VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 1

<< < (7/10) > >>

Anonymous:
Okay, so kinda late to the party but here's my attempt at language analysis (It's really basic, I know, but hey, at least I tried :P):

In her passionate and disparaging letter to the editor, Nicole Barnett castigates the government’s decision to send asylum seekers requiring medical treatment in Australia back to Nauru. Barnett’s appeal to patriotism throughout the letter in associating the government’s proposition with ‘un-Australian’ values instils doubt in the reader towards the ethics of returning these refugees to Nauru. Barnett’s analogy of surf lifesavers portrays the ‘quintessential Australian’ as people who risk themselves to save others regardless of their circumstances, in stark contrast to the government’s action against the refugees. This analogy interprets the return of refugees to Nauru as ridiculous and unreasonable, which promotes audience support of Barnett’s position in condemnation of the government’s proposition. Furthermore, Barnett’s inclusive language in discussing ‘our’ lifesavers transfers responsibility to the reader and compels the audience to act upon the Australian values of fairness and compassion in opposing the government’s return of asylum seekers to Nauru. Finally, Barnett’s indignant tone gives way to one of authority when she calls for the government to act upon the alternatives presented by ‘academics, “think tanks” and lawyers’. By presenting her alternative solution as one supported by intelligent and accomplished professionals, Barnett strengthens audience approval of her seemingly fairer, more reasonable and more favourable proposition than that of the government, convincing the reader to reject the government’s actions.

I know that I have a problem with being concise in my writing and also using more extensive vocabulary, so if anyone could give me some pointers on that - or anything really - I'd be super grateful!!

Anonymous:
Excite :D
First time giving feedback btw you have been warned.
Anyway, hope this helps!

Spoiler
--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 06, 2016, 09:09:46 pm ---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 ( totally correct but its better to have more specific words than simply critical ) that the response of the government is “un-Australian” and suggests that they must seek “alternatives to… [the] detention and prevention” of people smuggling.

(Easily covers all the bases for an introduction :D )

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. (Repeated asylum seekers twice in the same sentence so the flow feels a bit off) 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 ( This part is worded strangely. Also a bit of a jump in logic. Yes, she mentions medical professionals, but how does simply this reflect incompetence in the government's actions? Maybe be more clear. ) and thus readers are compelled to view the government as cruel and uncaring. ( Spot on job identifying the techniques and the effect on the readers! However, where does the author's contention fit into this? How do these emotions lead the audience to feel about it? )

Furthermore, Barnett attempts to strengthen her argument in her analogous example of Australian surf lifesavers and the government. ( I don't think analogous example can be used like that. But to be honest I have no idea; it just sounds a little strange ) 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”. (And what does this mindset show about the government's regarding asylum seekers? ) In equating the experience of a person in trouble at the beach with asylum seekers, Barnett intends to educate (Not sure educate is the right word here. Educate about what? ) readers with a more personable and relatable experience. Moreover, Barnett links her example (Not super clear what this example is. Is it about the lifesavers? If so, why does their example lead to the government's need to change their policies? ie. Maybe focus more on the patriotic side and explore how the government is not setting a good example to fellow Australians, especially when compared to the lifesavers. ) 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.
(Again, where is the effect these techniques have on the reader's opinion on the contention? This is probably the part most English students forget though, and sometimes I struggle to fit it in without sounding too clunky too. But if you can get this right, immediate boost to the examiner's impression on your essay :D )

--- End quote ---

Overall v nice~
I'm super picky about expression and flow and such, but other than the parts I highlighted your piece reads quite smoothly

