VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 1
HopefulLawStudent:
Didn't realise we were supposed to edit our paragraphs after feedback was given. So I did a last minute edit-job.
SpoilerAn appeal to the audience’s sense of patriotism is employed through Barnett’s use of the term “un-Australian” to describe 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 government’s decision regarding refugees to “surf lifesavers”, the Aspley resident strives to accentuate the purportedly flawed logic of the government. 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 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. This is because lifesavers are employed to save lives; the idea that they would choose not to evokes the disbelief and fury of the audience. The author thereby seeks to direct this antipathy toward the government, implying this institution was similarly failing to fulfil their duties. 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.
Off-topic(ish):
--- Quote from: qazser on March 06, 2016, 04:35:54 pm ---Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...
--- End quote ---
Are we allowed to give extra info in brackets? Like qazser has? I have this same issue every single time I sit down for language analysis and I never know. Lauren, or Heidi, or whoever, please weigh in on this?
Anonymous:
Didn't need to edit, i just felt like doing so ahah ;D
Regarding brackets, could integrate into sentence if needed to.
of people such as bla bla bla who have
Anonymous:
Recent controversy has arisen over the Government’s decision to send asylum seekers who are in Australia for medical treatment to detention camps in Nauru. In her opinion piece, Lifesaving spirit lost, Nicola Barnett contends in a critical tone that the response of the government is “un-Australian” and suggests that they must seek “alternatives to… [the] detention and prevention” of people smuggling.
Through a series of emotional and loaded language, Barnett suggests that the government is in favour of “denying” asylum seekers “the care and protection” they “need”. This depicts asylum seekers as vulnerable and readers are encouraged to feel sympathetic and concerned for the well-being of asylum seekers. In contrast, Barnett discredits the government in their denial of asylum seeker welfare and her mention of “medical professionals” suggests the incompetence of the government to undertake their responsibilities and thus readers are compelled to view the government as cruel and uncaring.
Furthermore, Barnett attempts to strengthen her argument in her analogous example of Australian surf lifesavers and the government. She states that if a person swam too far out at the beach and “got into serious trouble”, a lifesaver would not “let this person suffer” even though “more deaths… [could have been] prevented”. In equating the experience of a person in trouble at the beach with asylum seekers, Barnett intends to educate readers with a more personable and relatable experience. Moreover, Barnett links her example to the governments need to “explore alternatives to… the prevention of people smuggling” and readers are left under no misapprehension to the importance of the care required by asylum seekers and the neglect of the government.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on March 06, 2016, 05:47:40 pm ---Off-topic(ish):
--- Quote from: qazser on March 06, 2016, 04:35:54 pm ---Barnett finishes off by presenting honorary examples of people (lawyers, academics,” think tanks”) who have...
--- End quote ---
Are we allowed to give extra info in brackets? Like qazser has? I have this same issue every single time I sit down for language analysis and I never know. Lauren, or Heidi, or whoever, please weigh in on this?
--- End quote ---
BRACKETS ARE FOR THE WEAK!!
Not really... they're perfectly grammatical punctuation marks in the real world, but who says VCE English prepares you for real life? They're considered quite informal by a lot of assessors, so you should try to avoid them in formal essays.
For T.R. and L.A. (and Context if you're writing expository pieces,) just don't use them.
^Shut up. I'm allowed to use them. I'm a grown up.
A better alternative would be to use the double dash - which I'm quite fond of - to embed extra information in a sentence like I just did. So long as you make sure the sentence is still grammatical even when you take out the information bound by the dashes, you should be fine.
eg. 'The author uses a variety of techniques - including rhetorical questions - to persuade readers' = fine
but 'The author uses a variety of techniques - some of these include rhetorical questions - these techniques are evident throughout the piece' = NOT FINE
There's also the single dash, which works differently, but I won't bring that up here since it performs a pretty different function.
Basically if you want to use brackets, try and restructure your sentence so that you don't need them. And if you really want to use brackets, use dashes instead. Because you might get some stuffy old prescriptive grammarian as your marker at the end of the year, and you really don't want to make people like that even more unhappy than they already are on the inside :)
Anonymous:
Well I'm glad I've never used it now. My scary VCAA assessor teacher who has probably been marking since dinosaurs still roamed the Earth would've murdered me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version