VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 3

(1/4) > >>

literally lauren:
Shakin' things up a bit with our first little comparative task.

Background: Below are two letters to the editor about an issue currently plaguing NSW - specifically, the 'lockout laws' which force various social venues in Sydney's CBD to close by 1:00am in an effort to prevent alcohol-fuelled violence. The public response has been negative at best, with many arguing that the government was overstepping its bounds by regulating businesses in this manner. Others have implied that this proposed solution will be ineffective, and may actually exacerbate the problem by forcing drinking out on to the streets. These two pieces respond to the proposed lockout laws, as well as the debate surrounding them.


Piece 1

We are hearing now that the music industry is suffering due to the lockouts ("Another bar falls victim to lockout", February 13-14). Back in the dim, distant past, the 1970s and '80s, when pubs and clubs closed much earlier, there was a vibrant music scene, so why do these musicians want them to be opened till 3am? Surely these establishments can turn a profit closing at 1am? 
Maybe they should look at a different business model. The hotels and clubs say it is the lockout that is sending them broke, but is it their bad management?

- Robert Pallister


Piece 2

Perhaps those who describe the Kings Cross lockout laws as the nanny state also think we should get rid of the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system, almost all of which are paid for by people who don't go to Kings Cross.

- Victor Bivell

scroll down for some sample responses

heids:
Awwwww.... y'all too scared to write a comparative piece?

You can do better than that, guys. :P

literally lauren:
Sample Responses to this week's material

Below, I've written up three excerpts that model what a low-scoring (~3/10) mid-scoring (~6/10) and high-scoring (~10/10) piece would look like. Accompanying each is an explanation of what each piece is doing well or badly, and a couple of tips for improvement if you find yourself making these kinds of mistakes :)

Sample 1: Low-range
SpoilerPallister's piece argues that the lockout laws are the business' fault. He uses a variety of persuasive language devices including rhetorical questions and statistics. "Surely these establishments can turn a profit closing at 1am?" which strengthens his argument. Meanwhile, Bivell utilises an attack on the nanny state through repetition. Bivell's letter to the editor is more emotionally driven, whereas Pallister adopts a formal, logical tone. Both of them use inclusive language "we."

Okay, so this one is a mess for a variety of reasons. First, structurally, it makes little sense. If flips between one piece and the next without ever clarifying or establishing the previous point, and the connections between sentences are tenuous at best. The analysis is incredibly surface-level with little to no actual discussion of language. It's pure technique identification with no evidence to back it up aside from some very un-integrated quotes, and there's no discussion of the effect at all. And the devices that have been picked out aren't even that accurate or important; Pallister doesn't use 'statistics' just because there are numbers in the piece, and the use of 'inclusive language' isn't really a big deal in this context. The argument for the first piece (Pallister pinning the business' economic concerns on their own management skills) is pretty clearly defined in the first sentence, albeit a tad abruptly, but the second contention isn't really articulated or fleshed out at all. It mentions an attack on the nanny state, but that's more like a technique than an overarching point. Also, whilst you're not expected to write formal introductions/conclusions for this little task (though you absolutely can if that's what you want to practise) the ending here is really iffy since it's pure evidence and no broader discussion or analysis. There's enough decent effort to prevent this from getting a 1 or a 2, but it probably wouldn't be scoring above a 4 if it kept up this level of quality.
Sample 2: Mid-range
SpoilerPallister begins his piece by talking about how the current response to lock out laws differs from the "dim, distant past" when establishments were happy to close early. By using the words "dim, distant past," the author appeals to the audience's sense of nostalgia, which makes them more likely to agree with the author that things were better in the old days. Later, the author says that the establishments could "surely... turn a profit" by closing early, which makes readers view the establishments as greedy and lying about their true motives. Then, the author utilises a rhetorical question "is it their bad management?" which makes readers reevaluate their stance and alter their perception of the establishments. In contrast, Bevill's piece contends that the people who blame the lock out laws on the "nanny state" are foolish because the nanny state also provides important health services. By utilising the technique of listing "the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system. This makes readers associate the lockout laws with those services, and makes them view the laws as equally essential for the wellbeing of society. After that, the author utilises an appeal to the hip pocket nerve by discussing who pays for these essential services, which makes readers contemplate the cost of the proposal and view the "Kings Cross" people as being less deserving of sympathy and support. Therefore, by using a variety of techniques and appeals, both authors are attempting to persuade readers to agree with their point of view."

