VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 3
Anonymous:
Thank you so much ;) :)
Anonymous:
Hi Lauren,
Can you please post a guide to writing comparative language analysis essays? If there is already a good one, can you please link it somewhere in the LA club (or any other appropriate area). I do feel like that everyone struggles in this area (including me).
Thanks.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on March 18, 2016, 12:35:28 pm ---Hi Lauren,
Can you please post a guide to writing comparative language analysis essays? If there is already a good one, can you please link it somewhere in the LA club (or any other appropriate area). I do feel like that everyone struggles in this area (including me).
Thanks.
--- End quote ---
Some bits and pieces here and especially here but unfortunately the breadth of potential 'comparative tasks' means it's hard to write a guide that covers all bases. Like, a comparative task could be three huge editorials each with different contentions, or it could be like the 2014/15 exams where it's one main piece and a comment/response, OR it could be like the waking nightmare that was the 2011 exam with one main piece and four comments -.-
I'll probably post a general guide soon so that people have something to refer to, but it may not be 100% relevant for your SACs since I don't know what material your school will be giving you.
There'll definitely be more guides and resources happening on this board though... including one to help you with the Week 4 material :) & requests are more than welcome if people have areas of L.A. that they'd like some help in :)
Anonymous:
Guess I’ll be the first one to tackle this huh? :)
Just wanted to also say I really appreciate all the effort you guys have been putting into this! I lurked a bit in the old Letter to the Editor thread when I found it, but never posted any of my language analysis pieces because it was in that really weird completely inactive period. So when I discovered this page, I got really excited :D
This is the first comparative piece I’ve written, although I feel like I haven't really compared them much at all xD and wow positing on this site is certainly intimidating, especially compared to Lauren’s example up there :O To be honest I’m not very happy with it but figured might as well post it anyway.
I had sacs the past week so I’ve only been able to write this now, but definitely planning to revisit week one and two as well! And occasionally pop whenever I have some spare time in the future maybe :D
SpoilerPallister opens with a rather moderate tone to introduce the issue, however this changes quite rapidly into one of disturbance as he repeatedly questions the actions of bars and hotels which oppose the lockout rules. The use of the word ‘suffering’, is in this case almost mocking, and insinuates that the parties involved are complaining about insignificant problems, leading the readers to view them as foolish or childish. Thus, the party involved may undergo a paradigm shift to avoid doing so. This notion is further extrapolated upon in the following sentence as Pallister points out that in the ‘dim, dark past’, bars were still able to thrive without complaint despite closing earlier, and leads the audience to question the reasons for why bars in the present hold ire against these laws now. Moreover, in order to further deteriorate the credibility of the opposing party in the audience’s point of view, Pallister, almost in an accusatory tone, intimates that the bars which blames the lockouts for ‘sending them broke’ are simply using the them as an excuse instead of addressing more important issues such as ‘bad management’. This cements their image of irresponsibility, and thus may lead to the audience disregarding their opposing arguments against lockout laws, while also urging the party in question to re-evaluate who they should be placing the blame upon.
Juxtaposed against this, Bivell’s arguments are presented in a much more derisive, sardonic tone, however with a similar contention. Firstly, he identifies the people who are against the lockout law as ‘those’, firmly establishing a distinction between himself and the opposing party. This prompts the audience to support his side of arguments in order to avoid being ostracized. Especially as Bivell begins to mock the opposing party’s use of the word ‘nanny state’, emphasizing their foolishness by repeatedly focussing on the image of a nanny as for the people’s safety, rather than overprotective as was initially meant, by suggesting that these laws are needed as much as the ‘hospital, … health insurance and … justice system’ which are obviously essential for society to flourish to readers. This draws the audience’s attention to the benefits of the lockouts because of these comparisons, while simultaneously degrading the reputation of the groups against them.
Marmalade:
The one above was me btw
Sry about that xD It's an issue that plagues us all
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version