VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 12

<< < (2/4) > >>

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: TheLlama on May 13, 2016, 09:49:13 pm ---Hi Eliza
What really strikes me about this is the thoughtfulness of the analysis. As I read your first body paragraph, I can largely follow a train of thought. In other words, I feel that you're connecting what's happening within the speech to its larger purpose. Nice!

In terms of an idea like this, it might be worth contemplating the way Shorten is seeking to polarise his listeners. By drawing the sharp divide between 'winners' and 'losers', he's creating (to borrow a phrase) metaphorical battlelines and suggesting that those most vulnerable, like single mothers, will ultimately 'suffer'. So not only is he putting the issue into perspective, but he's positioning himself as the voice of concern, a politician who will stand with and represent the vulnerable. In other words, he is inviting the reader to view him as a trustworthy figure and a source of unity, someone who will not allow the nation to 'fall apart' into a state of disunion and inequality. Taken together, it implies that the ALP is the solution to the problem.

Notice how I'm linking it back to what you wrote earlier and the reason he uses credibility/ethos-based arguments?

Hope that helps. Keep going for it!

--- End quote ---

Thank you so much for your amazing feedback!!!!! I really like how you related the "losers" to those who are vulnerable and then back to Bill Shorten :)

Elizawei:
Haha forgot to uncheck anonymous box, but really, thanks!

HopefulLawStudent:
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?

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Elizawei on May 13, 2016, 07:50:01 pm ---In the reply speech in response to the newly published budget proposals put forward by the Australian Liberal Party, Bill Shorten, the opposition leader, contends with a mocking tone that the budget outline is illogical and unjust in the way that the rich will benefit from the proposed tax cuts more so than the poor. Shorten also suggests that the vast majority of Australians will be negatively impacted by this decision and emphasises the inefficient nature of the proposed budget.

Juxtaposing the vast length of time taken for the Liberal Party to compose and refine their budget outline and the two days it took for the budget to “[fall] apart”, Shorten adopts a disappointed tone and highlights the inadequateness of the current government. Not only this underscores the inefficiency of the Liberal Party, it also serves as a denigration, positioning the audience to lose faith in the current party. The use of phrases such as “fallen apart” and “on and off the table” connotes a sense of uncertainty and hesitation, suggesting to the audience that just like its flawed budget proposal, the current government lacks the capability to lead Australia confidently.

With the use of ethos based evidence, 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 and then contrasting the positive effect the budget has on those earning a million dollars, 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, 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, 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. Connotations of the familiar terms of “winners” and “losers” puts the issue into perspective. When coupled with Shorten’s contention that most Australians would essentially be the latter as the result of the budget outline, the audience is able to realise their impending financial loss and share Shorten’s point of view.

By criticizing the various flaws and underlining the ludicrousness and unfair nature of the budget outline, Shorten seeks to demonstrate to the audience that the Liberal Party lacks the full capacity to successfully organise the national budget to an efficient and just way. Ultimately, this engenders the audience to lose faith in the current government and its budget proposal and sways them towards Shorten’s contention.


{cooked this up in a bit, I feel like my ending is a bit sloppy :| }

--- End quote ---

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

TheLlama:

--- 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.

--- End quote ---

Thank you for the preshistoric allusion to teachers! Me use big words now. :P

There exist no rules about whether you should quote or not, though you should aim to. More important is why you're quoting. For one, paraphrasing can take a look of time and, given time's in short supply on a SAC/exam, you're looking to be efficient. Here, quoting helps to condense.

Even more: it's about showing that you're able to select, connect and comment on telling quotes. In other words you're pointing to specific parts of a text that you wish to discuss and using the quotes as a springboard for that discussion. I've seen a lot of student writing that involves throwing a lot of quotes at the reader but doing very little with them. Merely throwing in a quote and doing nothing with it serves no productive goal. Much more powerful and effective if you're quoting with a purpose!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page