VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 2

<< < (5/6) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:
Yes indeed - the more vocabulary you have at your disposal, the more techniques and language features you're likely to find in the material. Online tonal worksheets should suffice, and I cannot for the life of me find the one I used in Year 12 but I might just type up a replacement if I get the chance.

Word-usage-wise, just keep making mistakes :) You shouldn't view not using these words as the easiest fix because chances are there's only a few minor shifts to your internal grammar that you need to make, and after that, you're totally fine to start using them in the proper context.

Out of curiousity, when these issues of word usage are pointed out to you, can you recognise how and why the word doesn't fit? Like, is it a case of 'oh, yeah, I can tell I'm using this wrong' or more like 'oh, k, my usage is just wrong but I don't know how to distinguish it from the right usage?' Because the former is easier to deal with if you only need to be shown once why a word has certain restrictions placed upon it (eg. you can't use the verb portray followed by 'that' because a phrase like 'the author portrays that eating vegetables is important' is really clunky.) But the latter case would take quite a bit more work, especially if even after reading an explanation or a dictionary.com entry for something, your brain still can't quite grasp it. In that situation, it's work persisting when it comes to important or useful words like 'portray/ indictment/ reductive' that are useful from a VCE perspective, but if it's a relatively obscure word like 'denizen,' then you can afford to just ignore it :P


I think it's a combination. A lot of the time, I'll be like "Oh. Used that word wrong" and then I'll consult with Lord Google and figure out how it's supposed to be used and attempt to file it away for later use (sometimes I forget though cuz some of these words I've consistently used wrong). Once I've googled it, I pick up really quickly how I'm supposed to use it. The only problem is I write it down and then totally forget the correct word usage after like a month and think of the word under SAC conditions and either
a) use it wrong again (because I forgot someone else had previously corrected my use of that word: rare but it happens) OR
b) know that my definition of it is wrong but can't remember the proper definition and am too time poor to look it up so I just use a simpler word.

Regarding linking between paragraphs, aim to have some kind of connection that you establish within the first few words of the start of each B.P. from the 2nd para onwards.

Generic ones like: 'Furthermore, the author also seeks to elicit support for...' are okay, but it's best to find a more specific link if possible. eg. if you were going from one paragraph that looked at how the author depicted politicians as mercenary bastards to the next para that looked at the needs of the community, then you might say: 'This portrayal of the government's greed also aids the author in implying that the general public deserve a better class of state-level representation.'

Possibly, but I'm not being too stringent with comments about the length of analysis unless it's ridiculously excessive (~1000 words of analysis on 100 words of material) or really underdone (eg. only a couple of sentences and they're noticeably generic.) Idea-wise (/key player-wise) there's enough similarity between these two paragraphs that you could combine them with a bit of work on the linking, but even from an exam standpoint, the assessors won't be too fussed provided each distinct paragraph has a relatively defined focus. It's natural for there to be a bit of overlap since it's all based on the same argument/material anyway :)

Gotcha. Thanks Lauren. That really helped. :D

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 04, 2016, 08:29:55 am ---I think it's a combination. A lot of the time, I'll be like "Oh. Used that word wrong" and then I'll consult with Lord Google and figure out how it's supposed to be used and attempt to file it away for later use (sometimes I forget though cuz some of these words I've consistently used wrong). Once I've googled it, I pick up really quickly how I'm supposed to use it. The only problem is I write it down and then totally forget the correct word usage after like a month and think of the word under SAC conditions and either
a) use it wrong again (because I forgot someone else had previously corrected my use of that word: rare but it happens) OR
b) know that my definition of it is wrong but can't remember the proper definition and am too time poor to look it up so I just use a simpler word.
--- End quote ---

For case a) keep some kind of vocab list in a more accessible place (eg. front page of your English folder, or bluetacked above your desk at home + more tips here) so that you're constantly exposing yourself to the correct usage.
+ for case b) keep track of these words using samples sentences rather than definitions.

'The author vilifies Tony Abbott's foolishness by drawing attention to that time he bit into an onion like a total freak.'

