VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2017 AA Club - Week 4

<< < (2/5) > >>

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 20, 2017, 12:51:52 am ---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",where is your link between these clauses? the author clearlyPerhaps too judgemental/decisive about what author is doing attempts to make the audience feel angry and hatred towards the politiciansHow so? What specifically is it about the action of the politicians that would evoke anger?. Moreover, the author appeals to the audience<----- Appealing to audience is the main aim of any language analysis. Try and pinpoint a more specific appeal. though Australia's greatest asset Try not to be subjective, The Great Barrier Reef, and links it to the well known painting of "The Scream". The painting is meantthe painting aims, endeavours, strives, seeks..... to exhibit horror and fright to the audience While this is right, the expression is a bit off. Perhaps the painting strives to kindle a sense of horror and fright in readers...But once more, what is it about the painting that does this? Specifics are really importantand makeMaybe reconsider verb choice. Seems a bit harsh them understand the consequences of the Adani mine .Make sure you find something that make these sentences flow on from one another. This can even come from words such as furthermore, to progressThe writer emphasizes death through the scream painting and the radioactivity sign on the ship that is highlighting the word "ADANI"Good. The radioactive sign is a representation of death and danger,Where is the link between clauses? the author uses this iconic symbol to their advantage and elaborates the dangers of Adani<---- not exactly sure what you're getting at here. The author overallSwitch these around. Overall the author.... 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  :(

--- End quote ---

Well done! It's great that you're consistently linking author intention to reader effect. To improve, you should focus on being more specific with your analysis. Also, ensure that your clauses are connected with appropriate conjunctions so as to improve your expression and coherency. Keep up the good work!  :) 

clarke54321:

--- 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)Hmm...not too sure about these. These aren't really tones. A writer can use conversational languagebut the way something is expressed is not conversational. 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 I'd change this to something like fervently, ardently or vehemently....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. Good identification of varying contentions and tones. Just watch your word choice.

Margaret Callinan critically emphasises the planet’s degraded state and identifies the degradation to be consequence of the Adani mineGreat outline of argument. The author begins by referring to the common proverb ‘bird in the hand’ in the title and confutes it to this is awkward expression. Reword.convey that the Adani proposal is to be a troublesome case that doesn’t comply by the proverb’s principleHow did you get to this point? You need to tease out the evidence further before moving on.. By portraying the Adami mining proposal as defiance todefying.. socially– accepted values, the author suggests that the proposal’s outcomes will be a disturbance to the readership’s harmonious and congruent futureOkay. It may be doing this, but where is the evidence from the article. You must build up logical links. By portraying This was your last sentence started. Try and work on the variation. the proposal as a threat to individual Australian’s future, the author obliquely Don't think this is the right word. Perhaps implicitly urges...coerces the readers to form a biased and pessimistic opinion on the proposal from the outset of the letter. Yes, but where is your evidence? Your evidence will form the foundations of your analysis.
 
Callinan’s letter primarily constitutestoo wordy 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’ airOoh... this sentence is too long. Try and reduce it and be more concise.. The article narrows the intended audience to the future workers of what? 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 jobAt the moment, you are skipping the analysis part and jumping right to the intended audience effect. It is great that you are able to understand the author's aims, but you must have more analysis/evidence.. This allows the writer to scapegoat doesn't quite work herethe reason of the children’s vulnerability and threat of safety to befallHmm.. this is overly wordy. I don't understand what you're trying to say. 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 ideaGood. But more analysis is needed. More analysis/evidence=original writing. .
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 resourcesbut how? Go even further. What do these words connote?, especially if they are present in a ‘degraded planet?. Where is the link between these sentences?Aiming to urge the readers to comprehend the scarcity of the natural resources in a depleted and wasted planet, the author shepherds the urges, coaxes...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.
 


