VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
[2016 LA Club] Week 12
Elizawei:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on May 15, 2016, 11:17:38 am ---One bit of advice: More quoting. Like there's a whole section of your analysis (bolded) where there just isn't any quoting at all.
Talked to my English teacher extensively about this. Some assessors are super fussy and will be like "must quote" and "no quote, me no happy" (lol. no idea why in my head, English teachers sound like cavemen/cavewomen). Easy way to combat that is to just throw in a quote every now and then as "evidence" (evidence isn't the right word here, I know that but I can't for the life of me remember the word my Eng teacher used). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best imo.
Overall though, it's a really good piece. There's some solid analysis going on and it looks like you've got a pretty solid understanding of the task at hand. Soooo... good job! :D
--- End quote ---
Ahhh thanks for the feedback! :D
But my teacher says that if I quote something, I'll then have to add in 2-3 sentences about it's purpose in the text and it's appeals/and how it positions the audience. Do I have to do that?
Hehe "no quote me no happy" is great :D I'll remember that for next time :)
Thanks again HLS!
Sorry I suck at giving feedback to other people but I think your piece was great ;D you have really sophisticated language 8)
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: Elizawei on May 15, 2016, 02:57:00 pm ---But my teacher says that if I quote something, I'll then have to add in 2-3 sentences about it's purpose in the text and it's appeals/and how it positions the audience. Do I have to do that?
--- End quote ---
You're definitely right in that your essay can't solely consist of quotes from the text, otherwise there'd be little room for analysis. But it's all about striking a balance - if you only have, say, two quotes in a paragraph and you spend the rest of that time going through the purpose/appeals/positioning, then you won't be covering enough of the material. And if you don't mention anything about purpose/appeals/positioning, then you're not analysing :P
I'm in favour of erring on the side of deep rather than broad analysis, and if you're able to showcase a really intricate understanding of how a few techniques/language devices are being used to persuade, you'll probably do better than someone who's crammed in references to a dozen devices at the expense of analysis.
HOWEVER, it's not like quoting and analysing are that far apart. You can write sentences that combine the two very easily, and for the majority of your paragraph, you can use evidence to back up your assertions about the author's purpose/appeals/positioning.
To take your example:
--- Quote ---With the use of ethos based evidence, quote? Shorten lends credibility to his argument that the new budget outline is unjust to low income earners. Demonstrating how a working mother with two children would be nearly five thousand dollars worse off due to the new budget quote? and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, quote? Shorten stresses the absurdity of the Liberal Party’s proposal. This not only invites those who sympathise with the mother to agree with Shorten’s point of view, but also appeals to the audience’s financial insecurity by placing a tangible value on the hypothetical losses the budget may bring.
Using statistical evidence quote? Shorten also reasons that majority of Australians will not benefit from the budget outline, instilling alarm to the audience whilst condemning the actions of the current party. Suggesting that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems, quote? Shorten emphasises the imbecility of the current government and clarifies for the audience that essentially the budget plan may lead to the decay of public services.
--- End quote ---
The reason why quotes would help in some of these cases is that your assertions don't seem to be coming directly from the article. If you say something like "[the author suggests] that the vast majority of the Australians will be negatively impacted by the budget proposal and the cuts that will be made to public social systems," it'd help to have at least a word or phrase from the piece to back yourself up. That's not true of every sentence, but it's true of most of them here.
Don't lose sight of the importance of the purpose/appeals/positioning stuff; just make sure you use quotes to substantiate that analysis :)
HopefulLawStudent:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on May 14, 2016, 08:44:16 am ---Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.
Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.
--
Thoughts?
--- End quote ---
Bump. Could I pretty please have some feedback, if possible?
FallingStar:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on May 14, 2016, 08:44:16 am ---Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes. Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners.
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverges from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishesing his disappointment and despair. Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment this government is lacking.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party.
Thus, Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters.
--
Thoughts?
--- End quote ---
To be honest, I actually think your piece should be left to the moderators (either Lauren or Heidi) to mark. This is actually beyond the level that I'm at in English.
A few minor grammatical mistakes. Hopefully shouldn't be too much of an issue.
You were very clear in you what, how and whys of the techniques. Perhaps you could add in how readers may react to his depiction of the budget as being unfair. Also, you may add in the appeals in his speech, though this may not be as necessary given the exceptional quality of your work.
I'd use the appeal to fairness, and perhaps hip pocket nerves. If you were to use these however, you will need to explain the effects of them on the readers.
