Please mark: Language Analysis

[kani]

Hey guys!
Just wondering if anyone could look over my language analysis piece and give some feedback?
Thanks!!



2013 VATE English Exam: Section C

The development of urban infrastructure has long been a contentious issue within communities, further provoked by recent developments in outer-suburban areas. In his article to ‘City Weekly’, Rod Urban urges readers to rile against new suburban estates, and instead to pursue inner-city living. In contrast, Alfred Sylvan rebukes this notion by reiterating the benefits of suburban living and painting the inner city to be an undesirable residence. The advertisement featuring in the magazine, meanwhile, accentuates the commercial agenda that underpins both articles.

Rod Urban’s article is underpinned by an enveloping sense of community pride. Beginning his piece by applauding the ‘resilience’ of Australia’s economy, he ingratiates himself with his readership, indirectly eulogising them through alluding to their efforts in contribution to the economy with the inclusive pronouns “our” and “we”. The repetitive use of the words “great”, “proud” and “pride” elicits a sense of collective pride within readers, Urban evoking a desire for readers to contribute to Melbourne’s future “greatness”. The positive connotations that proliferate through the beginning and ending of his article – “pleasant”, “inspiring, exciting” – paint a portrait of a blooming utopia, Urban asserting his vision as one that will allow all to share a “vibrant”, distinctively Melbournian “café lifestyle”. The melodic repetition of “high-class, high-rise” further accentuate the aesthetics of such a vision. Appealing to his readership’s desire to share in the city’s local “pride” and new “greatness”, Urban spurs them to support his own agenda to build “more great buildings”, one that is undoubtedly fuelled by his own commercial role at Zenith Construction.

Simultaneous, Urban discourages his readership to pursue suburban lifestyles by depicting such notions in a damning light. The magnanimous tenor of the beginning of his writing is overturned by the alarmist assertions that he later presents, declaring the “urban sprawl” of Melbourne as unequivocally “ugly” and portraying the estates as crude establishments with “mosquito-infested bogs” that create traffic “choking up” freeways. The pervasiveness of dysphemisms, as well as the poignant “suffering” of the personified “middle-aged” Melbourne, serve to imbue fear within Urban’s readership, which he then channels into resent against the antagonised “they”, the companies constructing the estates. Having already been encompassed into the notion of a “great” Melbourne, readers are horrified by the “random”, “unnecessarily large” estates that “waste” land, and Urban further piques his readership with the despondent imagery of “mourning families” of “young people” sacrificed to the lack of “decent roads”. Appealing to humanitarian instincts as well as a deeply personalised concern for the economic development of Melbourne, Urban firmly asserts the need for “sensible” city planning, readers being compelled to align with his agenda, lest they fall alongside the despised “selfish indulgence of… pseudo city-dwellers”.

Alfred Sylvan’s response to Urban’s article, meanwhile, provides a stark juxtaposition, defending Greenwich Green and similar communities against Urban’s attacks. Framing his piece with a scathing voice, Sylvan overturns Urban’s utopian vision of Melbourne with the parrhesia of its “crime-filled centre”, frightening his readership with hyperbolic description of “a mouth full of grit and petrol” and the dystopian imagery of “gasping for a bit space and fresh air”. The satirised notion of “high-rise high schools”, whilst eliciting a wry grin from his readers, serves to portray an insipid world in which community activities such as “footy”, “barbeques” and “backyard cricket” are replaced by “blind” “stares” and “cramming people… on top of each other”. Sylvan further appeals to the financial concerns of his readership, bitterly antagonising the faux politeness of “Mr Urban” with his privileged “luxury apartments” opposite to the “richness and diversity” of the rest of Melbourne. Continuously reiterating the notion of being unable “to afford” such luxury, Sylvan aligns himself alongside “many others” who “work hard” simply “to put bread on the table”, echoing the sentiments of many middle- and lower-class readers who would be unable to sustain Urban’s proposed ‘city living’. Describing his own opinion and values as “enlightened” and Urban as an aloof elite who “does not seem to understand”, Sylvan urges his readership to stand alongside himself, against the threat to individuals’ “right to choose” a place of residence.

The advertisement that features below Sylvan’s article serves to accentuate the intrinsic commercial nature of the debate. A bright, sprawling panorama of the landscape, the image provides a romanticised vision of the “community” living that Sylvan endorses. The smiling faces of the couple, as well as the playing children and the family at the barbeque, appeal to the deeply imbued desire for community and belonging within the reader, characterising a residence of happiness and enjoyment. The vast openness of the picture alludes to the spacious nature of such residences, as opposed to the “shoebox”-sized city apartments, further affirming Sylvan’s assertions. The bright colour palette presents a pleasant portrait to the viewer, and the lake and trees embody the ‘natural’ atmosphere of such estates compared to the ersatz buildings of the city. The large price tag, meanwhile, underpins the nature of the image as a commercial advertisement, its clever placement under an article promoting suburban living being a conscious effort in appealing to potential customers.

The articles and advertisement publishment in ‘City Living’, whilst promoting diametric lifestyles, foster the same intent in promoting a commercial agenda. In presenting such starkly opposing views, it is likely that the pieces would have generated much community debate at the time of their publication.

(887 words, 15min+60min)