VCE Stuff > VCE English Language
VCE English Language Question Thread
EulerFan102:
--- Quote from: riptomysanity on July 06, 2021, 04:35:22 pm ---hi all,
could anyone explain what deference and disfluency are??? i know they're not on the study design, but my teacher wants us to know what they are anyway - despite never having taught us what they are in the first place or mentioning these terms in ANY ppts or other resources... ::)
--- End quote ---
Okay, so I'll give my thoughts here but I'd strongly recommend checking in with your teacher and getting their thoughts on what deference and disfluency are.
Deference is a way of behaving that shows respect to whoever you're speaking to. I think it would most closely relate to the EngLang concept of face needs, particularly maintaining a speaker's negative face needs. For example, if a police officer pulls you over and addresses you as "sir", they are showing a level of respect to you (deference) by respecting your boundaries (negative face needs).
A disfluency is a break or interruption to an utterance. The term on the VCAA Study Design that we'd use instead is non-fluency feature, and VCAA lists a bunch of non-fluency features on the Study Design: stuff like pauses, pause fillers, false starts and repairs. Keep in mind that the name 'disfluency' or 'non-fluency feature' is a bit of a bad name because these features occur all the time in normal speech and we don't really notice them, so they often won't make speech that much less fluent.
Texyrialed:
Hi all,
My English Language teacher told us that if we want to talk about phonetics in our expository essay, we'd need to use the IPA. However, in all the high-scoring/exemplar essays that I've read that mentions pronunciations of words in, I've never come across one that has any IPA symbols in it, just how one would write it out (e.g. 'parsta' vs 'pasta'), which leads me to my question;
Do we reaaally need to use the IPA in our essays or is spelling it out acceptable?
Thanks guys,
-Riley
EulerFan102:
--- Quote from: Texyrialed on July 13, 2021, 10:35:17 pm ---Hi all,
My English Language teacher told us that if we want to talk about phonetics in our expository essay, we'd need to use the IPA. However, in all the high-scoring/exemplar essays that I've read that mentions pronunciations of words in, I've never come across one that has any IPA symbols in it, just how one would write it out (e.g. 'parsta' vs 'pasta'), which leads me to my question;
Do we reaaally need to use the IPA in our essays or is spelling it out acceptable?
Thanks guys,
-Riley
--- End quote ---
Hey! Good question!
Short answer: I agree with your teacher.
Much longer answer:
So let's first have a look at what VCAA say they want you to know. They say that students should have an "an awareness of the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and the phonetic transcription of Australian English" (Study Design, p. 17, link here). What exactly an "awareness" of the IPA is has never really been super clear: the IPA has never been (and, I think, will never be) directly assessed on the exam. The reason is that the IPA is just too complicated, with just too many symbols for anyone to bother remembering. So you'll never see an exam question expecting you to know and use any IPA symbols.
So what's the point of having IPA on the Study Design then? Well, using IPA symbols is a good way to try and show off your linguistic expertise in an essay. Anytime your example is related to phonetics (e.g. variation in the Australian accent, features of a particular ethnolect), you can flex your EngLang prowess with some accompanying IPA symbols. For example, I went into the exam with some memorised IPA symbols relating to the diphthongisation of the broad accent.
Remember that the IPA was invented to make it really easy for linguists to describe sounds. So instead of writing "pasta" or "parsta", with the IPA symbols /pastə/, linguists can precisely describing each phoneme in a word. (This notation of the slashes is the conventional way to present IPA symbols.) If you're wanting to find the IPA representation of a word, most online dictionaries have IPA for each entry. Other good resources include interactive IPA charts (like this one) and these Australian-specific resources on vowel and consonant sounds.
Sathu:
hey guys,
I am in year 10 and I would like to know if english is my strong suit and if it is, I'll probs do eng lit. I have attached my argument analysis that i wrote earlier in the year, please feel free to let me know.
Through the countless debates and solutions proposed to prevent the heavy road toll, Johnathan Sprinter puts forth his take on the issue. In his letter to the editor, ‘P – Plate extensions Overdue’, Sprinter confidently claims that extending a 7- year restriction on p – platers, is the answer to the ongoing conundrum. The author appeals to the general public – more specifically, anyone who has the qualifications to drive. By doing so, his desperate need to have a large crowd on his side is evident.
From the outset, the author highlights the necessity of a 7-year restriction, by linking it to one of the most widespread causes of road accidents – drink driving. Sprinter introduces his viewpoint and the expectation he has towards the reader by posing a rhetorical question ‘If there was just one solution to prevent the heavy road toll... isn’t worth a try?’ This influences the reader to subconsciously agree with Sprinter’s question and therefore, formulate opinions that most likely support his contention. Moreover, Sprinter’s reference to the assistant commissioner of traffic control, not only makes his arguments seem more credible but also, creates a tone of seriousness within the reader, further advocating the importance of the matter at hand. Overall, Sprinter uses drink driving to attract the reader’s attention, simultaneously, underlining the need for an extension.
In the body, the author criticizes the irresponsible nature of p-plate drivers, continuously emphasizing the instability they hold. ‘Such irresponsible drivers… destroy their own lives (and) the lives of their families’. Sprinter paints a view that p-platers are a threat to not only themselves but also the lives of others, thus, positioning the readers to see p-platers as something dangerous. Building on this, Sprinter uses expert evidence from Professor Barton, a neurosurgeon at Coolabar Hospital, to state that ‘young adults are more likely make poor-split-second decisions on the road… since their brains aren’t fully developed’, the author denigrates the capabilities of p-plater drivers and portrays them as unstable. Further, influencing the reader to devalue p-platers as a subject. In a similar manner, Sprinter discloses an incident involving Emma Richardson- a teenage p-plater, who crashed her car after partying all night. The account of Emma severs as a closing evidence to proving Sprinter’s argument, where he once again, reinforces the idea that, p-platers are reckless and unstable. Essentially, Sprinter depicts p-platers in a negative light, in the hopes of the reader agreeing with him and therefore supporting the necessity of an extension.
