VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 4

<< < (3/5) > >>

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: clarke54321 on June 22, 2017, 08:49:25 pm ---Well done! This was a wonderful analysis. You take your analysis all the way through to reader effect. Just watch expression and sentence length. Keep up the great work!  :)

--- End quote ---

I appreciate that thank you very much :)

scout:
In a concerned tone, Margaret Callinan rejects the Adani coal mine project on the grounds that it will jeopardise Australia's future social and environmental prosperity. She bases her argument on the notion of human survival and the conservation of nature, as she envisages a planet with no basic needs such as "precious little clean water and "clean air." Such appeals to readers' innate survival instincts magnifies the issue into one that is beyond a mere political or economic affair, and thus, Callinan seeks to alarm readers with how relevant the issue is to them. Callinan heightens this effect by  forecasting a frightening future where "the rest of us" are "left struggling to survive", painting a spine-chilling image of a society divided into a social hierarchy where coal mine workers prosper in their influx of money and the innocent common people are left to scour for food and water in the remnants of a dying earth. This pessimistic outlook is designed to unsettle readers, and to subsequently mobilise them to campaign against the building of the mine for the sake of their children's and grandchildren's wellbeing. Callinan concedes that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", in order to demonstrate that she recognises the financial concerns of the politicians and mine workers. However, the idiom and rhetorical question "But is it really worth having a job at the Adani mine?" adds to the readers' doubts as to the integrity and validity of financial gain from working at the mine, when so many lives risk becoming tainted as a result. By concluding her argument with the same idiom, Callinan emphasises the ubiquitous threat that the coal mine project poses, as she bluntly states that even the "birds in the bush", which symbolise the workers' children and readers, will become "dead to boot." The brusque conclusion adds a sense of decisiveness to Callinan's argument, but also conjures an image of a bleak, lifeless future for the planet should the coal mine project proceed. Consequently, readers are manoeuvred to disapprove of the plan as they are left with the resounding impression that building the Adani coal mine will only destroy Australia.

Angela Gill shares Calliman's belief that the Adani coal mine plan is a threat to Australia's society and environment. However, she targets the Labor Government, arguing in a condemnatory tone that politicians are skirting their "moral responsibility" by endorsing the project. Gill's main tactic is her attack at avaricious politicians, as she establishes from the outset that they have committed a "crime against humanity." Here, her allusion to international human rights legislation widens the context of the politicians' sins to a global one, in the same way that Calligan draws upon humans' rights to clean air and water. Likewise, readers may view the Adani coal mine project itself as corrupt and a breach of humans' basic rights. The appeals to their sense of moral justice may impel them to denounce the coal mine for its unethical nature and its sinister motives. Gill augments her argument by relentlessly degrading Bill Shorten for allowing his egoism to take precedence over Australia's welfare, as she claims that he was driven by the desire to "win the next election." Such portrayal of calculating reason, compounded by the fact that Gill was actually once a Labor voter, adds credibility to Gill's argument and seeks to discredit any belief in readers' minds that the politician had acted out of Australia's interests. In fact, when viewed in tow with Calliman's letter, which portrays Adani coal mine workers as overly self-concerned, readers may come to realise that the coal mine will only ruthlessly appease the money-hungry people of this country. In effect, this seeks to evoke readers' repulsion at the immorality of Australia's leaders and workers, and to generate an outcry against the plan for the good of the common Australian.

In an ominous tone, Pope's cartoon echoes Calliman and Gill's views that building the Adani coal mine will leave the environment in irreparable ruins. To sway readers to share his view, Pope relies primarily on his haunting depiction of the Great Barrier Reef which, in its unnatural colours, reinforces Calliman's fear of losing "precious little clean water." Specifically, the speech bubble "Did I hear what?" draws readers' attention towards Pope's allusion to Edvard Munch's renowned painting "The Scream"; this, coupled with the disturbing mix of abnormal colours in the water, illustrates that unspeakable cruelty of Adani coal mine supporters and implies that nature has suffered excruciating pain wrought by such vile humans. Hence, Pope suggests that any frantic attempt from the Adani coal mine stakeholders to bury their sins will not reverse the permanent damage that has already been done. Furthermore, Pope's cartoon reflects Calliman's view that the cost of the mine will spread to all corners of Australia, as it portrays the Adani coal mine submarine puffing smoke that frames the entire cartoon. With this confrontational idea in mind, readers may feel horror at the extent politicians and workers would go to satisfy their own immediate concerns, manoeuvring them to downright condemn the wickedly portrayed participants of the coal mine project.

