Language Analysis

[breja]

Hi all 

Just wanting to get some quality advice on this piece I just wrote. I don't have the actual letter available as I've only got a paper copy but I'm mostly looking for grammar/language/structure advice anyway.

Any tips/suggestions are more then welcomed!

Thanks is advanced

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

A dedicated community of Australian sports fanatics have been divided yet again by the recent outrage stirred by Tennis player, Nick Kyrgios’s contumacious behaviour during the Australian Open tournaments. Shane Falconer of Mt Evelyn expresses his opinion towards the issue in a ‘Letter to the editor’ published by the Herald Sun (29th January 2016). Falconer contends that tennis Australia should demonstrate more control over ill-behaved players, using Kyrgios’s recent incidents during national events to validate his reasoning. The letter is written out of embarrassment and disenchantment towards actions of irresponsible athletes on behalf of his audience of mainly Australian sport supporters.

Readers are informed at the beginning of the piece that Kyrgios’s unacceptable attitude is not a one off slip up. This gives readers a minuet snippet of Kyrgios’s competitive background in tennis, portraying him as a repeat offender when it comes to handling professional situations poorly. Readers are encouraged to infer that the numerous reports of bad behaviour will surly reflect badly on all Australians. Falconer personalises the issue to each reader, stressing that if they don’t agree with him they’re self-image and reputation as an Australian will be tarnished. Readers are positioned to feel threatened by the uncontrollable Kyrgios and agree with Falconers contention that will preserver readers self-interest.

Falconer in his opening lines pulls attention towards language that imply a distance of time. Words such as ‘when’ and ‘continued’ are positioned in the piece to act as continual reminder for readers of how long Kygrios’s irresponsible behaviour has been going on. A single rhetorical question paired with the above techniques positions the readers to agree with the writers contention by assuming their answer will be the same as the writer’s. Readers are also engaged as the question addresses them directly forcing them to form an opinion on the issue.

Falconer persuades readers with a determined and frustrated voice, confident in his statements. The confidence in his comments positions readers to feel that it would be incorrect to disagree with someone so convinced in their argument. Using past examples of incidents that have occurred including the word ‘degrading’ highlights the damaging extent of Kygrios’s behaviour. It also strengthens Falconer’s argument against the player, arousing support from readers. The evidence of past incidents also gives Falconer’s opinion more credibility which helps gain support from readers.

Readers are forced to query Tennis Australia’s ability to run a respectable industry after Falcons comment made on how Kygrios’s attitude would not ‘be tolerated’ in other sporting organisation – this also providing a strong base from which Falconer reiterates Tennis Australia’s part in the issue. Falconer turns the blame for all the negative media attention towards Tennis Australia’s management of the issue – sharing responsibility for the situation between both parties. This emphasising how Tennis Australia are the only sporting organisation that is having problems with their players, portraying them as incompetent and irresponsible – traits readers look unfavourably on in a professional environment.

A firm opposing contrast from Kyrgios’s behaviour establishes the ideal and expected level of professionalism that Australian sporting stars should live by. Falconer intends to further blemish Kyrgios’s reputation here showing how far his attitude is from what is expected. The author appeals to the audience’s reason and logic surrounding the whole situation, implying that by athletes not showing “upmost respect” in the public eye, all Australians will have to face the consequences – judged internationally by other countries due to the actions on one irresponsible athlete. The audience, predominantly Australians are referred to as a collective group reiterating the importance of doing what’s best for the common good – the removal of players who stain ‘Australian’ imagery. Powerful emotive language is used, giving readers a vast variety of negative vocabulary to associate with Kyrgios. Words like ‘appalling’ and ‘arrogant’ position readers to react emotionally rather than rationally in arguments, encouraging them to share the writers outraged and disgusted tone.
 
In the letters closing line, Falconer poses a direct comment towards Kyrgios after offering criticism throughout the piece. In a casual almost sarcastic tone Falcon suggests that Kyrgios should be more ‘humble’ teasing at his familiar poor etiquette. Falconer establishes tenacious arguments throughout his piece. The author shows a relentless attitude when persuading his readers that Tennis Australia should show more authority over their unruly players – again blaming both player and organisation as the core problem. Readers feel threatened by all the negative media imagery brewed by Kyrgios and how it will affect Australians. Falconer plays on his readers concern for preserving the international image of Australians to form arguments that encourage patriotic attitudes that strive for a positive international image – something not being demonstrated by Kyrgios or the Australian Tennis organisation.

The various techniques used in the piece prompt readers to consider both Kyrgios and Tennis Australia as the opposition regarding the issue of disrespectful player behaviour at the Australia tennis. Falconer coaxes his audience to support his contention through the use of several example instances where Kyrgios has proven to be a hinder to Australian’s self-image. Falconer employs emotive and time related language to re-enforce the seriousness and length of the issue at hand. The piece appeals to reader’s sensitivity towards self and national image in the media, ultimately persuading them to perceive Tennis Australia and Kyrgios as threats to these.