In the closing, the author emphasis the urgency in taking measures by further disparaging p-plate drivers. Sprinter appeals for action by showcasing what Sweden - a highly sustainable and technically advanced country, has achieved by reducing their alcohol levels. ‘… lowering the alcohol levels from 0.5 to 0.2 Sweden registered a distinct decrease in fatal accidents.’ Sprinter invites the reader to visualize the potential outcome of a 7-year restriction, as well as, emphasizing the moral responsibility the readers hold to minimize ‘drink driving tragedies. ’This is accompanied by the author’s tonal shift from logical to undermining as he claims, ‘this mix (alcohol and drink driving) can be particularly fatal for young adults’ Although, some might interpret this as Sprinter feeling cautious for young adults, he’s in fact, reinforcing the idea that p-platers are irresponsible. Backing up on this, the imagery with a severely damaged car, strengthens his argument and therefore, compelling the audience to side in favor with Sprinter. The author concludes with a rhetorical question ‘Isn’t worth a try?’, which fosters the idea of unification, as if Sprinter is directly asking the reader to join forces with him, which in result, may make the reader more inclined, to respond to his call for action. Ultimately, the author appeals for action by portraying himself as the more sensible option.
Harrycc3000:
--- Quote from: Sathu on August 19, 2021, 12:56:14 am ---hey guys,
I am in year 10 and I would like to know if english is my strong suit and if it is, I'll probs do eng lit. I have attached my argument analysis that i wrote earlier in the year, please feel free to let me know.
Through the countless debates and solutions proposed to prevent the heavy road toll, Johnathan Sprinter puts forth his take on the issue. In his letter to the editor, ‘P – Plate extensions Overdue’, Sprinter confidently claims that extending a 7- year restriction on p – platers, is the answer to the ongoing conundrum. The author appeals to the general public – more specifically, anyone who has the qualifications to drive. By doing so, his desperate need to have a large crowd on his side is evident.
From the outset, the author highlights the necessity of a 7-year restriction, by linking it to one of the most widespread causes of road accidents – drink driving. Sprinter introduces his viewpoint and the expectation he has towards the reader by posing a rhetorical question ‘If there was just one solution to prevent the heavy road toll... isn’t worth a try?’ This influences the reader to subconsciously agree with Sprinter’s question and therefore, formulate opinions that most likely support his contention. Moreover, Sprinter’s reference to the assistant commissioner of traffic control, not only makes his arguments seem more credible but also, creates a tone of seriousness within the reader, further advocating the importance of the matter at hand. Overall, Sprinter uses drink driving to attract the reader’s attention, simultaneously, underlining the need for an extension.
In the body, the author criticizes the irresponsible nature of p-plate drivers, continuously emphasizing the instability they hold. ‘Such irresponsible drivers… destroy their own lives (and) the lives of their families’. Sprinter paints a view that p-platers are a threat to not only themselves but also the lives of others, thus, positioning the readers to see p-platers as something dangerous. Building on this, Sprinter uses expert evidence from Professor Barton, a neurosurgeon at Coolabar Hospital, to state that ‘young adults are more likely make poor-split-second decisions on the road… since their brains aren’t fully developed’, the author denigrates the capabilities of p-plater drivers and portrays them as unstable. Further, influencing the reader to devalue p-platers as a subject. In a similar manner, Sprinter discloses an incident involving Emma Richardson- a teenage p-plater, who crashed her car after partying all night. The account of Emma severs as a closing evidence to proving Sprinter’s argument, where he once again, reinforces the idea that, p-platers are reckless and unstable. Essentially, Sprinter depicts p-platers in a negative light, in the hopes of the reader agreeing with him and therefore supporting the necessity of an extension.
In the closing, the author emphasis the urgency in taking measures by further disparaging p-plate drivers. Sprinter appeals for action by showcasing what Sweden - a highly sustainable and technically advanced country, has achieved by reducing their alcohol levels. ‘… lowering the alcohol levels from 0.5 to 0.2 Sweden registered a distinct decrease in fatal accidents.’ Sprinter invites the reader to visualize the potential outcome of a 7-year restriction, as well as, emphasizing the moral responsibility the readers hold to minimize ‘drink driving tragedies. ’This is accompanied by the author’s tonal shift from logical to undermining as he claims, ‘this mix (alcohol and drink driving) can be particularly fatal for young adults’ Although, some might interpret this as Sprinter feeling cautious for young adults, he’s in fact, reinforcing the idea that p-platers are irresponsible. Backing up on this, the imagery with a severely damaged car, strengthens his argument and therefore, compelling the audience to side in favor with Sprinter. The author concludes with a rhetorical question ‘Isn’t worth a try?’, which fosters the idea of unification, as if Sprinter is directly asking the reader to join forces with him, which in result, may make the reader more inclined, to respond to his call for action. Ultimately, the author appeals for action by portraying himself as the more sensible option.
--- End quote ---
Hey, I think you sent this to the wrong thread. This is the English Language VCE thread which doesn't do analysis like this and this thread probably can't give you advice on literature. May be better to go ask on the English thread or the literature thread :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version