VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 1
literally lauren:
Awesome stuff happening so far, and the feedback has been on point.
To tidy up a few loose ends (though obviously anyone's welcome to come back to earlier weeks and attempt that material later in the year) I'll add a few comments to any pieces that haven't yet been commented upon by others, but I'll just isolate three or so key points rather than doing a full dissection. Anyone else keep to give feedback is still more than welcome to - mine will not be at all conclusive :)
--- Quote from: Anonymous on February 25, 2016, 05:41:31 pm ---An appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is invoked(1) by Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” in describing the government's actions, intimating such actions contravene with the reader’s national identity, thereby seeking to alienate them from the political administration’s defence of their off-shore policy. Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government.(2) That Barnett should employ this iconic Australian image suggests that to be “Australian” would have been to approach the issue of asylum seekers with the same zeal to aid a swimmer in distress. This analogy evinces the Aspley resident’s notion argument(?) denying the asylum seekers residency in Australia would be akin to allowing one swimmer to die with the expectation it would prevent future incidents, appealing to the audience’s reasoning and logic to galvanise them to perceive the proposed solution as ludicrous. (3) In essence, Barnett seeks to engender the audience’s scepticism and preclude them from readily accepting and supporting the government’s attempt at rationalising their off-shore detention policy.
--- End quote ---
(1) - 'invoke' = to call upon an idea, or to cite a person
eg. 'When I was arguing with my parents, they invoked the old 'respect your elders' saying'
'Religious fanatics frequently invoke God to support their arguments'
'She invoked the words of Margaret Thatcher in her speech to the House of Commons'
'Evoke' works better for Language Analysis because it refers to an author eliciting certain emotions
eg. 'The author attempts to evoke a sense of patriotism.'
(2) I'm not sure the author is likening the refugee situation with the surf lifesavers. If anything, she was creating a link between the government and lifesavers to imply that the former were failing in their duties.
(3) Be even more specific here - how is this situation ludicrous or illogical? Why would the author make this particular comparison?
Other than that, your vocabulary and sentence structure are very impressive, and you seem to have a good grasp of the contention :)
--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 02, 2016, 10:17:02 am ---Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers. (1) Barnett stated that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. (2) She is trying to suggest that us as Australians will connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey, the government should be like those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a lifesavers. (3)
--- End quote ---
(1) It's a bit tough to judge here since we were mainly concerned with the language and the background information was intentionally brief, but this isn't quite accurate. The sentence structure you've got here is a bit confusing - it'd be more accurate to say that the government were refusing to 'save' asylum seekers in order to deter people smugglers. But, admittedly, this is an issue with a length and complicated socio-political history behind it, so I'm not too worried about the contextual information.
(2) Not only could these two sentences easily be integrated to form one, but you should also aim to integrate that quote in your writing. For example: 'Barnet's appeal to patriotism as evidenced by her use of the word "un-Australian" forms part of her attempt to imply that the government need to seek other options.' You also need to be more specific about the connection here, ie. how does her use of the word "un-Australian" create this effect?
(3) Firstly, never use the word 'prove' in English - teachers hate it because it's way too definitive :P Use something like 'suggest/imply/depict/engender' etc. 'A.k.a' is also very informal. Secondly, what is the logic here? I can see that you've understood the function of the author's comparison/analogy, but you haven't quite made that clear, and you'd need to flesh out this appeal to logic in a bit more detail. In this case, what was the author trying to suggest by comparing the government to lifesavers? And what else in that analogy might you analyse?
edit: typed up feedback for the second one before I realised HLS had already covered it :P
@HLS: your comments were totally right though so don't worry! :)
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 02, 2016, 10:17:02 am ---Nicola Barnett, from Aspley, Queensland, has written an article, Lifesaving Spirit Lost, about the government not wanting to ‘save’ asylum seekers to prevent people smugglers1. Barnett stated2 that the government should explore other options to help these people. This is evident when3 she uses an appeal to patriotism, ‘un-Australian’. She is trying to suggest that us grammar: we as Australians will4 connect the feelings of pride we have to our country. Barnett also uses a comparison to compare5 the government with lifesavers of Australia. This helps the article prove the logic the author is trying to convey6, the government should be like7 those who save people while risking their own lives, a.k.a8 lifesavers.
--- End quote ---
Underlined what I thought could use changing. Keep in mind that I'm not an English student so my criticisms probably aren't as well informed as others. Also suggestions, but again, take those with a grain of salt.
Spoiler1. Sentence is a bit long. Also, having 'save' in quotation marks implies a sort of mocking tone.
"Nicola Barnett, an Australian citizen, is critical of the Government for being 'in favour of denying people the care and protection they need'".
2. Minor issue - tense. In the rest of your piece, you use current tense (jumps, runs, hikes) instead of this past tense (jumped, ran, hiked). I'd change it to 'states'.
3. A bit of an awkward transition between your sentences. You could take out the 'this is evident when' and it would flow a lot better. It also may be better to use 'Barnett' or 'the author' but that might be personal preference.
4. I think 'will' is a bit clunky there. 'Should' fits better (imo) and has stronger connotations that relate to the article.
5. Phrasing? I feel like 'comparison' is one of the techniques or something but it comes off a little clunky. Just 'compare' is fine, I doubt anyone will be getting their knickers in a knot about not using specific forms of a word when the meaning is the same.
That, or:
"Barnett uses a comparison to emphasize the difference in values between the Government and Lifesavers of Australia."
6. Phrasing again. Honestly not sure how I'd change it, so maybe my criticism is unwarranted.
7. Sounds a bit colloquial to me. Changing it to something less so takes away some of the feeling though so this one's a matter of preference.
8. Seconding HopefulLawStudent, this feels a bit iffy. You could take it out and the meaning out be exactly the same, too. Final cut's up to you of course.
Overall it's good. I know what you're talking about when I read your analysis so there's no glaring issues, it's mostly just structural/stylistic stuff in your writing that draws away from your work. It was a short article, but I would've liked more quotes and a little more explanation on your interpretations. :)
HopefulLawStudent:
--- Quote from: literally lauren on March 02, 2016, 01:55:02 pm ---(2) I'm not sure the author is likening the refugee situation with the refugees. If anything, she was creating a link between the government and lifesavers to imply that the former were failing in their duties.
--- End quote ---
What do you mean? #confused.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on March 02, 2016, 05:10:23 pm ---What do you mean? #confused.
--- End quote ---
Ah, that was my own brain melt - I meant to say 'likening the situation with surf lifesavers' ~my bad! :P
I'll edit it out so it doesn't confuse others.
Basically, to take your original sentence:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on March 02, 2016, 05:10:23 pm ---Likening the present condition of the refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government.
--- End quote ---
...you've stated that the author likens the condition of the refugees to lifesavers, which isn't strictly true. She is using an analogy and making a comparison, but in that example, the author was implying that the government refusing to help the refugees would be the equivalent of a lifesaver letting someone drown at sea.
So, metaphorically, the government are 'lifesavers' who are refusing to save lives, which is designed to elicit ridicule and frustration at the illogicality of the situation (- they're literal job is to save lives, so the idea of a lifesaver not doing that is clearly designed to evoke disbelief and fury,) so by equating this with the government's inaction, the author is implying that the same antipathy should be directed towards them for failing in their duties. <-- It seemed like that was what you were hinting at, but the structure of your sentence didn't reflect that clearly, so a small change would just help bring your idea to the surface for your assessor.
Hope that makes sense!
Anonymous:
Could someone pop some suggestions for mine pls? ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version