...is easier to remember than...

'vilify: verb. to disparage or harshly condemn'

Plus, if you remember how a word works in context, it'll be much easier to re-apply it in test conditions vs. trusting yourself to recall definitions, which is a less useful and more unnecessarily laborious skill.

HopefulLawStudent:
I'll try that. Thanks Lauren!

Anonymous:
Sorry for a very very late reply!

Corrigan-Smith attempts to dissuade her readers from voting for Trump by asserting that he is incapable of leading a nation. From the outset, Corrigan-Smith paints a bleak picture of the world in order to hyperbolise the need for an effective leader. Loaded language such as "terrorists" and "drug abuse" attempts to instil feaer within her readers as "terrorists' carries heavy connotations of danger, destruction and death while "drug abuse" allude to unproductivity and hopelessness. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith's excessive use of commas within "anger, hatred, destruction..." attempts to overwhelm her readers of our troubling society as the use of semiotics create the effect of problems piling up out of control. This is likely to encourage her readers to recognise the importance of a capable president. The bleak tone shifts into a more firm, authoritative tone by "Don't vote for him", which invites her readers tackle the situation at hand logically rather than to lament. The sharp, pithy sentence acts to inform her readers of a clear solution. This is furthered by the sentence standing alone as a single paragraph which when viewed through the audience's eyes physically stands out with clarity. Not only this, reducing  Trump's actions as "adolescent pettiness" Corrigan- Smith attempts to underline Trump's political ineptitude, as "adolescent" carries connotation of immaturity, unreliability and thoughtlessness. Ultimately, Corrigan-Smith guides her readers to lose faith in Trump as a strong leader, framing him as someone incapable of dealing with social issues at hand. Thus, readers may be encouraged to bote for other more promising candidates.

Would love it if someone could give me feedback!!

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 23, 2016, 01:28:37 pm ---Corrigan-Smith attempts to dissuade her readers from voting for Trump by asserting that he is incapable of leading a nation. From the outset, Corrigan-Smith paints a bleak picture of the world in order to hyperbolise 'exaggerate' would be the more accepted version of this the need for an effective leader. Loaded language such as "terrorists" and "drug abuse" attempts to instil fear within her readers as "terrorists' carries heavy connotations of danger, destruction and death while "drug abuse" allude to unproductivity and hopelessness. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith's excessive use of commas within "anger, hatred, destruction..." attempts to overwhelm her readers of our avoid first person pronouns in L.A. essays troubling society as the use of semiotics you'd have to explain this more to get credit for the metalanguage here, but semiotics might be a bit too convoluted to bring up in an analysis succinctly - maybe comment on the overwhelming/cumulative effect of listing here instead create the effect of problems piling up out of control. This is likely to encourage her readers to recognise the importance of a capable president. The bleak tone shifts into a more firm, authoritative tone by "Don't vote for him", which invites her readers tackle the situation at hand logically rather than to lament to lament what exactly? Where in the language does this come from? The sharp, pithy sentence acts to inform her readers of a clear solution. ironically, this sentence is a bit short and jarring; consider linking this with what's on either side of it, or some more evidence from the material? This is furthered by the sentence standing alone as a single paragraph which when viewed through the audience's eyes physically stands out with clarity true, though perhaps not the strongest point to make. Not only this aim for a linking word like 'Furthermore' or 'Likewise;' this one comes across as a bit colloquial, reducing  Trump's actions as "adolescent pettiness" Corrigan-Smith attempts to underline Trump's political ineptitude, as "adolescent" carries connotation of immaturity, unreliability and thoughtlessness <-- sentence structure gets a bit confusing here. Ultimately, Corrigan-Smith guides her readers to lose faith in Trump as a strong leader, framing him as someone incapable of dealing with social issues at hand. Thus, readers may be encouraged to vote for other more promising candidates. Your understanding of the material is excellent, and the bits of the article you've chosen to analyse are spot on! Pretty much everything I haven't mentioned here is really good, so just keep an eye on your phrasing and the connections between your analysis, and you should be fine :)

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page