VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 8

<< < (3/4) > >>

Anonymous:
Bumping this up!

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on April 24, 2016, 05:57:07 pm ---Liebrich mocks those who resist acknowledging climate change, suggesting such a decision would ultimately do nothing to eradicate the associated dangers. The Kingsville resident’s sombre enumerations of the effects of climate change, such as “corals bleaching” and “bush[es] burning”, confronts the audience with the potential consequences of not taking immediate action. The writer juxtaposes this with the response of those resistant to climate change which was to "stick [their] heads deeper in the sand". In doing so, the writer caustically condemns this attitude, depicting it as illogical and dangerous. To this end, she manoeuvres the reader to perceive ignoring the issue at hand will do nothing to stop it. v good :) Liebrich punctuates this with the accompanying image of a man with his head in the sand. All that can be seen in the photo is an expanse of sand and the blue sky above; in the near vicinity of the man, the audience may observe no distinctive features or signs of life. The implication is that if the audience choose to adopt a similar stance to climate change, the world as they know it will become the bland and lifeless place observed in the image. great integration and analysis of the visual She further expands on her censure of climate change resistors through the rhetorical question that closes her letter to the editor. Her question ostensibly suggests it is possible to “prohibit the media from reporting” on issues relevant to their audience, despite it being what they were supposed to do. To this end, she appeals to her audience’s reason and logic to highlight just how naïve it was present tense in this case, since you're talking about an effect (though you could also use 'how naive it would be' here since it's a hypothetical, but pres. would be fine) to ignore the issue of climate change. She thus vilifies those who refuse to acknowledge climate change as a relevant issue. Unwilling to be amongst those who are so scathingly censured by Liebrich, the audience is thus inclined to seek to distance themselves from climate change naysayers.  Therefore, she positions the audience to seek to directly confront the issue of climate change instead of paying no heed to it.

--- End quote ---

Great stuff! From your articulation of the arguments down to your close analysis of techniques, this is really solid. And those sentence structure issues seem to be virtually non-existent now, so well done on addressing those issues.

Efficiency of analysis might be a potential problem later down the track (i.e. if you're writing a paragraph and know you can analyse 7 relevant things really well, do you try and do all 7 even if it bogs down your piece, or do you skimp out and only do 4 knowing you might compromise marks you could've otherwise attained?) so you may find it useful to start plotting out essay outlines to get a feel for this balance.

But definitely keep refining these skills too since it seems like you've made significant improvements just over the past couple of weeks :)

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 25, 2016, 01:04:04 pm ---In the letter to the editor, "Please turn off alarm", Liebrich addresses that this should either be 'he addresses the cimate change dilemma' or (preferably) 'he contends that the climate change dilemma should be dealt with' because you can't say he addresses that something should be dealt with' the climate change dilemma should be dealt with and not avoided. He symbolises what do you mean by this? Is he using an alarm as a symbol? Is he associating an alarm with something else? Careful with your word choice here the "alarm" as the warning signs that indicate that climate change is approaching If you're just trying to make some general statements about the arguments for an intro, try not to quote or use language that implies you're analysing. In a sarcastic and later shift to a questioning tone, Liebrich intends the subject of climate change to portray as a serious matter to portray the subject of climate change as a serious matter.

Liebrich begins by pleading "somebody to turn off the alarm", which attempt to encourages the reader to be the person that attentive to these warning signs of climate change. Liebrich use of words "bleaching" and "burning" when describing the corals and bushes suggest that the natural environment is under destruction. This connotation of pale and fire evokes the reader's sense of alarm and fear of the green environment turning into ashes. Great foundations here, though you kind of need one more sentence at the end here to deal with why this is aiding the author's argument! Why does he want them to care for the environment? How would the fear of losing it help him support his contention?

Liebrich's piece is accompanied by accompanies his contention with an image of a man in a suit sticking his head in the sand which denotes that the authorities are denying the circumstances of climate changing and therefore, disregarding the issue of climate change. The blue sky scattered with the clouds insinuates that the authorities denial has made them become narrow-minded and thus, avoided their responsibility as protectors of the earth how so? How are the clouds conveying this idea? You might be right, but you need to show me you're right by taking me through your logic In an attempt to perceive the issue of climate change as an important matter, Liebrich depicts the dessert to be the outcome of neglecting climate change Again, you need to explain how this backs up her point. Why is the desert a bad thing? And how do you know?

Liebrich questions the reader "surely we can prohibit the media from reporting it all?",where the high modality "surely" implies that there is no doubt in the reader's mind that nobody can prevent the media from broadcasting the results of climate change. Hence okay, you're using this word 'hence' here but I'm not following your train of thought; he suggests the media will inevitably talk about climate change, therefore he makes readers confront climate change? The more specific you can be in getting from A to B, the easier it is for your assessor to give you marks :) Liebrich engenders the reader to confront the avoidance of climate change and to take action against it.

--- End quote ---

A couple of minor adjustments would make all the difference here:
- you need to spell out the connections between the language the author's using, and the overall intended effect. There were some moments where you did that well, but in other instances, you're making some leaps in logic that are a bit hard to follow. The quality of your explanations is where most of the marks are, so be careful not to just say 'The author says X. This makes readers feel Y' without explaining how and why X leads to Y.
- make sure your sentence structure prioritises clarity. Some of your expression was a little confusing or ungrammatical, and whilst that's not a huge factor in the marking scheme, it could make a fair bit of difference if your grammar prevents your assessor from understanding your point.

Other than that, you're selecting the right kind of evidence to discuss, and your use of metalanguage is very good. Keep at it! :)

Anonymous:

In a sardonic, cynical tone, Liebrich ridicules the stance of inactivity and avoidance the government has taken towards important issues in our society such as ‘corals bleaching,... bush burning,... droughts or floods,... and so on’. The feigned disinterested and flippant tone he assumes while listing these disasters implies a lack of care that the government holds towards them. This is exacerbated by the author’s mock pleads for somebody else to ‘please shut off the alarm’, revealing the government’s hesitancy in deal with the issues themselves. These examples serve to evoke emotions of outrage and incredulity in the audience towards the attitude the government has taken in regards to these problems which readers know as critically important, suggesting that they are unfit to lead the country due to this shirking of responsibility. The author reinforces these notions by including an image depicting a man in a business suit - the symbol of formality and importance- with his head buried ‘in the sand’ as he suggests the government to do themselves. This plays off the preconception of children or ostriches with little self- awareness conducting similar behaviour, and thus reveals the illogicality to the government’s actions; as if they believe that the problems will disappear, simply because they are not facing them. However to the audience, the foolishness of this image and conduct is obvious, and only further dislodges the credibility of the government in the public’s opinion. Liebrich additionally extrapolates upon this by insinuating that they are attempting to ‘prohibit the media from reporting on it all’ - hiding their shortcomings and metaphorically burying their heads in the sand- by concentrating on ‘useless coal mining’ and ‘[dismantling] scientific evidence’. To this degree, the author portrays them as dishonest, and subsequently garners further anger from readers, as the government is wasting time and resources on meaningless problems, rather than focussing on important issues such as highlighted previously.

Anonymous:
That was me above :O
Wow I totally missed the tie-in to climate change that the author was hinting at. If this is the case and my identification of his contention is misinterpreted as a result, is it a total deal breaker?
Also didn't mention how the author tries to sway the audience's opinions regarding climate change.... D:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page