VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 2
Gogo14:
hopefully somebody can still be bothered correcting my essay.lol
With the forthcoming* United States Presidential election, Eileen Corrigan-Smith exerts her disapproval of the Republican Candidate Donald Trump by disparaging upon the capacity of his leadership and political mobility in the article “Trouble with Trump”. From the initial sentence, common ground is established with the readers by attesting herself to be “similar to many citizens”. This serves to tune the tone of the article to display enmity whilst on a conversational level. As such, and with the inclusion of common jargon like “dragged.. through a gutter”, Corrigan appeals to the audience on friendly, mutual terms. This exploits the readers to adopt similar stances to her as Corrigan portrays herself to be an incorporative component of the citizens who she is beseeching to.
Saturated and connotative language is used as a vital component of Corrigan’s rhetoric to paint imagery of a dystopic USA “burning with terrorists, mass murders” and the “destruction of society”. With such copious exaggeration, the nation is portrayed to be desolate, and desperate for “a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead”. The imagery appeals on a visual basis and the flaws of Donald Trump is highlighted when Corrigan condescends his character with loaded words of “narcissist personality” and “adolescent pettiness”. Consequently, Trump’s credibility and capacity as a candidate is diminished, exposing to the audience that he does not epitomise the important characteristics to lead the nation, thus invalidating him as a commendable candidate.
Furthermore, the short sentence “don’t vote for him” has a stark effect where the sudden conciseness and simplicity of the sentence conveys not only and imperative command but also accentuates the importance of not electing Trump. This positions readers to profoundly revisit their perspectives on Trump, being inclined not to vote him. Also, inclusive language of “our” and “we” creates a sense of mutual responsibility, as Corrigan implies that the responsibility to not elect Trump is burdened by “the public” as well, therefore swaying readers to actively disapprove Trump rather than dwindle in passive ignorance.
Through Corrigan’s rhetoric, the readers are appealed to on a friendly ground which creates a climate of mutual understanding and acceptance of her arguments. In addition, loaded language is used to create imagery which allows the contrast of Trump being a disproportionate candidate. Finally the sudden short sentence and the inclusive language sheds persuasion for readers to be actively detest Donald Trump.
*pretending I’m in the past
HopefulLawStudent:
--- Quote from: Gogo14 on December 18, 2016, 09:49:14 pm ---hopefully somebody can still be bothered correcting my essay.lol
With the forthcoming* United States Presidential election, Eileen Corrigan-Smith exerts her disapproval of the Republican Candidate Donald Trump by disparaging upon word usage - you dont disparage upon someth much like how you dont shout upon someth the capacity of his leadership and political mobility in the article “Trouble with Trump”not entirely sure what you mean here -- sounds impressive but lacking in clarity. From the initial sentence, common groundthis common ground stuff is too subjective. You neednto be aiming to be more objective. is established generally rule of thumb is to always use present tensewith the readers by attesting herself to be “similar to many citizens”. This serves to tune the tone of the article to display enmity whilst on a conversational level. As such, and with the inclusion of common jargon oxymoron - common jargon; do you mean cliche?like “dragged.. through a gutter”, Corrigan appeals to the audience on friendly, mutual terms. This exploits not very objectivethe readers to adopt similar stances to her try to avoid saying stuff like this as its quite similar to saying that she does it to encourage her readers to agree with her contention which is unnecessary as Corrigan portrays herself to be an incorporativecheck word usage? component of the citizens are you saying the audience targetted is the american public? (Hint: your audience is never the public)who she is beseeching to evidence to support your statement that she's beseeching?.
Saturated what do you mean by this?and connotative language is used as a vital component of Corrigan’s rhetoric to paint imagery of a dystopic USA “burning with terrorists, mass murders” and the “destruction of society”. With such copious be objective! exaggeration, the nation is portrayed to be desolatecheck word usage, and desperate for “a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead”. The imagery appeals on a visual basisoh? How so? and the flaws of Donald Trump is highlighted when Corrigan condescends his character with loaded words of “narcissist personality” and “adolescent pettiness”. Consequently, Trump’s credibility and capacity as a candidate is diminished, exposingbe objective to the audience that he does not epitomise the important characteristics needed to lead the nation, thus invalidating him as a commendable candidate.
