VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 4

(1/5) > >>

HopefulLawStudent:
We're back again for the fourth instalment of the AA Club after a short hiatus whilst I suffered through uni exams; cheers to The Raven for taking over for Week 3 with his interesting piece on university defunding! Obviously, it's not Monday but shhhhh... we'll just pretend that it is.

Next update will be Monday week. Feedback from me for the last couple of weeks will be given soon (I let the ball drop a bit there, unfortunately, but I'll get around to it very soon!!!).


--- Quote ---Background: The owners of the proposed Adani coal mine are due to make a final decision on its future after several years' delay; it was given the final approval by the Queensland state government just recently to go ahead with the mine. Concern is, however, that building it would have a disastrous effect on the environment (hellooooo, climate change!). In response to this issue, two letter to the editors were written by Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill. And because I was worried that that wasn't enough, there's also a visual this week! It's a cartoon and they're notoriously more difficult to analyse so just give it your best shot!
--- End quote ---

When a bird in the hand is not worth it

They say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But is it really worth having a job at, say, the Adani mine if those workers' children, and the rest of us, are left struggling to survive on a degraded planet, with precious little clean water to drink and no clean air to breathe? And the birds in the bush dead to boot.

Margaret Callinan, Balwyn

MPs' grandchildren not immune

Our politicians are committing a crime against humanity by supporting the Adani mine. Perhaps they believe that their children and grandchildren will be immune to the ravages of climate change! I am ashamed to be living in the Maribyrnong electorate of Bill Shorten (I was once a Labor voter). His stance on the Adani mine has been reduced to: "Me too!". Presumably he is thinking: "If I don't support Adani, I won't win the next election." But some long-term, emergency thinking is required.

Please, all politicians (leaders?): Put your ego in your back pocket and sit on it. Think of your moral responsibility and the future of humankind and the planet. Yours, ever hopefully.

Angela Gill, Moonee Ponds




Also: please keep in mind that this thread and all the other threads on this board are to be used exclusively for responses to the material given each week. If you want anything else marked, it is to be directed to the English Work Submission and Marking board here: https://atarnotes.com/forum/index.php?board=406.0

Anonymous:
It's been months since my LA SAC/the last time I thought about it, I've gotten rusty :P

---

Margaret Callinan conjures a correlation in reader's minds between the everyday banality of "having a job", and the prospect of an apocalyptic "degraded planet", which lacks even the basic human privileges of "clean water" and "air". Callinan grimly purports the ludicrousy of favouring a "job" in the wake of a consequence of such catastrophic magnitude, one that she portrays as a bringer of "[death]". Her reference to the "worker's children" encapsulates her depiction of the government's actions - adults destroying the future for their successors. Such is designed to instigate outrage and horror at the idea of our government being so wreckless as to cause detriment to the health and future of the haplessly vulnerable "children". Hence, she hopes to disincline readers from siding with the Adani approval, lest they risk being themselves considered supporters of ruined futures and a dilapidated planet.

HopefulLawStudent:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 18, 2017, 06:38:49 pm ---It's been months since my LA SAC/the last time I thought about it, I've gotten rusty :P

---

Margaret Callinan conjures a correlation in reader's minds between the everyday banality of "having a job", and the prospect of an apocalyptic "degraded planet", which lacks even the basic human privileges of "clean water" and "air"avoid quoting without analysis as much as possible as you're merely flagging missed opportunities for analysis when you do so.. So? Why does she do this?Callinan grimly purports the ludicrousy ludicrousy isn't a word; ludicrousness is the noun I think you're looking for. of favouring a "job" seems like a bit of an odd thing to quote. in the wake of a consequence of such catastrophic magnitude, one that she portrays as a bringer of "[death]". Her reference to the "worker's children" encapsulates her depiction of the government's actions - adults destroying the future for their successorsWhat do you mean by this? Seems a bit like a last minute add on but it isn't really clear how this flows on from the idea you were previously talking about within that sentence. Need to clarify the connection. . Such is designed to instigate outrage and horror at the idea of our government being so wreckless as to cause detriment to the health and future of the haplessly vulnerable "children"Is potentially too vague; specificity needed. Also "children" seems like a bit of a weird thing to quote? .... is not a sentence. Hence, she hopes to disincline readers from siding with the Adani approval, lest they risk being themselves considered supporters of ruined futures and a dilapidated planet.

--- End quote ---

Anonymous:
Hi there,
I wrote an analysis on the picture, not sure if it's any good, but would really like to get some feed back
thank you for your time.

