VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 1
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: Marmalade on March 25, 2016, 06:02:58 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
No worries - the vagueness is something a lot of people struggle with, but now that you're aware of it, it should be a lot easier to spot.
Regarding that balance: basically you don't want to be too far on either side of the spectrum. So you wouldn't want to be overly/ unnecessarily specific by saying something like 'this technique would likely appeal to people who suffer from anxiety or have a nervous disposition because their perception of the government would radically shift if the author undermined their credibility' or 'the author targets people who live in Mowbray because he makes reference to John Smith who grew up in Mowbray'... that's where things get weird. But you also don't want to make things too general, as in, 'this aids the author in persuading readers of his contention' or 'thus the author seeks to drive public discourse towards his views.'
So the balance you need to strike involves talking about the target audience (when provided) and the intended effect, but not extrapolating outside the boundaries of the task and using a bunch of external knowledge to supplement your discussion. Technically everything you need to get a high score in L.A. will be on the pages in front of you, so the fact that you know that, say, the residents of Mowbray are particularly invested in the hospitality industry shouldn't be necessary unless that fact has been provided for you.
Hopefully it won't be too much of a concern, but I've found that when students are told to stop being so general/vague, then they tend to overcorrect and end up forcing those weirdly specific comments in the middle of their analysis. Just something to look out for in future :)
Anonymous:
WOOPS IM REALLY LATE BUT HERE IT GOES:
Barnett makes a distinct appeal to the Australian audiences’ sense of patriotism to disparage the government’s current stance regarding asylum seekers. The situation having been specifically described as “denying people the care as advised by medical professionals” in combination with the succinct “This is un-Australian” is likely to elicit a feeling of injustice and nationalism. By distinguishing the clear lack of respect towards respected members of society and also to Australian morals, Barnett generates a sense of hatred towards the government as their position is illustrated in an inhumane manner. The act of “denying” and “denial” which is repeated twice is a repetitive employment in which Barnett links to Australian values the portrayal of the government’s injustice is also represented as intentional as if to almost indicate there is a clear motive to go against such. The sort of betrayal that the readership are manipulated to feel therefore act as a galvanizing tool to induce a sense of uproar as to fervently rally against this motion that is so clearly undermining the Australian way of life. Introducing the analogy involving a life saver, an appeal is once again made to the stereotypical Australian and the customs they abide by. The life saver to which is synonymous with Australian culture, therefore adjusts the readership to perceive the image of every Australian as tolerant, helping and friendly and to contrast the staunch difference between what the government has done and what our nation stands for. An additional element to author’s advancing contention is the engagement of the readerships sense of logic. The notion of being “prepared to let this person suffer” is intended to create a sense of bewilderment and bemusement as witnessing pain will urgently call upon any average Australian to help nevertheless a lifeguard and thus the audience are again pushed towards accepting an alternative policy as Barnett stigmatizes the current with illogicality and nonsensicality . The additional juxtaposition made between the “quintessential Australians”, “heroes” and altruistic nature of lifesavers compared to the previously unsympathetic one may incite the audience into shuddering at the continuation of the “off-shore processing policy”. That scathing tone directed towards the governments incompetence in understanding its people probes through the many flaws existing within the current process that hence prompts reconsideration in the audience to a solution far from a “detention camp in Nauru”.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 01, 2016, 11:16:45 pm ---Barnett makes a distinct appeal to the Australian audiences’ sense of patriotism to disparage the government’s current stance regarding asylum seekers. Excellent starting sentence :) The situation having been specifically described as “denying people the care as advised by medical professionals” in combination with the succinct “This is un-Australian” is likely to elicit a feeling of injustice and nationalism the notion of injustice seems to be more central to your discussion here. Try and keep your analysis targeted to the most relevant effects rather than mentioning all possible options that you can extract from that language. By distinguishing the clear lack of respect who's lack of respect? towards respected members of society and also to Australian morals, Barnett generates a sense of hatred towards the government as their position is illustrated in an inhumane manner I'm being super picky here, but your choice of words implies that the author is doing this illustration in an inhumane way, as opposed to depicting their position as inhumane. The act of “denying” and “denial” which is repeated twice is a repetitive employment in which Barnett links to Australian values the portrayal of the government’s injustice bit confused as to your sentence structure here is also represented as intentional as if to almost indicate there is a clear motive to go against such this is a bit too general. The sort of betrayal that the readership are manipulated to feel therefore acts as a galvanizing tool to induce a sense of uproar as to fervently rally against this motion that is so clearly undermining the Australian way of life v good :). Introducing the analogy involving a life saver, an appeal is once again made to the stereotypical Australian and the customs they abide by. The life saver to which is synonymous with Australian culture specifying that the author was equating life savers with Australian heroism rather than 'Aus culture' in general, therefore adjusts the readership to perceive the image of every Australian as tolerant, helping and friendly and to contrast the staunch difference between what the government has done and what our nation stands for excellent!! An additional element to author’s advancing contention is the engagement of the readerships sense of logic. This seems like a needlessly roundabout way of saying 'The author also employs an appeal to logic' - try and go for simpler expressions if in doubt. The notion of being “prepared to let this person suffer” is intended to create a sense of bewilderment and bemusement as witnessing pain will urgently call upon any average Australian to help nevertheless a lifeguard and thus the audience are again pushed towards bit colloquial accepting an alternative policy as Barnett stigmatizes the current with illogicality and nonsensicality. The additional juxtaposition made between the “quintessential Australians”, “heroes” and altruistic nature of lifesavers compared to the previously unsympathetic one which one? and who's nature was unsympathetic? may incite an easy way to avoid this problem of having to say 'may' or 'perhaps' is to focus on the intention of the author rather than the possible reception of the audience (which is actually more in keeping with the criteria of Language Analysis). So changing this to 'through XYZ, the author seeks to incite...' or 'XYZ is intended to incite...' will neatly bypass this issue the audience into shuddering try and concentrate more on the emotional response. What would shuddering be indicative of? at the continuation of the “off-shore processing policy”. That scathing tone directed towards the government's incompetence in understanding its people probes through the many flaws existing within the current process that hence prompts reconsideration in the audience to a solution prompts readers to consider a different solution far from a “detention camp in Nauru”.