Furthermore, the short sentence “don’t vote for him” has a stark effect where the sudden conciseness and simplicity of the sentence conveys not only and imperative command but also accentuates the importance of not electing Trump. This positions readers to profoundly revisit their perspectives on Trump, being inclined not to vote him. Also, inclusive language of “our” and “we” creates a sense of mutual responsibility, as Corrigan implies that the responsibility to not elect Trump is burdened by misused burdened; try using it like author burdens reader with the responsibility or reader is burdened with the responsibility of -- works better“the public” as well, therefore swaying readers to actively disapprove Trump rather than dwindle in passive ignorance.
Through Corrigan’s rhetoric, the readers are appealed to on a friendly ground be objectivewhich creates a climate of mutual understanding and acceptance of her arguments. In addition, loaded language beware phrases like loaded language. Teachers dont tend to like it cos they are often quite vague; instead try to specify how they are loaded.is used to create imagery which allows the contrast of Trump being a disproportionate candidate. Finally the sudden short sentence and the inclusive language sheds persuasion for readers to be actively detest Donald Trump.
*pretending I’m in the past
--- End quote ---
I started editing this but exhaustion's started to kick in despite the fact that Ive been resting all afternoon so I'm going to quit here for now; might go back and add more feedback later if I'm feeling up to it. :)
Gogo14:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on January 08, 2017, 08:25:26 pm ---I started editing this but exhaustion's started to kick in despite the fact that Ive been resting all afternoon so I'm going to quit here for now; might go back and add more feedback later if I'm feeling up to it. :)
--- End quote ---
Thanks, I'm just not really sure what you mean by "be objective". Thanks
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: Gogo14 on January 10, 2017, 05:53:15 pm ---Thanks, I'm just not really sure what you mean by "be objective". Thanks
--- End quote ---
Not HLS, but I think she's talking about focusing on analyzing rather than giving your opinion on the writing.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on January 10, 2017, 10:04:45 pm ---Not HLS, but I think she's talking about focusing on analyzing rather than giving your opinion on the writing.
--- End quote ---
Just to add onto what's being said: try looking at the language more closely; the imagery certain words evoke and what it may relay to the greater message the author is trying to have the reader accept; how she layers meaning to arrive to an opinion. ie. stop and pause at the words "adolescent" and "narcissist"; they conjure the image of an ill-tempered child. He is depicted as irresponsible, throwing tantrums -- you could go on about this and how the author parallels this reality with the expectations of a president: how she goes on about how in the past the candidacy was reserved for "educated" and respected members of the community. Furthering this, she makes a clear distinction between Trump's self-interests and that of the reader in the lines "Instead (the word Instead being really important as it emphasises that he would not deliver as a leader should) of discussing political situations, laws, finance and domestic/foreign situations that impact our daily lives, he only offers ridicule and insults" (don't quote the whole thing, use the bits you need, but of course you already know that ;)); you could then go on about him being depicted as a schoolyard bully, someone who incites action through fear (in play with the earlier imagery of US dystopia devastated by massacre, immorality -- all that bad stuff). Perhaps, you could even suggest that the dichotomy that the author creates by banishing Trump from the 'adult' world to the realm of childhood and teenage angst, as further suggestion of his incapability to make an informed decision; the author is trying to position us to see him more or less as some kind of unformed alien thing (now that I read it and think about it).
There's a great deal of ways you could analyse this and THEN conclude that 'Corrigan-Smith thus establishes his character as unsuited for presidency, coercing her readers to reject him' etc.
But it's the manner you're going about it that's a little shaky, as HLS has pointed out. What I'd suggest you do is to perhaps make a little plan before you write and find connections from between the words (what recurring imageries am I seeing? How do they influence the way I view certain key-players? Lastly, how does the author ultimately tie it together to heighten their chances of persuading us?). I'm no expert, but I'd be looking into this sort of thing. I hated language analysis, so I'm not much good at it, so take what I say for a grain of salt. Hope it helped!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version