As Lauren probably mentioned, no technique is compulsory, and you will only have time to mention a limited number of techniques in the exam, so I do suggest you (and other English students on AN including myself ;)) to pick the techniques that they can analyse most effectively. It does depend, as some students would find it easier to analyse easier than others.
literally lauren:
--- Quote from: HopefulLawStudent on May 14, 2016, 08:44:16 am ---Bill Shorten’s speech was in reply to the Australian government’s proposed major cuts and expenditures in the 2016 budget. Therein, he emphatically denounces the changes as he seeks to establish that the average constituent had the most to lose from the government’s proposed changes try and incorporate background info into a sentence about the contention, ofr efficiency's sake (i.e. rather than having to say (1)This piece was a response to this event. + (2)The author contended that... you can just say 'The piece in response to this event contended...' or 'In his piece responding to this event, author Whateverhisnameis contends that...'). Appealing to this audience of voters, he thus presents himself, and his party, as the preferred alternative by implying that unlike the government, Shorten would champion new measures that would be in the best interests of his listeners. nice summation of his overall point
From the outset of his speech, Shorten portrays the proposed changes as anticlimactic and disappointing; therein, he and delivers an implicit criticism that the Liberal party has failed to meet expectations during their tenure as the Australian government. His enumerations in which he details all of the events leading up to the release of the budget, including “seven months of waiting… ruling in [and] great expectation”, mirrors the apprehension and excitement that surrounded this announcement. When coupled with the anaphora of “after”, Shorten amplifies the tension of the listener as he seems to be building up to a zenith in which he would suggest all the “apprehension and great expectation” leading up the budget was merited. Thus, that he should diverge from his anticipated point of discussion to anticlimactically decree that “this budget has fallen apart in 48 hours” establishes his disappointment and despair v.good cumulative analysis :) Shorten employs tricolon in depicting “this budget, this Prime Minister and this government” as synonymous. Therein, he establishes this proposal as indicative of this government’s failures, insinuating that this is ultimately only once instance in which the Liberal party had neglected to meet the expectations of the audience of its constituents. Therefore, Shorten manoeuvres his audience to emulate his dissatisfaction for the budget and Liberal party and thereby embrace his implicit assessment thatthis government is lacking final point is a bit muted; it seems like you were going to build out to the idea that by positioning the budget as a failure and associating it with the party & Turnbull, the author's also eliciting contempt and dissatisfaction with the Libs and their leader. That might be a stronger point than to simply say that the govt. is "lacking," which could be seen as a bit general.
Appealing to the morality of his listeners and their perception that everyone is entitled to uniform treatment, irrespective of the class, Shorten reduces the budget to one that unduly favoured careful with tense the rich. He personalises the budget through his analogy of a “working mom” who, through the budget would ultimately be “$4 700… worse off”. To this end, the Opposition leader conveys that the victims of this budget and those with the most to lose from these proposals would be ordinary constituents who he implies could not afford to be as much as “$4 700… worse off”. He encourages his listeners to identify with the “working mom” how so? You wouldn't necessarily have to spell that out here, since your other analysis is sufficient, but it's worth thinking about the ways in which the author encourages or establishes such things to position them to conclude they too would be at a disadvantage if the proposed budget were to be passed. Shorten contrasts ordinary constituents such as “working moms” with “someone on a million dollars [who] will be $17 000 better off”. This juxtaposition bolsters his scathing criticism of the Australian government through the implication that they are unfairly favouring a microcosm of society that, unlike the “working moms” of Australia could have afforded to be “worse off”. Shorten’s posits “3/4 of Australian[s ] will receive no tax relief” further emphasises the magnitude of the Liberal government’s failures through the intimation they had become removed from their voters and their best interests. His pronouncement clarifies the notion that only a select privileged few stand to gain anything from the budget and that the majority will be “worse off”. His unequivocal and absolute delivery of his decree leaves no room in the listener’s mind for doubt that the Liberal government had failed them. His derisive enumerations regarding “cuts to schools, hospitals, medicare and family support” outlined in the budget enhances the audience’s view that that the Liberal government is one that does not care or advocate for their voters and their best interests. watch out for repeated sentence structures (His... His... His...) To this end, Shorten inculcates his audience with the perception that continued support for this government is akin to the continued support of a party that will not hesitate to augment the suffering of those who are already disadvantaged. To this end, ditto here with 'To this end...' the opposition leader perpetuates the notion that the Liberal party neither care nor actively advocate for the best interests of their voters. This evokes the indignation and ire of the audience who are therefore manoeuvred to conclude the Liberal government has failed to do the job they were voted in to do – to represent their voters. Therein, the speaker polarises his readers from this government, thereby reducing their support of the Liberal party. concluding sentences are a bit prolific here (i.e. this zooming out seems to take four or five sentences where two or three should suffice), but clarity matters more and the content of your how/why statements is excellent.
Thus, try not to begin a paragraph with this. 'Thus' is a great closer; not such a great opener Shorten diminishes the budget as one which will ultimately be to the disadvantage of the majority of constituents. Through his implication the Liberal government had misdirected taxpayer money to favour a privileged minority, the speaker intimates the shortcomings of the budget simply reflect the failure of the government that had proposed it. The speaker thus seeks to capitalise on their listener’s malcontent and anger regarding the budget to alienate them from the Liberal party while simultaneously presenting the Labor party as a preferred alternative that will not hesitate to champion the rights and interests of their voters. v. good link to the overall intent
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version