece that’s relevant and really addresses the topic, than a brilliantly written piece of irrelevant twaddle. The topic is the be-all and end-all. And you can’t trick ‘em, their x-ray glasses see immediately when you try to cram in irrelevant stuff, about what you want the topic to be, not what it is.
Sure, you want a wide range of pre-prepared ideas and nice phrases that could work – so you can then select the relevant ones. But if in the exam you hit a hideous topic and none of your ideas quite fit, throw them out the window and start fresh and relevant. It won’t be as impressive, but it’ll score better. It shows that YOU actually have abilities in thinking about the prompt and coming up with your own stuff on the spot, which is what they want to see and will reward you for. And, if you don't have a topic, what are you actually writing about anyway? You don't have anything to say or any issue to address!
Moral of this long spiel: practise essays WITH a topic; it’s okay to write a generic essay, but more important is practising brainstorming individual topics and selecting relevant ideas. Throw me an essay on a specific topic (that'll give you some practice adapting) and I'll throw you feedback, okay?
P.S. Sure, many people memorise AND pull it off. But that's only through practising twisting your ideas to make them relevant, which is what I'm trying to get you to do. Hopefully I haven't confused you further :-\
heids:
--- Quote from: zaynabb on July 07, 2015, 04:44:29 pm ---Hi! Can someone please help me out and have a read over my AOS essay? Thank you :)
--- End quote ---
Errmmm, you do realise I'd copied your previous essay that you posted and deleted down into a word document ready to mark...? and while I didn't do HSC I realise an invented 'generic' essay topic when I see it.
I'm not trying to withhold feedback or attack you; I'm just saying that feedback on a generic essay isn't going to be nearly as helpful as if you've written a proper essay to a proper topic! That's what's going to get you the marks, your ability to address a specific question. The best advice I can give you is to practice with specific essay questions, since relevance is one of the biggest things examiners are looking for. Seriously. When you do that, I'll mark it.
zaynabb:
--- Quote from: bangali_lok on July 07, 2015, 05:07:31 pm ---Errmmm, you do realise I'd copied your previous essay that you posted and deleted down into a word document ready to mark...? and while I didn't do HSC I realise an invented 'generic' essay topic when I see it.
I'm not trying to withhold feedback or attack you; I'm just saying that feedback on a generic essay isn't going to be nearly as helpful as if you've written a proper essay to a proper topic! That's what's going to get you the marks, your ability to address a specific question. The best advice I can give you is to practice with specific essay questions, since relevance is one of the biggest things examiners are looking for. Seriously. When you do that, I'll mark it.
--- End quote ---
Okay, thanks anyways! :)
Sorry for the hassle!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version