The author uses visual persuasion to convince the audience of the wicked deeds committed by the politicians. The author displays three specific politicians that are rolling up the field and are "smoothing the covers", the author clearly attempts to make the audience feel angry and hatred towards the politicians. Moreover, the author appeals to the audience though Australia's greatest asset, The Great Barrier Reef, and links it to the well known painting of "The Scream". The painting is meant to exhibit horror and fright to the audience and make them understand the consequences of the Adani mine .The writer emphasizes death through the scream painting and the radioactivity sign on the ship that is highlighting the word "ADANI". The radioactive sign is a representation of death and danger, the author uses this iconic symbol to their advantage and elaborates the dangers of Adani. The author overall is targeting the readers national pride, the Reef and is displaying how much of a threat it is to support the politicians and the Adani mine.

again thank you for your time and sorry if there are mistakes  :(

Anonymous:
Hi, here is my analysis, but I didn't get to analyse the cartoon,
but if my analysis is too long you don't have to analyse the whole thing.
Also, would you be able to give some tips to be more selective with my analyses


The recent approval of the Adami Mine Coal by the Queensland government has resulted in a furore amongst the Australian public. In response to the approval, Margaret Callinan and Angela Gill both wrote condemning letter to the editors criticising the Adani mine project. Titled ‘When a bird in the hand is not worth it’ Callinan iodiomatically (or conversationally) contends the Adani coal mine will lead to environmental consequences that will have detrimental impacts on all Australians. Similarly Angela Gill disapproves of the Adami mine proposal and empathetically urges for politicians to reconsider their decision because the mine project will be a great threat to the environment. Supporting both letters, Hugh Munch’s cartoon (12/04/2017) sternly communicates the Adani Coal mine is a source of immense pressure, not only to the environment but also to the government.
Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be consequence of the Adani mine. The author begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principle. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance to socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent future. By portraying the proposal as a threat to individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion on the proposal from the outset of the letter.
Callinan’s letter primarily constitutes of a rhetorical question that establishes the denigrating approach towards the Adani mine as it is simply juxtaposed against a ‘struggling’ population that are left to survive on a ‘degraded’ planet with ‘precious’ water and ‘clean’ air. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers and appeals to their sense of safety for their children as they are described to be ‘struggling’ and portrayed as vulnerable as a result of the future worker’s job. This allows the writer to scapegoat the reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befall on the future worker, and elicit guilt for intending danger to the children. This guilt is then designed to be a stimulant for the then-impacted readers to perceive the Adami coal proposal as a threat to the future society and feel indignant towards the threatening and dangerous idea.
The demographic of the article is then broadened to include the whole readership and the writer in one plane with the use of inclusive language, ‘us,’ to accentuate that the ‘struggle’ that is shared amongst all Australians and makes the reader more receptive towards Callinan’s opinion. The use of loaded- language such as ‘precious’ and ‘clean’ intensify the value of natural resources, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet. Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds the readership to grow an appreciation for the rare entities on the planet, and dismiss the Adani Coal mine in order to protect the environment. 
Concluding her piece with reference to the proverbial birds, Callinan bitterly states the birds are ‘dead’ referring realistically to the environmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to. The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine a damaging presence for Australia.   
Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appalling letter opposing the proposal however rather than antagonising the mine itself, she attacks the politicians who have approved of the coal mine.’ She antagonises the politicians as criminals who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility of the human race juxtaposed against an action that is morally despised by the global society. Although the audience is specifically targeted towards Australians, which then shifts to politicians, the victimisation of all of mankind reaffirms the destructive element of the coal mine.
In much the same way, the author makes an appeal to the safety and wellbeing of ‘children and grandchildren,’ however chooses to target the children of the politicians. Designed to not only evoke concern and fear for the reader’s own children, this attack is also employed to illuminate the incompetence of these politicians and coax readers to evaluate the coal mine was truly a detrimental decision by these politicians. Unlike the first letter, Gill uses first person to capture the disgust and ‘[shame]’ she feels towards living under these politician’s rules. The use of a high modal verb ‘am’ indicates the beginning of an apoplectic tone which influences the Australian laymen to ponder the extremity of these politicians’ incompetence, as a fellow community member (Gill) is outraged by this decision.  The attack towards the politicians’ logic is further attacked for readers to evoke fury by describing their thinking as a ‘reduced’ and narrow passage of thought and self- absorbed traits which an important decision- maker of society should not uphold.
To conclude the letter, a virulent plea is directed towards politicians to ‘think’ of their ‘moral responsibility’ for the ‘future.’ The direct command pressures the Australian politicians to feel shame for ignoring the ethical responsibility urge them to reconsider their decision which the author attempts to portray as ego- driven.
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page