VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 1
qazser:
Edit: That was me, prev msg
MightyBeh:
--- Quote from: qazser on February 24, 2016, 10:10:43 pm ---Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a thought-provoking and contentious piece1 that urges2 her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent future tragedies3. She outlines that ‘267’4 asylum seekers are in Australia seeking medical treatment, intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences of “allowing asylum seekers to stay” and attempts to evoke a sense of fear of what could result5. Barnett reaffirms her previous sentence6 using repetition, reminding the reader once again of this7 ‘immoral’ act. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they conform to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality (Ty Anon) to the land we live in. Through the use of8 an analogy, Barnett aims to present her contention in another way, enticing the audience into seeing the issue as a point of view9. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are part of this10 article through Barnett’s use of ‘our livesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language. Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché11 where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. Reaffirming her point, she imposes on her reader to reconsider their views on the issue, through the word ‘must’12. Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative, challenging the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart. (Anon just called it Call-To -Action, must make note . TY ANON :) )
I’m in Y11, no clue what a language analysis really is, so whipped this baby out. Use of repetitive words is overly common in my piece. Feel free to roast this LA, no offence will be taken
--- End quote ---
I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ::) ).
Point by point breakdown
1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?
2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?
3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.
4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.
5. What exactly could result?
6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam
7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?
8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. ;)
9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.
10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.
11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.
12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.
Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place. :)
Edit: Highlighted the things I really liked in yellow because I didn't think it was clear enough <3
qazser:
--- Quote from: MightyBeh on March 02, 2016, 09:34:08 pm ---I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ::) ).
Point by point breakdown
1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?
2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?
3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.
4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.
5. What exactly could result?
6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam
7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?
8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. ;)
9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.
10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.
11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.
12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.
Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place. :)
--- End quote ---
Ty
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: MightyBeh on March 02, 2016, 09:34:08 pm ---I also have little to no clue what a language analysis actually is, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway (and we analyse language in literature? Surely I can at least add something relevant? ::) ).
Point by point breakdown
1. What makes it thought provoking? Is it the inclusion of statistics (267), her rhetoric, the tone (which is heavily influenced by connotations??), or whatever?
2. Similar thing - what about the article urges people to take a stance on the issue?
3. What future tragedies? This one's a bit nitpicky because it's implied in the article though.
4. I see what you're trying to do here by including her statistic, and it works to a level. A number on its own (as much as it pains me to say, I love numbers) is still just a number - it doesn't posses any inherent emotional value to the reader. Easy fix is just to extend your quote a bit.
5. What exactly could result?
6. tbh I don't want to go back to the article and read through it again to work out what exactly the last sentence was. soz fam
7. Clarify - what is 'this' immoral act, exactly?
8. You mentioned it yourself but you do a lot of repeating of this phrase and I thought I'd remind you. ;)
9. Sounds deep but I don't actually know what it means. Doesn't an issue generally consist of conflicting points of view? Also I'm not 100% sure but I feel like 'point of view' might be too colloquial to fit with your piece.
10. Same as 7, what's 'this'? Don't worry about sounding repetitive, it's better than being ambiguous.
11. What is the cliche? Is it that Australians are often portrayed as good mates who'll do a solid for anyone? If that's it, stereotype or archetype might be a better fit.
12. No complaints, but I thought it was a convenient plug for the oft-neglected, but very wonderful, connotative language.
Overall: It was pretty good, you had the right ideas and structurally everything was solid. You used plenty of quotes without being it being distracting or filler. Only real complaint is that some of your points aren't elaborated on enough for me to fully understand why exactly you picked them to write about in the first place. :)
--- End quote ---
LOL that feedback was really enjoyable to read :P! Why can't everyone give feedback as fun as that
qazser:
Edited Piece for LA
Thanks Beh for the suggestions :)
Through the use of patriotism, Nicola Barnett has presented a contentious piece that attempts to persuade her fellow Australians to take action on the recent refugee plight to prevent the loss of more lives at sea. She argues that we should allow ‘267 asylum seekers seeking medical treatment to stay' intending to appeal to sympathy. Having mentioned this, she informs us of the consequences if “asylum seekers are allowed to stay,people smugglers will be encouraged”,which evokes a sense of fear in the reader for the lack of justice. Using the words 'denying' and 'denial' when elaborating on the government's options further attacks the reader's appeal for sympathy. These connotations of cruelty and apathy also serve to reinforce Barnett's attempts to label us readers as 'immoral' should we conform to the government's plans to send sick asylum seekers back to Nauru without treatment. Portraying the audience as ‘Un-Australians’ should they agree to such a decision, she attacks our sense of patriotism, our ethics and morality to the land we live in. Barnett uses an analogy about 'lifeguards' to present her contention in another way, attempting to illustrate a different stance on the issue to the readers. She also attacks our moral soul by using the phrases ‘prepared to let this person suffer’ but justifies her decision by coaxing the reader that she has now ‘prevented more deaths’. The reader is then made to feel as though they are supporting her contention through Barnett’s use of ‘our lifesavers’ and ‘we’, forms of inclusive language. Barnett attacks the reader again through the use of a cliché where she lauds lifesavers as ‘good Australians’ because they risk themselves to save others before their own safety, alike the stereotypical Aussie who would do anything for his 'mates'. Furthermore, she uses it as an analogy, attacking the reader’s sense of morality, comparing the reader to an ideal ‘Aussie’, ‘one who risk themselves in order to save others’. The author's use of the word 'must explore' when persuading the audience forces the audience to consolidate their thoughts. These connotations of 'thinking outside the box' and 'look for alternatives' serve to reinforce the authors contention for asylum seekers to remain in Australia for treatment and curb encouragement of people smugglers. Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have contributed to a notion for an alternative and calls for the reader to stand up with these people and confront the issue at heart.
Me below again, forgot tick
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version