[breja]

{!} Still looking for advice {!}

[literally lauren]

A dedicated community of Australian sports fanatics have been divided yet again by the recent outrage stirred by Tennis player, Nick Kyrgios’s contumacious oooh, nice word! behaviour during the Australian Open tournaments. Shane Falconer of Mt Evelyn expresses his opinion towards 'on' sounds more natural the issue in a ‘Letter to the editor’ published by the Herald Sun (29th January 2016). Falconer contends that tennis Australia should demonstrate more control over ill-behaved players, using Kyrgios’s recent incidents during national events to validate his reasoning. You could easily combine the previous sentences by saying: 'Shane Falconer of Mt Evelyn contends in his Letter to the editor (Herald Sun 29/1/16) that tennis...' The letter is written out of embarrassment this expression makes it seem like Falconer has done something wrong and is embarrassed by his own actions. I get what you're trying to say here, but 'written out of embarrassment' implies some ownership of the embarrassment, which doesn't seem to be the case and disenchantment towards actions of irresponsible athletes on behalf of his audience of mainly Australian sport supporters.

Readers are informed at the beginning of the piece that Kyrgios’s unacceptable attitude is not a one off slip up unless you're quoting here (in which case there should be quotation marks,) this is too colloquial for language analysis. This gives readers a minute snippet of Kyrgios’s competitive background in tennis, portraying him as a repeat offender when it comes to handling professional situations poorly. Readers are encouraged how are they encouraged to do this? What does the author do to bring this about? to infer that the numerous reports of bad behaviour will surely reflect badly on all Australians. Falconer personalises the issue to each reader, stressing that if they don’t agree with him they’re their self-image and reputation as an Australian will be tarnished Okay, but where's the evidence for this in the piece? You need to quote here as your starting point, and then you need to explain how and why the language leads to this effect --> Readers are positioned to feel threatened by the uncontrollable Kyrgios and agree with Falconers contention that will preserver readers self-interest. this is a bit too generic. Try to avoid phrases like 'to agree with the author' and instead be specific about what they're made to agree with.

Falconer in his opening lines pulls attention towards uses language that implies a distance of time expression is a bit weird here, but it's hard to know what to replace this with without having read the Letter. 'Passing of time' perhaps? Words such as ‘when’ and ‘continued’ are positioned in the piece to act as continual reminder for readers of how long Kygrios’s irresponsible behaviour I like that you've picked up on the idea of temporal indications being scattered throughout the piece, but this'd be a great opportunity to combine that analysis with more! For instance, how do you know Kygios' behaviour is irresponsible? Obviously that's an idea that you've gotten somewhere from the author's piece, but try to be specific and zoom into certain bits of language that support your idea has been going on. A single rhetorical question what rhetorical question?? Quote?? paired with the above techniques try not to use the word 'techniques' when analysing positions the readers to agree with the writers contention by assuming their answer will be the same as the writer’s. Readers are also engaged as the question addresses them directly forcing them to form an opinion on the issue this is way too general - what is the rhetorical question and what is its specific function? You can't have sentences like 'the author uses inclusive language to make readers feel included' because there's no evidence there that actually links it to the piece you're analysing.

Falconer persuades readers with a determined and frustrated voice, confident in his statements. The confidence ~synonym? in his comments positions readers to feel that it would be incorrect to disagree with someone so convinced in their argument still a bit too plain; provide evidence and make this specific to the issue. Using past examples of incidents that have occurred including the word ‘degrading’ highlights the damaging extent of Kygrios’s behaviour okay, this is a really good start, but now you just have to explain HOW the word 'degrading' highlights this idea. Why has the author chosen that word in particular? What is its function given the nature of the issue? What does that word mean and what is it making the audience think/feel/believe? It also strengthens Falconer’s argument against the player, arousing support from readers. I'm not following your logic here? The evidence of past incidents also gives Falconer’s opinion more credibility which helps gain support from readers.

Readers are forced to query Tennis Australia’s ability to run a respectable industry after Falcons comment made on how Kygrios’s attitude would not ‘be tolerated’ in other sporting organisation – this also providing a strong base from which Falconer reiterates Tennis Australia’s part in the issue. Falconer turns the blame for all the negative media attention towards Tennis Australia’s management of the issue – sharing responsibility for the situation between both parties. This emphasising emphasises how Tennis Australia are the only sporting organisation that is having problems with their players, are you sure this was something the author was saying and not just your own interpretation? Does the author actually say words to the effect of 'TA are the only organisation with these sorts of problems?' If so, quote it! If not, it doesn't belong in your essay portraying them as incompetent and irresponsible – traits readers look unfavourably on in a professional environment. <-- this is really good! You've been specific to the circumstances and zoomed in on the effect. Notice how this would be different if you'd simply said 'portraying them in a negative light which encourages readers to agree with the author's point of view.' The kind of specificity you've got here is awesome!