Marmalade:
Above was me~~

Barnett voices her thoughts on the Australian Government's recent announcement concerning the fate of asylum seekers seeking medical aid in Australia in an appalled, disgruntled tone, mainly focusing on the lack of Australian Spirit the government is displaying. She first laments their denial of ‘care and protection’ to the asylum seekers- a basic human right- and their disregard of the advice of ‘medical professionals’, thus portraying the government as morally corrupt and invalidated in their decisions. Not only does this lead the audience to lose trust in them, but also evokes emotions of outrage and disapproval towards them, degrading their credibility and urging readers to agree with the author’s contention in face of these atrocities. This is further extrapolated upon in Barnett’s following statements as she juxtaposes the unjust actions of the government to ‘our surf lifesavers’, revealing the vast dichotomy between their merits and lack thereof. Not only does the use of the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ allow the author to connect with the audience further by associating with them together as a nation, but also purposely excludes the government from this group, following their ‘un-Australian’ nature. This appeals to the patriotism of the audience, and encourages them to criticize the government as they are not living up to their responsibilities as an Australian. As a result, readers are drawn to look down upon the government and instead support the author’s contention, in accordance with their sense of patriotism.

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 19, 2016, 11:03:41 pm ---In her passionate and disparaging letter to the editor, Nicole Barnett castigates the government’s decision to send asylum seekers requiring medical treatment in Australia back to Nauru. Barnett’s appeal to patriotism throughout the letter in associating the government’s proposition with ‘un-Australian’ awesome job at actually clarifying what the appeal to patriotism is rather than just being like 'there's an appeal to patriotism' and leaving it at that values instils doubt in the reader towards the ethics of returning these refugees to Nauru. Barnett’s analogy of surf lifesavers portrays reeeeally minor point, but the word 'portrays' only really works in the context of an active agent or person portraying something. So you can say 'The author portrays his life story,' but you can say 'His life story portrays hardships' if that makes sense. A person portrays things; things can't portray other things :P In this context, you could say 'Barnett portrays...' but not 'Barnett's analogy portrays...' the ‘quintessential Australian’ as people who risk themselves to save others regardless of their circumstances, in stark contrast to the government’s action against the refugees. This analogy interprets again, verb choice doesn't quite work since an analogy can't interpret things. It can convey something, or express something, so try to use more active verbs the return of refugees to Nauru as ridiculous and unreasonable, which promotes audience support of Barnett’s position in condemnation of the government’s proposition v. good! Furthermore, Barnett’s inclusive language in discussing ‘our’ lifesavers transfers responsibility to the reader and compels the audience to act upon the Australian values of fairness and compassion in opposing the government’s return of asylum seekers to Nauru. Finally, Barnett’s indignant tone this is a little bit list-y since your transitions are just like 'Furthermore, the author's >technique< in doing X leads to Y' so mixing up your sentence structure would be ideal just to prevent that sense of repetition gives way to one of authority when she calls for the government to act upon the alternatives presented by ‘academics, “think tanks” and lawyers’. By presenting her alternative solution as one supported by intelligent and accomplished professionals, Barnett strengthens audience approval of her seemingly fairer, more reasonable and more favourable proposition than that of the government, convincing the reader to reject the government’s actions. Really good discussion of the effect; you've got a great understanding of the author's intent both in terms of the argument and how he wants the readers to respond.
--- End quote ---
You've got the process of analysis under control, so you're probably at the stage now where you can start being a bit more confident in varying your sentence structure. You don't have to start with the effect and backtrack to the language or anything weird like that, but even something as small as altering the way you introduce a point can stop the assessors from acknowledging the pattern/formula you're using

eg. 'The author's use of X as seen in "Y" engenders readers' sense of Z'
--> The X evident in "Y" forms part of the author's attempts to engender Z
--> The author's declaration that "Y" is an example of X, which contributes to readers' sense of Z
--> X is also employed by the author in the phrase "Y" in order to engender a sense of Z
               ...and so on

Devising your own variants of the above should help you incorporate alternations in your analysis.

The other thing to look out for is your verb usage - words like 'portrays' and 'interprets' have limited applicability in Language Analysis and you'd probably be better off using the kinds of words here under the first two tabs in particular.

