VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 13

<< < (2/2)

MissSmiley:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on April 27, 2018, 10:21:07 pm ---I can't thank you enough. You've gone above and beyond what was I hoping for. If I could give the quality critiquing that you'd done for me, I would pay back the favour in a heartbeat, but alas... it's not to be.

I can honestly say that when I saw all the red corrections, a little part in me died. But seeing all the effort you put in, I feel motivated to reach your level of analysing. You've also figured me out quite well. I try to use flowery phrases (of which most backfired) to cover up my lack of in depth analysis. My language analysis vocab is also very lacking i.e. the author positions the reader to feel... I have a long way to go.

Once again, many thanks. Hopefully there'll be someone qualified enough to critique your piece soon enough - I know how arduous the wait is.

--- End quote ---
My pleasure!
Aw!! Please please don't feel upset with all the red!! (Have you seen how much red my pieces were peppered with when clarke54321gave me feedback?!!)  ;D ;D
But yeah, like you said, this is so great for motivation!! And every single person's got something to improve. None of us are perfect here! That's where the beauty is :)

Yeah I know! It is a bit arduous waiting for some feedback, but so many people that give feedback are very very busy people, because most of them are at university! :)
So we've gotta give them their time!

But I do wish Week 14's articles can be posted since this Monday there were no articles to analyse. And now this time *cough cough* I can analyse the image as I analyse the main texts!!  :D ;)

Thanks!

Anonymous:
The Australian cricket team’s reputation has been left in tatters after it was discovered some of the players engaged in ball tampering during a test match in South Africa. In response Bryan Long has written a disappointed letter to the editor, arguing that the incident is a reflection of what is happening in wider Australia and that it cannot be ignored. Similarly, Paul Burchill argues that it cannot be ignored, however he believes it is a symptom of the rotten culture of Australian cricket. Also in response to the issue, Dyson published a cartoon showing that many incidents have stained Australia’s reputation, but this one cannot be ignored.

Bryan Long argues that this is simply the last in a long series of events in wider society. He uses inclusive language in saying ‘we have lost our moral compass’ to give his audience some responsibility for the incident. This is intended to include them in the debate, putting them into a position where they are more likely to agree with his views. He goes on to appeal to our sense of patriotism by highlighting recent events that have earned us international condemnation. This approach puts all Australians on the same side and allows him to show the audience that we need to cause change from within. He ends with rhetorical questions asking what sort of society we want our children to live in, particularly targeting parents who may wish for a better Australia for their children. These readers are then encouraged to not accept the current state of society, and therefore are encouraged to not ignore this latest scandal.

Similarly, Paul Burchill exasperatedly contends that ball tampering is a symptom of a rotten culture. He mockingly contends that Sutherland ‘just doesn’t get it’ because he thinks he can just treat the symptom. He also uses patriotism to make it seem as if the majority of readers understand that more action needs to be taken. This is intended to win over undecided readers by allowing them to see that they should also feel that more action is needed. Dissimilarly to Long, he does not argue that it reflects on Australia as a whole, rather limiting his arguments to the corruption of Australian cricket. He shifts to a sympathetic tone when discussing Steve Smith, telling readers that ‘he is a product of a naïve young man living inside a bubble.’ This shifts the focus from the individual guilty players to cricket Australia as a whole, who Burchill believes is responsible.

Both Long and Burchill argue that this scandal cannot be ignored, however they take different approaches to convincing their audience of this. Long appeals to parents who want to give their children positive role models. He lists a series of incidents to show the impact of Australia having ‘lost our moral compass’. A moral compass is seen as a positive thing and a way to tell right and wrong. Parents are likely trying to raise their children to know right from wrong and so they will want Australia to have a good moral compass that their children can use to guide their own decisions. Burchill similarly argues that it is about ‘honesty, trust, responsibility, accountability, and pride.’ These are all positive values that he hopes the audience will also want to see in cricket. He argues that ignoring or a ‘week-kneed response’ to the ball tampering will not support these values, thereby framing ball tampering as the adversary to positive values. He extends this argument by explaining that cricket as a whole is ‘rotten’. It is known that things that are rotten must be thrown out and started afresh, thereby the audience is made aware that Burchill believes that cricket Australia must be overhauled.

