VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club
2018 AA Club - Week 16
MissSmiley:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 14, 2018, 09:47:54 pm ---First time doing this. Feel free to ask any questions you may, although, this has been based off of my own understanding; it might be wrong.
Quite good overall. I urge you to remember that this is my understanding only. I think that your analysis of what the language does, and how it works is good, but perhaps you could work on describing why the language used is persuasive (assuming it persuasive) and what actually makes it more persuasive.
--- End quote ---
Hi there!
Thank you so much for giving me this feedback! :)
I really like your suggestions (especially how I should analyse persuasive impact, etc) !
Yeah I do agree with your image analysis interpretation! You could definitely say that! :)
Thanks a lot once again! I really appreciate it! :)
MissSmiley:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on May 30, 2018, 03:28:43 pm ---Mine is handwritten, I've uploaded it here https://www.dropbox.com/s/03kaykalhk9y6vy/Practise%20-%20language%20learning-min%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
Hopefull it's legible!
Thanks :)
--- End quote ---
Hey :)
I've just written down these things as I went through your writing:
1. Instead of 'Schmid scrutinises,' you can say say "Schmid disapproves their statements as "dramatically misrepresenting..."
because scrutinises only means to examine thoroughly, so you want something stronger here
2. I wouldn't say 'sinister nature' of the newspapers' assertions. That's too strong. Just say 'discouraging nature'
3. 'alternative viewpoint' rather than 'alternate viewpoint'
4. Nice analysis of argument construction / development (e.g. the idea behind your first para was about how Schmid disapproves, and then presents her own arguments, which contributes to stronger persuasiveness ) So keep doing this!
5. But you know what, the whole idea behind Schmid including the expert opinion whatever (e.g. about 'mechanisms' and 'switched off during puberty') I didn't think it was to make Schmid seem reliable/ have expertise...
I interpreted this completely differently and thought that Schmid is mocking those who assert that learning a language is linked to 'mechanisms' and puberty.
Because she mocks this flaw, she appears persuasive to convey her point, that adults can learn a language regardless of anything! Even when they're 17+ !
But don't take my interpretation for sure, I'm just putting my thoughts here
6. I can't read this word... 'Schmid retouses her piece...?" (I tried searching similar words, but nothing seems to match)
7. The part about 'internet grammar quiz' 'never even mentioning fluency' is unclear.
8. I really like the comparison between adult's busy lives, etc, and then children's ability to freely learn, etc (sorry I'm just summarising your point)
Overall, I like your verb choices and your analysis of why Schmid starts that way and ends that way. This is a good approach to analyse argument flow!
I do think at times you focus on this a bit too much, which means you had less time to focus on how readers would feel, what they would do, etc. But this is a small suggestion:)
Also, did you write about the image and I missed it, or were you just focussing on the written text?
(Sorry if I missed reading it!)
Hope I make sense in the comments above :)
Thanks!
Anonymous:
Hopefully I am not too late...
This is just one paragraph, not a full LA. TIA. :)
By informing the audience of her extensive knowledge about linguistic studies, Schmid avers that the Cognition study is ‘one of the worst misrepresentations…[she] has ever seen’. The adverb ‘ever’ seems to suggest that Schmid has seen many of these misrepresentations before, except that this is the worst amongst them. Therefore, the statement that this is the ‘worst’ she has ‘ever seen’ seems to imply that the findings of the study are untrustworthy, in turn kindling a feeling of hope in older readers, who may be looking to learn new languages. This feeling is further strengthened by Schmid’s statement that fluency is ‘not what the study’s author’s… are interested in’, implying that age is an irrelevant factor when learning new languages. To build upon this, she suggests to the audience that it is indeed possible for ‘learners of any age’ to become not only fluent, but to achieve ‘a brilliant, even native like, command’ of another language. By including ‘learners of any age’ in this optimistic, declarative sentence, the author seeks to gain the approval of a wider audience. Ultimately, it is this approval that Schmid uses to support her initial attack on these reports, postulating that ‘these reports dramatically misrepresented’ the study’s results, asserting that they are ‘flat-out wrong’. Such loaded language suggests that, given the author’s experience with linguistic research, these reports have greatly sensationalised the difficulty, if any, older people may have when learning new languages. In this way, Schmid underscores the unreliable findings of the reports, suggesting to readers of ‘all ages’ that their age is not a limiting factor.
MissSmiley:
--- Quote from: Anonymous on June 15, 2018, 11:43:28 pm ---Hopefully I am not too late...
