VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

[2016 LA Club] Week 22

<< < (2/2)

literally lauren:

--- Quote from: Adequace on September 08, 2016, 06:01:10 pm ---In an aggressive and critical tone, Keith Burrows states that Malcolm Turnbull's decision of "turning his back" on renewable sources of energy is harming the world. Readers are thus overwhelmed in anger as this phrase suggests that authoritative figures in Australia multiple authority figures? Or just Turnbull? are apathetic towards the environment we live in and are purposely allowing it to continue to deteriorate. He compounds this anger by suggesting that Turnbull is "telling the world that Australia" is not interested in "safe renewable energy", thereby leaving readers in guilt as they are now subjected to criticism and mockery by international communities for electing such an individual to lead Australia how do you know? You might be right, but at the moment, there's not enough discussion of the language in the piece to warrant this conclusion. Fundamentally, Burrow labels the government as people "who can't see beyond the immediate dollar signs", provoking the readers to riot might be taking it a bit far o.O try to focus on what the author is making them think/feel/believe rather than the actual actions the author wants to provoke/incite and protest against the government's selfishness of wanting to increase their wealth, but to instead focus on the preserving the environment we live in and the longevity of this country good stuff here - be sure to spell out your workings when talking about the effect, and always focus on the psychological manipulation (e.g. the author aims to position the government as greedy and elicit readers' contempt) rather than the manipulation of behaviour or action (e.g. the author encourages readers to vote against Turnbull and go egg his house) :P.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: janet.maylin on September 10, 2016, 11:42:18 pm ---Keith Burrows asserts through a hostile and assertive tone that Malcolm Turnbull's latest decision to cut funding from the Australian Renewable Energy is not only illogical but has harmful environmental ramifications in the long term. In presenting Malcolm as hypocritical and selfish, Burrows seeks to portray him in a harsh and unflattering light. In stating that Malcolm is 'turning his back', readers whenever you're beginning a sentence with 'In doing this' or 'By doing this,' you usually need to have the author next, because they're the one doing the thing...

For example:
'By highlighting the suffering of innocent people, readers sympathise with the victims of this tragedy.'

^in that sentence, who's doing the highlighting? Because at the moment, it sounds like the readers are ???
Instead, you'd want to say 'By highlighting the suffering of innocent people, the author seeks to elicit readers' sympathies for the victims of this tragedy.'

Does that make sense?

...are positioned to feel angered, as the connotations that arise from these words tell of a deliberate ignorance. This, coupled with the fact that this innovation 'important', words missing here? this expression is a bit unclear is designed to elicit disgust from the readers as Burrows insinuates that our very own prime minister this won't come up in the exam, but always capitalise the P and the M for Prime Minister is not acting in the best interests of the nation. Additionally, in describing Australia as the 'world's best chance', Burrows points out the illogicity lack of logic/ senselessness in not joining a scheme that would be relatively easy for us to adopt, when others have; the fact that we have 'vast energy' manipulates the readers to feel disappointed at the government for not grabbing hold of bit colloquial this missed opportunity, and perhaps to urge the government to join a scheme that will not only be easy to implement, but with benefits in the long term. some explanation of this long-term benefits and how they're portrayed might be good here, but overall, the pattern of your analysis is excellent; just keep an eye on your expression :)
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 15, 2016, 06:25:11 am ---My language analysis skills have been quite rough lately, and this is my first post on this forum (yay finally), but I hope this is not too bad...  :P

Keith Burrows uses an attacking tone to criticise Malcolm Turnbull on "turning his back" on renewable energy, suggesting its irony as the prime minister "wants to be known as an innovator." <-- how do you know it's irony? What are these quotes doing, and how do you know? You've selected the right evidence to discusss, but you'd need to show me you know how this stuff is being used to persuade readers Burrows first portrays renewable energy as "the most important innovation" to prevent the damage done by "disastrous" coal energy. Thus the readers are positioned to feel threatened by the lack of advancements for clean energy solutions, which is represented as being the only way to reduce the impact of old and harmful fossil energy. Then try and use stronger, idea-based linking words Burrows asserts that Australia does have the "scientists and the infrastructure and the wealth" to solve this epidemic, but the PM is not "interested" as shown by his cutting of "$1 billion in funding" from a future with "safe" energy. This is an appeal to the readers' sense of well-being which their own government is being "short-sighted" about, given that Australia already has the "advantage" in leading the way the develop the required technology. This generates an enraged response from the audience as they are led to perceive the PM as "ideological ratbag" who is taking their "best chance" of a safe and clean future away from them, thus coinciding with Burrows contention that the PM is indeed "no innovator." the main issue here seems to be quoting to summarise; most of the time, when you're selecting language from the material, you'd need to delve into its significance and explain the author's intention. This might be of some use :)

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Anonymous on September 25, 2016, 08:00:55 pm ---Haven't written one of these in ages so pretty dodgy, need to over structure i think

In a cynical tone, keith burrows contends that Australia must take advantage of the "infrastructure and wealth" the nation has to develop renewable energy technologies.Burrows implies that that by withdrawing "$1 billion in funding"from renewable energy, Malcolm Turnbull is not only
"turning his back on most important innovation needed this century" but turning his back on the nation okay, but how is this language implying this idea? You've come to the right conclusion, but you'd need to explain it more to get credit for this!. Burrows description of Turnbull's actions as "shortsighted" seeks to elicit cynicism in the readers, provoking them to take action against the "idealogical ratbags" blinded by "dollar signs" <-- you're not analysing any of the quotes in this sentence yet! You've integrated them really well (which is the first step that not a lot of people get past, tbh :P) but now you have to start exploring how this language is being used to persuade. This is a decent starting point, so just keep expanding your thought processes so your assessor can give you credit! :).

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page