VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 2

(1/4) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:
Background: Written in response to government's announcement that they intend to introduce an English proficiency test for anyone seeking Australian citizenship.

Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?

The majority of people come here on student visas. Prior to jetting off to Australia, and in order to get into university, they have to pass the International English Language Testing System. After graduating, they again have to do that test for their permanent residency visa application. Although English is not my mother tongue, I support the current policy. However, the proposed new rule says that no matter how many degrees these people have, from Australia or elsewhere, they will still need to do the same English test. I am sceptical about how the government will enshrine its proposed illogical rules. I cannot understand why it has no alternative provision for people who have been working and studying well for over a decade in an English-speaking environment. I am baffled at what it means by proficiency in writing, speaking, reading, and listening.

I have been here for donkeys' years and I have witnessed how many young Australians are extremely poor spellers. (I remember people in the hospitality sector frequently asking me how to spell words like "cucumber" and "zucchini".) This new policy will only serve the country's vested political-interests, not the sacred morality upon which multiculturalism exists.

If a person is confident and competent in general conversation, they should be regarded in the same way as native English speakers. The new test should only be mandatory for those who did not come here on student visas.

- Shiva Neupane, Kensington

---

NOTE: To post in this thread, you'll first need to register an ATAR Notes account. It's free, and should take like four seconds! Then, just scroll down to the bottom of this thread, and ask your questions in the "Quick Reply" box, as shown below. :)

Anonymous:
i honestly have no idea what the contention is  :-\
i'll give it a go or else i won't have anything to write on lol  :P
so neupane's saying that the government should test those seeking an australian citizenship according to their fluency in English, rather than adopting a blanket approach with this test (?)
I don't understand her reasoning though?? e.g. how does talking about the cucumber and zucchini add to her argument?

Anonymous:
Please correct it as harshly as you can!!
And if you could give me some tips, on where I can improve. THAANK YOU!!  ;D ;D

Shiva Neupane’s opinion piece to the government’s announcement of an English proficiency test, “Why the broad-brush approach?” contends that the English proficiency testing is redundant and should not be compulsory. Neupane’s tone is logical and reasonable, making the reader easily comply and understand the argument against the addition of the test. This opinion piece is tailored towards Australian citizens who read replies to political topics.

With the inclusion of the “International English Language Testing System”, it makes the readers believe in Neupane, as the author sounds knowledgeable of the process to enrol in an Australian university. Therefore being able to understand the redundancy of the additional English Proficiency test. That if, the students can pass an English University test, it must definitely implies that these students have the capability to speak, read, listen and write in English. Furthermore, by declaring “no matter how many degrees” the person has, Neupane emphasises the illogical implication of the test, and how it generalises the international students with immigrants and refugees with no english speaking background. This implication gives the readers a perspective of the scope of the test, and makes it sound completely unnecessary test to international students.

Neupane also argues that the test does not advantage visa holders to accustom to Australian living,  because many young Australians are incompetent english speakers, readers, writers, whom did not need to sit the test. The reader would feel as though the test is unfair to the applying english competent citizens, because even Australian citizens who have the citizenship and live in Australia, can’t even speak their own mother tongue. He includes anecdotal evidence of Neupane’s own experience with Australian citizens, where they “frequently” asked how to spell simple, everyday words. The inclusion of Neupane’s experience enables the reader to see the very common situations that occur in Australia, positioning the reader to feel disappointed and to agree that a test for english competence is not necessary to fit in and live in the Australian society.

zhen:
The government's recent proposition to enforce a English proficiency test for those seeking an Australian citizenship has been placed under the scrutiny of the media. Shiva Neupane's letter to the editor "Why the unfair broad-brush approach?" logically contends that these proposed changes are not only superfluous in nature, but also undermine the morals of Australia.

Neupane commences her argument by establishing that students entering the country are required to "pass the International English Language Testing System", alluding to the notion that this English proficiency test is redundant as many people seeking an Australian citizenship have already completed the adequate testing necessary to establish their proficiency in English. This hence positions the reader to view this English proficiency test as a waste of time and resources. Furthermore, through labelling these changes as "illogical", which has connotations of ignorance, Neupane subtly mounts her attack on the government by insinuating that their decision is insensible. Neupane further reinforces her argument, through stressing the fact that those who have been "working and studying" in an English speaking environment are not exempt from this test. Through this, Neupane exposes the faults of the proposed rules, as this system will squander the time of those who have displayed competency in the English language, thereby manouvring the readers to view this proposed test as flawed.

The writer progresses her argument by underscoring that numerous young Australians are "poor spellers". This emphasises the idea that aspects of a person's English ability which is commonly associated with tests, such as spelling, may not necessarily be an indication of their ability to live in Australia. This implies that those who may not be deemed as proficient in English according to tests, may in fact be able to live and communicate in English speaking countries, therefore prompting the reader to call into question the validity of these tests.

Neupane highlights that these tests does not serve the "sacred morality", which connotes justice, but rather serves "vested political interests", which has implications of greed and selfishness. Through juxtaposing these two diametric concepts, Neupane endeavours to demonise these proposed tests and protray them as the embodiment of egocentric behaviour. This compels the reader to perceive these tests as tools for politicians to further their selfish agendas.

I'll correct someone else's work later, since I'm feeling lazy right now  :P and it took every bit of motivation I had to write this up after having a bad methods SAC today.

zhen:

--- Quote from: remi on May 17, 2017, 07:29:25 pm ---My attempt:

In the letter to the editor "Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?", Shira Neupane argues against be more specific on what her actual contention is the government's recent proposal to introduce a mandatory English test to gain citizenship.

Signposting her lower proficiency in English as it "is not [her] mother tongue", Neupane establishes herself as a foreigner within Australia, and at the very least disadvantaged by this difference from the common citizen. This not only incline readers into supporting her assertions whatever they are phrasing weird here, out of sympathy and social responsibility to help those handicapped, but also leads them to infer that she would be against any form of English testing This doesn't help her case, as it portrays her as biased, so it shouldn't be mentioned . However, in contradiction, she highlights that "I support the current policy". This shock backing of the testing, which is only strengthened by the vehemence implied by the direct language of active voice, underscores the necessity and great merit of the tests as even those who might feel uncomfortable them are supportive. I feel like you misinterpreted the letter here, as I felt like she supported the current system which didn't have mandatory testing for everyone. Use of the word "current" however directs this praise exclusively to the current system, and subtly implies that the newly proposed alternative is lacking of the merit that warrants such commendation. I feel like this is an extremely minor point and is blown out of proportion. I feel like you should spend more time analysing the important stuff, rather than what I would say was a really unimportant quote. Neupane then affirms this criticism as she asserts that the potential mandatory tests will be unfair towards those who only "work...and study", I think you should unpack this more, since you provide little explanation, then jump right into the intended effect on the audience contributing nothing but good to the community. Audiences are in turn positioned to oppose the testing changes out of gratitude for these contributions, and anger that it unfairly disadvantages individuals who are clearly undeserving of so. Good analysis Neupane builds on this anger as she then insinuates, through stating that the proposed tests will benefit "only" some, that the proposals are with elitist interests at heart. Provoked that those who are already well off are receiving these benefits, this appeals to audience's sense of fairness, in that those disadvantaged should receive charity over those advantaged. Hence, they are positioned to oppose such proposals that facilitate such injustice. Good analysis
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page