This is just one paragraph, not a full LA. TIA. :)
By informing the audience of her extensive knowledge about linguistic studies, Schmid avers that the Cognition study is ‘one of the worst misrepresentations…[she] has ever seen’. The adverb ‘ever’ seems to suggest that Schmid has seen many of these misrepresentations before, except that this is the worst amongst them. This sentence just seems a bit obvious and it doesn't add significantly to any analysis, but I really like your analysis of 'worst,' and if you mind, I'm just going to add in a few words to expand that. Therefore, the statement that this is the superlative adjective ‘worst’ she has ‘ever seen’ seems to implies that the findings of the study are untrustworthy and lack competence. From the outset itself, readers are implored to neglect the findings and instead divert to believing in Schmid's point that adults too can learn new languages. in turn kindling a feeling of hope in older readers, who may be looking to learn new languages. This feeling is further strengthened by Schmid’s statement that fluency is ‘not what the study’s author’s… are interested in’, implying that age could you make this link stronger? At the moment it's a bit unclear is an irrelevant factor when learning new languages. To build upon this, she suggests to the audience that it is indeed possible for ‘learners of any age’ to become not only fluent, but to achieve ‘a brilliant, even native like, command’ of another language. By including ‘learners of any age’ in this optimistic, declarative sentence, the author seeks to gain the approval of a wider audience. Ultimately, it is this approval that Schmid uses to support her initial attack on these reports, postulating that ‘these reports dramatically misrepresented’ the study’s results, asserting that they are ‘flat-out wrong’. Such loaded language suggests that, given the author’s experience with linguistic research, these reports have greatly sensationalised the difficulty, if any, older people may have when learning new languages. In this way, Schmid underscores the unreliable findings of the reports, suggesting to readers of ‘all ages’ that their age is not a limiting factor. Yes! This is really good!
--- End quote ---
Hey :)
I really like the way you've zoomed out and zoomed in!
By that I mean you've analysed why Schmid says the 'worst findings' at the start itself, and how that gives her freedom to assert her own points.
And you've zoomed in to focus on specific 'moments' or feelings about a certain sentence. So good job on doing this!
But, more argument tracking and development was possible :) (I guess this is just because you had only one para, so I'm just reminding you of this)
Finally, only write new analysis. The meaning behind couple of your sentences was redundant, so you could have analysed reader effect in that place a bit more :)
Good job!
Thanks! :)
Anonymous:
Hey! This is my first post on Atar Notes so a little nervous ... I'm in yr 11 but thought theres no time like the present to start improving my writing skills for year 12. I wrote an intro and first body paragraph (which contains analysis of image so it's a little long - sorry) - any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)
The opinion piece ‘Ignore the headlines: you can learn a new language - at any age’ written by Monika Schmid (The Age 21 May 2018) explores the long debated issue of the influence of age on foreign linguistic ability. Schmid employs a passionate yet concise tone in response to a new study which debunks the ‘common misconception’ that after the age of ten learning a new language is ‘impossible’. Schmid asserting to her audience, readers of the Age along with members of society that may be interested in the prospect of learning a new language, that no matter your age you can learn new skills with adequate practice and perseverance. Maintaining a conversational manner throughout the piece, schmid elucidates that past research into the issue has not focused on fluency, the influence of physiological factors on linguistic ability is debated by scholars along with the fact that this new piece of research is unparalleled in that it covers a larger sample size than past attempts and thus has more reliable results.
Understanding the influence of other trusted news outlets on her intended audience, Schmid begins by warning the readership to ‘ignore the headlines’ an idea reflected in the opening paragraph. Schmid lists a plethora of newspapers and government supported organisations such as the BBC and Daily Mail whom the reader is likely to respect the opinions of. By depicting these newspapers with a negative connotation from the beginning of the opinion piece, Schmid is able to elevate and validate the continually asserted fact that the influence of age on foreign linguistic ability is non existent. Schmid claims that the newspapers ‘trumpeted’ the news, a metaphor that is reminiscent of middle age monarchy and thus a lack of modern knowledge and understanding. This further ridiculing the opposition in the eyes of the reader. Schmid continues with a definitive tone saying ‘for one thing’ as if to list numerous flaws in the opposing news outlet’s portrayal of the story. The inferred listing through language is intended by Schmid to further attack the opposing view and again validate her own. Schmid explains that what ‘the BBC and Daily Mail’ have so drastically misinterpreted is the role of fluency in the research. Continuing the theme of debunking misconceptions Schmid exclaims that it ‘is not even true that young children learn languages faster’, the inclusion of ‘not even’ being a decision made by the author in order to elicit the idea that perhaps there is more regarding the issue that the readership are unaware of as a result of inaccurate reporting. This again reflecting the title and pivotal ideology to ‘ignore’ opposing ideas. Schmid follows this statement by finally revealing the true results which have been supposedly hidden by the other newspapers, ‘if you expose different age groups to the same amount [of foreign language] … the older ones invariably do better’. The word expose although being utilised by the author in order to convey the idea of continual practice also has an underlying allusion to the exposure of the falsified portrayal of the report which has been conducted by other newspapers. The accompanying image also elicits this idea of exposure, although it parallels the reinforced ideology that younger children do not do better. The image depicts several young children in a classroom environment exposed to foreign language. The location elucidates this idea of continual access to foreign language, to the reader, and thus complements the idea that it is exposure time rather than age which will result in the numerous hands up seen in the photograph.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version