--- End quote ---

Good job! Your understanding of author intention is very good. However, the lack of evidence and analysis reduces the quality of your piece. If you can focus on improving this, your analysis will be very strong. Sorry I couldn't mark the whole piece.  :)

princessofpersia:
Thank you so much  ;D I really appreciate how you pinpointed my source of weakness, and hopefully that will help me propel forward !

btw, the long essay was mine, forget to post in-anonymously

Hannibal:
Note: Didn't really treat this as a comparative - sort of did each piece separately. Any feedback is welcomed :)


Margaret Callinan, through her frank letter to the editor, intimates that the perverse environmental corollaries of building the Adani mine does not justify the employment that it will bring. By commencing her letter with the adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," she strives to highlight that it is better to be content with what we have as opposed to being driven by avarice. Because of the proverbial nature of this laconic sentence, the writer encourages the readership to consider this underlying moral, and apply it to their views on the Adani mine decision. An opportunity for the reader to contemplate upon the ethicality of the decision is then presented, with Callinan asking them to question whether it is worth having jobs at the expense of having "precious little clean water to drink." This vivid imagery of society being precluded from accessing such a basic human right, is likely to alarm pragmatic members of the readership as to the magnitude of the issue, and how it could possibly affect them, permeating a sense of worry and anxiety. By using the descriptor "precious," it augments the idea that clean water is an essential resource worth protecting, attempting to appeal to the reader's defensive instincts, in order to manoeuvre them into a position in which they can see the pernicious threat that constructing the Adani mine poses. Furthermore, by conceding that the proposal does have its positives in that it will provide employment, the writer highlights that his view is well-considered and not overly biased. Callinan uses this concession as a platform for rebuttal, by juxtaposing the benefits of the scheme for workers with the tangible harm it will ensue upon the "worker's children." In comparing these two stakeholders, she seeks to underscore that children are more vulnerable than their parents, and as such of a greater priority to protect, thus conveying that on balance the harms of the proposal outweigh the benefits. This is as when the readership visualises "children" having "no clean air to breathe," Callinan strives to horrify them with the sheer repulsiveness of the thought, given many members would have children and families of their own.

Adopting a more censuring tone, Angela Gill posits that politicians are blinded by their desire for re-election, to the point where they are willing to endorse immoral proposals such as the Adani mine. By vilifying politicians as committing "crime[ s] against humanity," the writer seeks to dehumanise them as a stakeholder, with the word "crime" implying to the audience that they have done something deserving of justice. This antagonistic characterisation is continued by juxtaposing "politicians" and "(leaders?)," with the use of brackets highlighting that being a leader is what is expected of politicians, but through the question mark Gill reveals that they are failing to meet this expectation. Thus, by evincing that politicians have ulterior motives while in office, the writer strives to create a sense of suspicion around the Adani mine proposal, attempting to reveal to the readership that it is merely a political tool to gain re-election. As such, the audience is likely to react adversely to this revealing of disingenuous behaviour, resulting in them channeling this anger towards disapproving of the development of the mine altogether

Contrastingly, the cartoonist employs a more derisive tone, however remains aligned with the other two articles in that it disapproves the construction of the Adani mine. It's focus is slightly tangential however, in that it uses the environmental impact of the mine on the Great Barrier Reef as it's core persuasive device. Through a diminutive depiction of three people terrified of their surroundings, the illustrator seeks to use them as an allegorical representation of society as a whole, encouraging the audience to view the plight of these individuals as indicative of what they may be facing if the Adani mine proposal goes through. Thus, it is likely to imbue a sense of horror within the audience, which is amplified through the grotesque illustration of the Great Barrier Reef. This is as upon seeing this iconic Australian landmark shrunk into a shadow of its former self, the audience is likely to react defensively to seeing this wonder of the world in such a fleeting state, with the cartoonist averring that this is the bleak future that awaits the audience if no action is taken in stopping the Adani mine from being built.