--- End quote ---
In short, your analysis is really awesome in sections. Minor clarity issues occasionally bog this down a bit, but the main thing to focus on is your specificity! It's perfectly fine to refer back to previous points of analysis (i.e. "The author emphasises about the kindness of lifesavers. Hence, the author contrasts this kindness of lifesavers with the unsympathetic one of the govt.") <-- but that last part has to be specific in order for you to receive credit for this comparison.
Specificity is key! Aside from that, you're definitely on the right track with your analytical skills :)
Anonymous:
Super super late, but could I have a go?
Barnett encourages Australian readers to defend Australian values by opposing the Government's new proposal. Barnett creates a dichotomy between Australian supporters and dissenters of the new proposal by dubbing the act of denying medical care to asylum seekers as "un-Australian". The latter audience is positioned to cement their disapproval at the ruling as it is depicted as contradictory to Australian values, leading them to believe that it is unacceptable in our culture. However, supporters of the ruling is guided to feel threatened and shamed as they are casted off as not an Australian but as the 'other'. This readership is likely to reflect upon their opinion about the proposal as they believe themselves to be disapproved by rest of the society, and are thus more inclined to change their stance on the issue to save their reputation. Furthermore, by depicting the proposal as lacking human pathos, Barnett attempts to discourage not only Australian reader, but a broader audience. The phrase, "I am prepared to let this person suffer" creates a monotonous, matter-of-fact tone due to the simple, clear sentence structure which when contrasted with the horrific meaning, intensifies the moral degradation of what is being suggested. Thus, readers are guided to feel disgust at the government. Ultimately then, Barnett's readership is guided to feel as though the proposal contradicts their Australian pride as well as humanity, perhaps spurring them to demand for a new ruling from the government.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 23, 2016, 12:26:41 pm ---Barnett encourages Australian readers to defend Australian values by opposing the Government's new proposal. Barnett creates a dichotomy between Australian supporters and dissenters of the new proposal by dubbing the act of denying medical care to asylum seekers as "un-Australian". The latter audience is positioned to cement their disapproval at the ruling as it is depicted as contradictory to Australian values, leading them to believe that it is unacceptable in our avoid first person pronouns in L.A. essays, if possible. Just saying 'Australian culture' would be fine here culture. However, supporters of the ruling is are guided to feel threatened and shamed as they are casted off bit colloquial - what do you mean by this? rejected? belittled? dismissed? disregarded? etc. as not an Australian but as the 'other'. This readership is likely to reflect upon their opinion about the proposal as they believe themselves to be disapproved by rest of the society, and are thus more inclined to change their stance on the issue to save their reputation. Furthermore, by depicting the proposal as lacking human pathos, Barnett attempts to discourage not only Australian reader, but a broader audience. The phrase, "I am prepared to let this person suffer" creates a monotonous, matter-of-fact tone due to the simple, clear sentence structure which when contrasted with the horrific meaning, intensifies the moral degradation of what is being suggested like that you're unpacking the language so closely here, though be careful to always take explicit care in showing your workings for stuff like this - skipping from 'the clear sentence structure' to 'moral degredation' would be a bit of a leap otherwise'. Thus, readers are guided to feel disgust at the government. Ultimately then, Barnett's readership is guided to feel as though the proposal contradicts their Australian pride as well as humanity, could probably collapse these into one concluding statement about the effect perhaps spurring them to demand for a new ruling from the government might be a bit of a stretch; saying 'perhaps' lets you get away with this, but if in doubt, stay close to the material and just talk about what consequences the author is seeking to bring about :).
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version