A cartoon by Dyson agrees with parts of both texts. It shows a shirt with several stains representing issues that have occurred in Australia along with text naming the issue and listing the suggested treatment. It is similar to Long, in that it shows ball tampering as just one in a series of issues that reflect badly on Australia. A yellow ball represents the ball tampering incident and Dyson has labelled it as ‘Forgotten. Move on.’ This is contrasted with a ‘baggy green stain’ which the audience is intended to recognise as representing cricket Australia. Its treatment is listed as ‘Indelible. Burn shirt.’ This demonstrates to the audience that Dyson, like Burchill, believes that cricket Australia is ‘rotten’ and that the issues cannot be solved with a ‘week-kneed response’. Like Burchill, Dyson believes the ball tampering is simply a symptom of a much worse issue, cricket Australia.

Bryan Long, Paul Burchill and Dyson all believe that the ball tampering scandal was a symptom of a larger problem. Long argues that it is the latest in a series of mishaps in Australia whereas Burchill believes it is a result of the rotten culture of cricket Australia. Dyson shows it as part of a collection of events, but also shows cricket Australia as a stain that can’t be removed.


Thank You!!

MissSmiley:

The Australian cricket team’s reputation has been left in tatters after it was discovered some of the players engaged in ball tampering during a test match in South Africa. In response Could you say 'regarding this' or 'in light of this,' because I feel 'in response to' is more for an article or someone written before, you know what I mean? If you say 'regarding this' you can fulfil the criteria of that issue-spark as well. So it doesn't sound unsophisticated as one would think. Bryan Long has written a disappointed letter to the editor in a disappointed tone, arguing that the incident is a reflection of what is happening in wider Australia and that it cannot be ignored. Similarly, Paul Burchill argues that it cannot be ignored, however he believes it is a symptom of the rotten culture could you use something else instead of mentioning what's already in the his letter? of Australian cricket. Also in response to the issue, yes! This is a great signpost phrase! Dyson published a cartoon showing that many incidents have stained Australia’s reputation, but this one cannot be ignored.

Bryan Long argues that this is simply the last unclear and how did you think he argues that this is the 'last' in this series? Who knows? Things like this could continue! So maybe delete this. in a long series of events in wider society. He uses inclusive language in saying ‘we have lost our moral compass’ to give his audience some responsibility for the incident. This is intended to include them in the debate, putting them into a position where they are more likely to agree with his views. We already know this. So try to put in some new analysis. :) He goes on to appeal to our sense of patriotism by highlighting recent events that have earned us choose another verb. Because 'earn' and 'condemnation' sound contradictory international condemnation. This approach puts all Australians on the same side unclear and perhaps even unnecessary to say this and allows him to show the audience that we need to cause change from within. He ends with rhetorical questions asking what sort of society we want our children to live in, particularly targeting parents who may wish for a better Australia for their children. These readers are then encouraged to not accept the current state of society, and therefore are encouraged to not ignore this latest scandal.
You need to quote evidence from the text to support this interpretation, and also try to describe some of the connotations behind specific words in the evidence that you pull out. Just gives you more of a chance to analyse :)