HopefulLawStudent: I just removed the strike through that arises whenever you modify your quotes with [ s ] :)

clarke54321:

--- Quote from: Hannibal on June 22, 2017, 01:37:08 pm ---Note: Didn't really treat this as a comparative - sort of did each piece separately. Any feedback is welcomed :)


Margaret Callinan, through her frank letter to the editor, intimates that the perverse this isn't the right adjective. Perhaps injudicious/detrimentalenvironmental corollaries don't think this is the right wordof building the Adani mine does not justify the employment that it will bring. By commencing her letter with the adage "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," she strives to highlight that it is better to be content with what we have as opposed to being driven by avarice. Because of the proverbial nature of this laconic sentence, the writer encourages the readership to consider this underlying moral, and apply it to their views on the Adani mine decisionOkay good. But I'm not exactly sure that this is a laconic sentence. Also, what is it specifically about the proverb that makes the reader consider the moral.. An opportunity for the reader to contemplate upon the ethicality of the decision is then presented, with Callinan asking them to question whether it is worth having jobs at the expense of having "precious little clean water to drink." This vivid imagery of society being precluded from accessing such a basic human right, is likely to alarm pragmatic members of the readership as to the magnitude of the issue, and how it could possibly affect them, permeating a sense of worry and anxietyAll ideas are good here. However, the sentence is too long and it's starting to become too verbose.. By using the descriptor "precious,"you've forgot to add the subject of the sentence.Callinan augments..... it augments the idea that clean water is an essential resource worth protecting, attempting to appeal to the reader's defensive instincts, in order to manoeuvre them into a position in which they can see the pernicious threat that constructing the Adani mine posesToo wordy. Watch your expression. Furthermore, by conceding that the proposal does have its positives in that it will provide employment, the writer highlights that his view is well-considered and not overly biased. Callinan uses this concession as a platform for rebuttal, by juxtaposing the benefits of the scheme for workers with the tangible harm it will ensue upon the "worker's children." In comparing these two stakeholders, she seeks to underscore that children are more vulnerable than their parents, and as such of a greater priority to protect, thus conveying that on balance the harms of the proposal outweigh the benefits. This is as when the readership visualises <----- I'm not really sure about this sentence starter."children" having "no clean air to breathe," Callinan strives to horrify them with the sheer repulsiveness of the thought, given many members would have children and families of their own. Good ideas in this paragraph. Just make sure your sentences don't get too long/clunky as this may lead to repetition

Adopting a more censuring tone, Angela Gill posits that politicians are blinded by their desire for re-election, to the point where they are willing to endorse immoral proposals such as the Adani mineGreat identification of argument. By vilifying politicians as this is too wordy. By declaring that politicians are committing '[crimes] against humanity,' Gill castigates..... committing "crimes against humanity," the writer seeks to dehumanise them as a stakeholder, with the word "crime" implying to the audience that they have done something deserving of justiceI'm a bit lost here. I'm not sure where dehumanisation comes from.. This antagonistic characterisation is continued by juxtaposing "politicians" and "(leaders?)," with the use of brackets highlighting that being a leader is what is expected of politicians, but through the question mark Gill reveals that they are failing to meet this expectationLovely. Thus, by evincing that politicians have ulterior motives while in office, the writer strives to create a sense of suspicion around the Adani mine proposal, attempting to reveal to the readership that it is merely a political tool to gain re-election. As such, the audience is likely to react adverselythis adjective doesn't read too well for me. Hmm..maybe I'm just being picky to this revealing of disingenuous behaviour, resulting in them channeling this anger towards disapproving of the development of the mine altogether. Great analysis here

Contrastingly, the cartoonist employs a more derisive tone, this isn't the right linking word. Sentence needs reworkinghowever remains aligned with the other two articles in that it disapproves the construction of the Adani mine. It's focus is slightly tangential however, in that it uses the environmental impact of the mine on the Great Barrier Reef as it's core persuasive devicedon't go meta and talk about devices within your analysis. Through a diminutive depiction of three people terrified of their surroundings, the illustrator seeks to use them as an allegorical representation of society as a whole, encouraging the audience to view the plight of these individuals as indicative of what they may be facing if the Adani mine proposal goes throughWonderful analysis. Thus, it is likely to imbuesomeone/something is typically imbued with .... therefore I don't think it's the right verb. Perhaps engender/instil a sense of horror within the audiencereaders, which is amplified through the grotesque illustration of the Great Barrier Reef. This is as upon seeing this iconic Australian landmark shrunk into a shadow of its former self, the audience is likely to react defensively to seeing this wonder of the world in such a fleeting state, with the cartoonist averring that this is the bleak future that awaits the audience if no action is taken in stopping the Adani mine from being built.

--- End quote ---

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!  :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page