Let me know if that vocab explanation didn't make sense :)

Other than that, you definitely seem to be on top of the whole 'showing your workings' stuff and you're providing a good amount of explanation. Because this is a small scale task, it's a little tough to judge things like concise-ness, though perhaps you could afford to cut down on some of the more similar effect statements.

eg. instead of saying:
the technique A which elicits feelings of B forms part of the author's attempt to C
+ also the technique D elicits feelings of E, also contributing to the author's attempt to C

you could just say:
the technique A elicits feelings of B
+ the author also uses technique D which elicits feelings of E
--> this further strengthens the author's attempt to C

If the overall effect/intention is the same, then you can group them to prevent having to restate points or repeat yourself.

Well done :)


--- Quote from: Marmalade on March 20, 2016, 05:58:37 pm ---Barnett voices her thoughts on the Australian Government's recent announcement concerning the fate of asylum seekers seeking medical aid in Australia in an appalled, disgruntled tone, mainly focusing on the lack of Australian Spirit no capitalisation needed here the government is displaying. Little bit verbose; you could just say 'Barnett employs an appalled, disgruntled tone to condemn the lack of Australian spirit shown by the govt. to asylum seekers.' What you've got here at the moment is like 'The author talks about X in a tone that is Y, focusing on argument Z' but that initial 'talks about X' is a bit unnecessary. We're more interested in the author's argument than the subject matter of their argument, if that helps. But this might've just been an issue because it's a short, introduction-less piece, in which case it's totally fine :) She first unless the chronology is important, don't draw attention to it. The fact that she does this "first" isn't something you unpack or analyse as being persuasive, so it's basically a wasted word in this context laments their denial of ‘care and protection’ to the asylum seekers- a basic human right- and their disregard of the advice of ‘medical professionals’, thus portraying the government as morally corrupt and invalidated in their decisions phrasing is a bit clunky, but analysis is solid. Not only does this lead the audience to lose trust in them, but also evokes emotions of outrage and disapproval towards them, degrading their credibility and urging readers to agree with the author’s contention what part of their contention?? Never say this unless you're instantly going to be more specific like 'to agree with the author's contention THAT THE ASYLUM SEEKERS DESERVE BETTER TREATMENT' in face of these atrocities. This is further extrapolated upon in Barnett’s following statements as she juxtaposes the unjust actions of the government to ‘our surf lifesavers’, revealing the vast dichotomy between their merits and lack thereof I know what you're suggesting here, but grammatically, it's unclear who has merits and who lacks them. Not only does the use of the inclusive pronoun ‘our’ allow the author to connect with the audience further by associating with them together as a nation, but it also purposely excludes the government from this group, following do you mean 'because of'? Just a little unclear on the meaning here their ‘un-Australian’ nature. This appeals to the patriotism of the audience, and encourages them to criticize the government as they are not living up to their responsibilities as an Australian Australians (since you're talking about 'the government' which is an intrinsically plural noun in this context - you say '...criticise the government as they...' not 'the government as he/she/it'). As a result, readers are drawn to look down upon vocab the government and instead support the author’s contention, in accordance with their sense of patriotism. slight repetition of 'patriotism' here but otherwise okay.

--- End quote ---

Excellent discussion of how the elements of this piece combined to have cumulative effects on readers. There were a few phrases here and there that could've been refined to maximise clarity or efficiency, so watch out for your grammar and word choices.
(+see link above to Heidi's awesome vocab post!)

Also, make sure you're providing the right amount of information - or, more accurately, that you're hitting that balance between specificity and generalisations in the right place.

Your first sentence contains a little too much info to the point where a bit of it is kind of redundant. But that sentence where you say 'urges readers to agree with the author's contention' needs MORE!

Aside from that, you're definitely on the right track, and you've got a really solid foundation for your interpretation, so keep it up! :)

Marmalade:
Thanks for the feedback Lauren! :D

Wow I realise that I do that really vague 'urging readers to agree with the author's contention' a lot actually xD. I'll try to work harder with that!

I just wanted to ask for a bit more clarification on what you mean by balance between specificity and generalizations. Do you mean analyzing the article and what the author is trying to say, but not assuming things about them? I'm not quite sure. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page