Similarly, Paul Burchill exasperatedly contends I like how you're using adverb, then noun!  that ball tampering is a symptom of a rotten culture. He mockingly contends that Sutherland ‘just doesn’t get it’ Aww!! I almost loved your idea firstly if you called it a 'pun,' but then I looked at the letter. And the disease thing is after he says that "they don't get it" So unfortunately, this 'mocking / pun won't work. It would have worked if the disease was introduced earlier :( because he thinks he can just treat the symptom. He also uses patriotism to make it seem as if the majority of readers understand that more action needs to be taken. This is intended to win over undecided readers by allowing them to see that they should also feel that more action is needed. Because this sounds subjective, this doesn't seem like strong analysis. Maybe use a bit of evidence and then analyse that Dissimilarly to Long, he does not argue that it reflects on Australia as a whole, rather limiting his arguments to the corruption of Australian cricket.[/b] I reckon I can buy this point, but what's happening is, you haven't justified and analysed why he's talking about corruption in cricket only. That's why this sentence seems hanging, because you then directly move to tone. He shifts to a sympathetic tone when discussing Steve Smith, telling readers that ‘he is a product of a naïve young man living inside a bubble.’ This shifts the focus from the individual guilty players to cricket Australia as a whole, who Burchill believes is responsible. I reckon there is more to it than this, perhaps analyse why he is sympathetic --> potential writing (maybe because everyone targeted the players and their families, so that's why he's saying that they deserve some privacy now)?

Both Long and Burchill argue that this scandal cannot be ignored, however they take different approaches to convinceing their audience of this. Long appeals to parents who want to give their children positive role models. He lists a series of incidents to show the impact of Australia having ‘lost our moral compass’. A moral compass is seen as a positive thing and a way to tell right and wrong. Parents are likely trying to raise their children to know right from wrong and so they will want Australia to have a good moral compass that their children can use to guide their own decisions. Yes, but critically analyse this. Maybe a take could be that since cricket is a big part of Australian culture, children have idolised cricketers and hence are likely to act immoral under this influence...or just something like that. And then link it to parenting values Burchill similarly argues that it is about ‘honesty, trust, responsibility, accountability, and pride.’ These are all positive values that he hopes the audience will also want to see in cricket. He argues that ignoring or a ‘week-kneed response’ to the ball tampering will not support these values, thereby framing ball tampering as the adversary to positive values. He extends this argument by explaining that cricket as a whole is ‘rotten’. It is known that things that are rotten must be thrown out and started afresh, thereby the audience is made aware that Burchill believes that cricket Australia must be overhauled.
This is good! However, just the two lines above it need in-depth analysis because they sound like you're summarising.

A cartoon by Dyson agrees with parts of both texts. It shows a shirt with several stains representing issues that have occurred in Australia along with text naming the issue and listing the suggested treatment.it's good that you're giving a summary, but I'd just incorporate this summary into my analysis of this image, rather than just dedicating it one sentence. It is similar to Long, in that it shows ball tampering as just one in a series of issues that reflect badly on Australia. A yellow ball represents the ball tampering incident and Dyson has labelled it as ‘Forgotten. Move on.’ This is contrasted with a ‘baggy green stain’ which the audience is intended to recognise what does this mean? do you mean 'the audience must infer that the stain is..." ? representing cricket Australia. Its treatment is listed as ‘Indelible. Burn shirt.’ This demonstrates to the audience that Dyson, like Burchill, believes that cricket Australia is ‘rotten’ and that the issues cannot be solved with a ‘week-kneed response’. Like Burchill, Dyson believes the ball tampering is simply a symptom of a much worse issue, cricket Australia.
More descriptive words analysing the image closely are possible :)

Bryan Long, Paul Burchill and Dyson all believe that the ball tampering scandal was a symptom representation/ consequence? of a larger problem. Long argues that it is the latest in a series of mishaps in Australia whereas Burchill believes it is a result of the rotten culture of cricket Australia. Dyson shows it as part of a collection of events, but also shows cricket Australia as a stain do you mean 'ball tampering as a stain' and not cricket Australia? Because cricket Australia is a stain wouldn't make sense. Or do you mean a stain to national morality or something like that? maybe make this clearer that can’t be removed.

Hey!
Sorry if I'm very picky!! I really don't want to be this mean but you know, I love getting improvements, so maybe why I'm overly picky!  ;D
But I'm sorry!
Please please don't be overwhelmed! I'm a Year 12 student myself, so I have no right to criticise, but just some suggestions here :)
Thank you! :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page