VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 12

<< < (3/3)

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 04, 2018, 12:30:21 pm ---Both yourself and MissSmiley's interpretations of this piece are completely viable. Reconciling the two pieces of information is quite ambiguous, and for that reason, is going to produce a myriad of different outlooks.

From how I understood it, Alm recognises that she will be classed as complicit in this 'crash,' given her status as a fellow immigrant. And as you've pointed out, this leads to some double standards, which will invariably work to weaken her point (ie. her blatant hypocrisy will likely cause readers to discount her credibility). Yet, the fact that she consciously sought to understand and preserve the land seeks to win over these sceptical readers, who are urged to understand that, while Alm is unapologetically an immigrant, she has not trampled over the land. She has understood it and knows how it can be further cultivated (leading readers to find truth in her assertions). She is subtly manipulating readers (although not in the most plausible way, I must admit) by having this phrase at the very end of her commentary. Structurally, this intends to leave an impression of rationality.


--- End quote ---

I'm that confused person who started this mini debate. Thanks to all for contributing so far (only I'm more confused now than ever). Everyone has made great points, but they just don't fully seem logical to me even though I desperately want them to (I'm weird that way). i think I'm too thick-headed to think that I'm wrong.

The sweeping generalisation that immigrants would trample over the land could've also applied to Alm as an immigrant (inserting my own assumptions here), but she was given the chance to prove otherwise. Yet now she's against giving immigrants the same opportunity that she was given to prove herself, and paints them with the same brush, despite having not been of the stereotypical mold herself. Therefore, through using herself as an example, the cultivation that clarke54321 speaks of can only be accomplished if immigrants are given the chance to make Australia a better place. (I feel like this argument is the same as my first one but from a slightly different angle - same rights instead of hypocrisy)

So I simply can't figure out Alm's motivations to insert that final sentence into her piece.

And if the phrase was a subtle (too subtle I think) way of manipulating her readers, I feel as if not many readers would be able to infer to the extent that you have done, which therefore would've been detrimental to her overall piece anyway, especially since it was her last sentence. This would leave a lasting impression, and she would've been more likely to be interpreted as a hypocrite. If she'd specifically tailored this piece to a target audience such as the government (as MissSmiley has interpreted) in the form of a letter or whatnot (a more formal form), maybe the message would've gotten through to them. Instead, her audience is simple the readers of the Age, of which there are few humanitarians who would've understood her intent to that depth. Also her language was somewhat colloquial/not sophisticated, which doesn't quite mesh well with the idea that she was very subtle and multi-layered in her rationale. I mean there is a possibility that Alm just wanted her message to be simple, but I'm discounting that option for the sake of my argument.

Sorry I've gone off on a tangent, and this rant will seem really stupid in a few hours for me, and I'll probably want to delete it, so I'll still post this as anonymous, so I can't do anything about it once it's posted.

Anonymous:
Hi, thank you for posting these great practice pieces. I have given it a go and would love some feedback!:)


Harold Mitchell's article 'How a 91-year-old can teach about our terrific immigrants' in The Age (9/3) has sparked debate amongst Australian citizens. In response, Anne Sgro bemoans that refugees are an essential part of Australian Society, and should be welcomed with equal rights to Australian citizens. On the other hand, Margit Alm contends that an excess of immigrants will lead Australia to chaos and self-destruction in her comment.

Sgro praises that immigrants assist in creating 'a significant multicultural society' to influence the readers to proudly recognise immigrant's vitality in creating diversity in Australia's society. The word 'significant' invites the perception that immigrants are essential, as they aid in Australia's exceptionality and uniquely cultural society. This is because the word 'significant' implies that diversity in Australia's society is outstanding and important to compel those, particularly patriotic individuals to support increasing immigrant levels in the interest of maintaining Australia's superiorly diverse society. Contrastingly, Alm pessimistically questions 'the limit of our capacity' that Australia's society can accept immigrants effectively. In suggesting Australia's 'capacity' has a 'limit' Alm adopts a concerned and indignant tone to generate fear and panic within devoted Australian citizens. They positioned to quel over what consequences may occur if this boundary is broken. Also, this phrase's bold font implies that Alm's question is urgent and importance to draw the reader's attention to the issue and create a sense of alarm. Hence, this confronts nationalistic Australian citizens that immigrants can potentially harm Australia's supreme society.