scout:
...Continuing clarke54321's great work  :)



--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 20, 2017, 09:52:05 am ---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 potentialenvironmental impact the coal mine proposal will resolute to result in. The use of ‘dead’ conjures a sense of destructive foreboding in the reader’s mind also, what does it appeal to? What human instincts?, instilling fear and terror from the proposal manipulating the readership to be agree with Callinan and perceive the coal mine as a damaging presence for Australia.   

Similarly, Angela Gill writes an appalling letter in an appalled tone 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 Look more at the implications of "crime against humanity" - e.g. injustice, immorality, etc. --> then, what does that appeal to?who have ‘committed a crime against humanity’ to urgently communicate the evil and harming effects of their decision. Committing a crime against ‘humanity’ good that you've pin-pointed 'humanity'  :) heightens the malevolent aspect of the issue with the innocence and fragility not always innocent or fragile  :P. 'Humanity' = common, universal - regardless of gender/race/age/etc. (you do kind of say this next) 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 Be a bit more specific. Gill could have done this by targeting Australians only. So why exactly does she target everyone, worldwide? E.g. if she shifts from Australians --> world, maybe the issue is also Australian --> global and therefore minor --> major (from a global perspective).  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 good . 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? Why the children of politicians, in particular? E.g. they've already failed their duty to country. Now they're failing parental duties too = they are utterly selfish. 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 word choice. Perhaps shame/disappointment at politiciansby 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.
 

--- End quote ---

scout:

--- Quote from: remi on June 26, 2017, 07:50:36 pm ---Quick and brief one this week.  :)

Margaret Callinan entreats her audience to imagine a “struggling … degraded planet” with limited “precious … clean water” and “air to breathe” Nice, you analyse the key technique first. This bleak, pessimistic foresight is designed to mitigate not just that, but more powerfully to negate the benefits ;) the potential benefits that may come from allowing the Adani mine to go ahead now, effect?. Callinan’s argument is however not entirely bleak, as her casual tone casual is a bit too positive - consider 'contemplative', most evident in her conversational use of the word “say”, suggests that this desolate depiction is mostly hypothetical and therefore preventable (state this because it's your analysis, even though you say it next in the effect). <-- these two are good  :) --> Audiences, seeing that they are able to avoid such outcome, are hence prompted to oppose the mine. So here, you've mentioned how readers feel capable of effecting change. You could add to this by stating why they may feel so (this would tie in with your 1st analysis of "struggling planet" and "clean water and air")
 
Angela Gill extends on Callinan’s stance as she additionally argues that politicians who support the mine should think of interests what interests? Monetary? Health-related?... other than of their own. Insinuating that Bill Shorten, and by extension politicians, are selfish in their reasoning through the pronouns “I” and “me” include extra quotes/phrases to give context around these pronouns, audiences are led to deduce that the Adani mine is not within their interests ...and therefore? --> link more explicitly to argument - e.g. do they now view the mine solely as a commercial enterprise? Or even worse, as a political device, etc.
 

--- End quote ---

Hi remi, this is short and sweet  :). I love how you get your point across in so few words. An enviable skill. Don't forget to finish your hard work with effect  ;)

lovelyperson:

--- Quote from: scout on June 26, 2017, 08:33:37 pm ---Hi remi, this is short and sweet  :). I love how you get your point across in so few words. An enviable skill. Don't forget to finish your hard work with effect  ;)

--- End quote ---

Thank you! I'm actually kind of jealous of how you write to be honest hahaha. It's so flow-y and eloquent; any tips on how to achieve that in my own?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page