So this is a pretty substantial improvement from the previous example; the quote integration is a little better (though it deteriorates towards the end), but the piece is certainly more cohesive and ordered in terms of the flow of information. However, there are some elements holding it back from upper-range territory. It's quite formulaic in its discussion in that almost every bit of analysis fits into a '>linking word,< the author says >quote< which has >this< effect' or a variation of such. And worse still, there are instances where it's skipping over the logic and jumping to conclusions. For instance, the piece highlights Pallister's assertion that the venues could "surely... turn a profit" and links that to the portrayal of such venues as greedy... but how do we know? There's nothing to back up that statement, and there's not enough close discussion of the language for such conclusions to feel well-supported. The use of evidence is at least matched up to meanings/effects, though the quoting of "the nanny state ambulance, the nanny state hospital, the nanny state health insurance and the nanny state justice system" hints at the fact that this student probably doesn't know how to isolate the important language very well and instead just inserts a chunk of the article into their analysis. The piece also isn't very good at linking. Each point just reads like a separate bit of analysis based on the next bit of language the student has found to analyse, and instead of making connections via ideas (eg. using words like 'Furthermore...' and 'This is also reinforced through...') the piece instead employs chronological markers like 'Later...' and 'Then...' which are much less effective. Finally, there is a noticeable repetition with vocabulary in some sections, and quite a few phrases (like 'makes readers feel...' or 'the author utilises...') should probably be swapped out for some better expressions. That said, there is a substantial amount of analysis here, and it's obvious that this student understands not only the contentions of both pieces, but the connection between the language and the argument, meaning that in spite of the flaws in the execution of this example, it'd still get a decent mid-range mark for the skills being demonstrated.


Sample 3: Upper-range
SpoilerPallister's piece draws attention to the problems in the arguments of musicians and venues by arguing that it is irrational for such establishments to be open past 1 am anyway. In particular, the author asserts that they should "surely [be able to] turn a profit closing at 1 am" where the high modality of "surely" implies that there should be no doubt in readers' minds as to the tenability of that proposal. This insinuation that the business owners are being disingenuous or are at least mistaken in their beliefs is strengthened through his facetious allusion to the "dim, distant past" of the 70's and 80's where, he explains, establishments closed at such times without complaint. Hence, through forging a link between the venues of the past who the audience can infer to have been flourishing, and the "suffering" businesses of today, the author seeks to elicit readers' derision and contempt for the "bad management" of the latter. Furthermore, by concluding his piece with a juxtaposition of what the hotels and clubs "say" - suggesting that their claims may not be honest or true - with the question of their potentially negligent business sense, Pallister encourages his audience to view the dissatisfaction with lockout laws as being unfounded or as a deflection from the real reason for business failures. Similarly, Bivell's piece also critiques those who oppose lockout laws, but where Pallister endeavours to undermine people's motivations for rejecting the laws, Bivell instead is more concerned with the hypothetical extensions of their opposition. He sarcastically supposes that those who are against the laws on the basis of them being the product of a "nanny state" must also oppose "ambulance[s ]... hospital[s ]... health insurance" and the "justice system" since they are also products of government initiatives. In this sense, Bivell aims to establish a connection between the lock out laws with notions like health insurance that functions to keep citizens safe and healthy. This aids him in propounding the idea of the laws being in the readers' best interests and implies that to oppose them would be the equivalent of rebuking ambulances or hospitals - an act which Bivell suggests to be utterly ridiculous. Moreover, by making a distinction between the people who pay for these services and the people who frequent King's Cross, the author intimates that those affected by the lock out laws are not the law-abiding, tax-paying members of society. Because readers would be more inclined to align themselves with people who do their societal duty by paying for vital services, the author's praise for these "people who don't go to King's Cross" serves to isolate and perhaps even demonise those who frequent such venues. To this end, Bivell's critique of the people opposing the laws functions as a critique of the opposition itself, and thus forms part of his endorsement of the laws as being wise and beneficial initiatives.

I've tried to make this as extensive as possible; a really high quality response in timed conditions would probably be a bit more succinct and selective than this, but hopefully you can see why the kind of clarity in the explanations here are worth far more credit than those in the mid-range example. There's a much more step-by-step discussion of how language is used to persuade which is the whole point of this task, and the vocabulary is certainly a step up from that which is used in the mid-range piece. And although this one takes a similar approach in terms of going through each piece (mostly) chronologically, the fact that it's making idea-based connections along the way means that there's a much more linear driving force, which helps the marker see that this student knows how the argument is being built up. Compare this with the more fragmented approaches above where the first two samples simply pick out devices, consider their effects, and then move on to the next device. The transition between the two pieces is simple and effective, and the quote integration is pretty much spot-on. It's not a totally perfect example since I'd argue some of the more elaborate explanations could've been simplified to allow for more discussion of quotes and language, but on the whole, it's fulfilling the task criteria in a very clear way, which is what the assessors will be prioritising when looking to give you credit.

Anonymous:
 Is there a structure for a comparative language analysis?

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 16, 2016, 05:17:19 pm --- Is there a structure for a comparative language analysis?

--- End quote ---
There's no official 'do this structure and nothing else' option and the assessors are quite happy for you to do what works best. Since this is just a smaller exercise, we're not really emulating a whole essay structure anyway. But in general, try to analyse one piece, find a point of similarity or difference, and then transition to the next one. There's no need to go back and forth making constant comparisons at the expense of analysis, so keep it brief. The same goes when integrating visual analysis too :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page