By recounting how her 'husband Giovanni …. worked hard' Srgo employs a colloquial, yet fervent tone to project that immigrants are appreciative of their gained opportunities in Australia, thus a diligent influence within Australian society. This intends to create a connection with the audience to make them trust Sgro's belief that immigrants are beneficial for Australia, as they are trustworthy and honourable. The short, simple sentence ''He learnt.' Contrasts from the surrounding lengthy sentences, which works to clearly emphasis the word 'learnt'. This highlights Giovani and fellow Australian immigrants' capability to develop as humans within society, to raise awareness of immigrants persevering nature. This effectively communicates that immigrants should be recognised for their dedication to Australia, thus prompts fellow citizens to treat them equally within the community. Conversely, Alm antagonises immigrants by vehemently implying that they 'trampled' over Australia's 'ancient, fragile and beautiful land'. The word 'trampled' has strong negative connotations which urges the audience to view that increasing immigrant levels are a malign influence within society. This is because the word 'trampled' implies that something is destructive - in this case increasing immigrants within Australian society. Alm's positive illustration of Australia as 'ancient, fragile and beautiful' aims to portray to Australian citizens that their magnificent country should be carefully protected and preserved. The words 'ancient, fragile and beautiful' have strong positive connotations which allures the sense that Australia is a favourable and advantaged, yet vulnerable country. This is due to the fact the word 'ancient' insinuates something is precious, the verb 'fragile' suggests something is endangered and the word 'beautiful' intimates something is admirable, in this instance Australia's nation. In this sense, the author seeks to convey to the audience that they should feel obligated to cherish Australia's superior society and protect the country from immigrants potentially detrimental effects which inhibit the nation's success.

Alm proudly commends Australia's accepting nature by stating that she, as an immigrant has been 'treated carefully and light-footedly' within society, adopting an enlightened tone to engender a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction within Australian citizens. This targets patriotic Australians as it reassures and reinforces that Australis is triumphant in welcoming and treating immigrants with utter respect. Whereas, Sgro condemns 'Peter Dutton's failed attempt' at decreasing immigration citizenship levels, employing a disapproving tone to dismiss the opposition's opinion. The word 'failed' has negative connotations, as it implies in this instance, that Peter has been defeated and lack strength or power. This aims to engender audience members who originally supported Peter to contempt him, whilst reassures those who scorn Peter. Overall, this strengthens the authors portrayal of Australia's attitudes towards immigrants as spiteful to urge the readers to feel that Australia needs to be more inclusive and supportive towards immigrants. By commanding that the audience 'treat people with greater respect', Sgro implies that Australian's unacceptably denigrate immigrants. This is because the word 'greater' suggests that something isn't at a sufficient standard currently, hence needs improving, in this case Australian's respect towards immigrants. Overall, this conveys that the readers, as Australians are expected to be more gracious and kind towards immigrants, to uphold the countries reputation as a multi-cultural society who is inviting towards all individuals.

Sgro's nationalistic and emotive appeals to patriosm, pride and empathy are designed to persuade her readership that the Australian Government and society should be more supportive towards increasing immigrant levels for the sake of the country's international reputation. Ultimately, by portraying immigrant's contribution to society as the pinnacle of personal and nation triumph, Sgro seeks to bring about a change in the audience's beliefs, regarding augmenting immigrant numbers. Similarly, Alm employs nationalistic and emotive appeals to patroism, pride and empathy to contrastingly warn the readership of catastrophic outcomes if the Australian Government doesn't restrict immigration levels in the interest of the country's prosperity and international status.

Anonymous:
Hi Anonymous, I'm just going to make a few comments so I don't deter others from having a try at analysing these two responses to Harold Mitchell.  I think parts of your analysis are quite good and I like the way you've tried to pursue the impact of individual words on the reader.  I also like your integration of comments about both authors in each of your paragraphs.  This is a good way to track the similarities and differences in each of the texts. The bad news is that some of your sentence structure is a bit tortured and could do with some careful editing and rephrasing.  I think you should also try to be more specific about the language devices used by Sgro and Alm - if you can name them, then do so (e.g. emotive language, personal anecdote, expert opinion).  Once you actually see these devices in play you can further develop your comments on the different approaches these authors take.  Sgro's use of the personal anecdote helps focus her argument on positive immigrant contributions to civic/public life.  Alm's view is focused on the consequences of increased population for the environment ("ancient and fragile ... land") and a generalised implication that migrants "trampled" it in the course of helping to exploit Australia's natural resources.  Alm's approach is more impersonal (she quotes statistics and the expert opinion of Tim Flanagan) and she only refers to her own experience as an immigrant in her final sentence.  Also, when you refer to the proposal to reintroduce English Language tests, you should refer to the Minister as Dutton (not Peter). 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page