A firm opposing contrast from Kyrgios’s behaviour establishes the ideal and expected level of professionalism that Australian sporting stars should live by. Falconer intends to further blemish Kyrgios’s reputation here where? Where in the article is this happening? What language/ techniques are being used? showing how far his attitude is from what is expected. The author appeals to the audience’s reason and logic surrounding the whole situation, implying that by athletes not showing “upmost respect” in the public eye, all Australians will have to face the consequences expression is a bit clunky here; the 'by...' starting point seems to be causing you a bit of trouble here – judged internationally by other countries due to the actions on one irresponsible athlete. The audience, predominantly Australians are referred to as a collective group reiterating the importance of doing what’s best for the common good – the removal of players who stain ‘Australian’ imagery. Powerful emotive language is used, giving readers a vast variety of negative vocabulary to associate with Kyrgios. Words like ‘appalling’ and ‘arrogant’ position readers to react emotionally yes, but which emotions? rather than rationally in arguments, encouraging them to share the writers outraged and disgusted tone there's a good link here, but sentence structure-wise, you can't really say that the readers share in the author's tone. They can share in the attitude or an emotion (like, sharing in the author's frustration) or something if that's what you're intending..

In the letters closing line, Falconer poses a direct comment towards Kyrgios after offering criticism throughout the piece. In a casual, almost sarcastic tone Falcon suggests that Kyrgios should be more ‘humble’ teasing at - expression; you don't 'tease at' something his familiar word check - why is it familiar? poor etiquette. Falconer establishes tenacious word check - 'tenacious' only really applies to people, not things/arguments arguments throughout his piece. The author shows a relentless attitude when persuading his readers that Tennis Australia should show more authority over their unruly players – again blaming both player and organisation as the core problem. Readers feel rather than saying 'readers think' or 'readers feel...' try to instead say 'the author encourages readers to think' or 'the author engenders a sense of...' instead threatened by all the negative media imagery brewed by Kyrgios and how it will affect Australians. Falconer plays on his readers' (apostrophe needed here because it's possessive - their concern) concern for preserving the international image of Australians to form arguments that encourage patriotic attitudes that strive for a positive international image – something not being demonstrated by Kyrgios or the Australian Tennis organisation.really good end points here, you just needed a bit more evidence to give you that stable base.

The various techniques used in the piece Don't use the word 'techniques,' and try not to have generic sentences like 'the various techniques in the piece' or 'the author's many strong sub-arguments' as they come across as too simplistic prompt readers to consider both Kyrgios and Tennis Australia as the opposition regarding the issue of disrespectful player behaviour at the Australian tennis. Falconer coaxes his audience to support his contention through the use of several example instances where Kyrgios has proven to be a hinderance (hinder is a verb, hinderance is the noun) to Australian’s this should either be Australia's or Australians' self-image. Falconer employs emotive and time related language to re-enforce the seriousness and length of the issue at hand. <Try not to just run-down the major techniques here; conclusions can be tricky, but try to look at the arguments and the effects more so> The piece appeals to reader’s readers' sensitivity towards self and national image in the media, ultimately persuading them to perceive Tennis Australia and Kyrgios as threats to these.

So for Language Analysis, I usually get people to do something called the 'what-how-why' method (see: proper explanation here) which entails starting with a specific piece of language, then describing the effect and the reasons why the author would want the audience to respond in a certain manner. What this piece has done well is the last 2/3 of this process, the 'how' and 'why' stages... by which I mean your discussion of the effects and authorial intentions were excellent, but you need to look at the language in more detial! Those moments when you were spelling out the link between a technique and/or quote and a bigger idea were really good - but there need to be more of those moments! Paragraphs of this length should have about two or three solid points of analysis in each one, but often you'd bring up a quote without really examining it (eg. "be tolerated" in BP4) and then move on too quickly.

Don't be afraid to stick with the language for a little while longer and just unpack its meaning. Exploring things like connotations and associations might also be worthwhile, as this will force you to do a bit more 'what' analysis.

Aside from that, because you were more concerned with grammar and structural advice, the above comments should suffice. I'd highly recommend experimenting with vocabulary though, since you've got months to explore different options and clarify any uncertainties in your syntax. Often the only way to find those errors in your internal grammar is to make mistakes and have someone explain them to you, but it seems like you're on the right track with all of this.

Best of luck!