Comment on my language analysis

[ItsSKC]

Hey guys.
This is my language analysis and i was hoping for some assessment and suggestions of any alterations. Be ruthless, the harder i fall the higher i shall rise.
Paradise Lost Language Analysis
Jade Simpson in her article Paradise Lost, fervently reproaches the Paradise council members for their plan to reconstruct the town of Paradise and contends that these supposed ‘development’ are an ‘eyesore’ that is destroying ‘nature at its unspoiled best’. Simpson cries out to all ‘greenies’ to ‘do something now!’
   With the punning title, Simpson draws upon the great works of John Milton to present a reasoned argument. Juxtaposition of the scheduled constructions in Paradise to Lucifers destruction of the Garden of Eden conjures the argument that these ‘developments’ are a blasphemous sin. The author intends to leave readers with the sense that to support such development is sacrilege. Those pious in the audience are left moved by this argument and are invited to sympathise with her plight.
   Her audience, now dismayed at the sinful act of ‘development’, are now bombarded by sharp attacks on the opposition. The clever use of alliteration adds substantial ring to the philippic delivered- ‘a huge hotel and fat farm for overweight capitalist’. This is intended to impugn the motives of the council and force readers to steer clear of agreeing with the development, unless willing to be on the receiving end of her captious critique.
   Through a plethora of rhetoric, ‘what about the bushwalkers? ...What about the locals...’ the author positions the readers to ponder the consequences of the ‘destruction’, playing on the readers feeling of guilt of having affected others, namely; the bushwalkers, the wildlife and the locals. This leaves the audience, especially the ‘greenies’, open and susceptible to further persuasion.
    The author then adopts powerful use of imagery to exemplify the deleterious effects that will soon be reality at Paradise beach. The striking image of a serene beach with ‘pearly sand’ is starkly compared to a soon to be ‘rubbish dump’ with ‘broken beer bottles’. Readers are awed at the transformation and feeling of remorse is instilled in the reader for having not been involved against the fight against this destruction.
   The writer refers to the opposition as ‘they’ thus positioning the reader as a victim of ‘there’ development. This appeals to the readers self interest as the reader personally feels affected by the development. Having positioned the readers in such a way the writer concludes by asking for immediate action, ‘stand up and be counted...Write letters... Do something, now!’

[brendan]

Well we need to see the original article.

[chikopapi]

"....thus positioning the reader as a victim of ‘there’ development"

Should be 'their'

Needs conclusion/ summary

[brendan]

Needs conclusion/ summary

Not necessary.

[ItsSKC]

"....thus positioning the reader as a victim of ‘there’ development"

Should be 'their'

Needs conclusion/ summary

thanks for pointing out my silly mistake

[Nick]

Well we need to see the original article.

You don't need the original article to comment on the structure and effectiveness of a language analysis piece. The examples are cited and the intended effect is explained. Therefore it is not imperative to provide the actual article.

Needs conclusion/ summary

Not necessary.

It isn't entirely necessary, but if you want to lift the analytical strength of the piece, it would be appropriate to have some sort of conclusion. Students who receive top marks for their pieces would usually have a short, sharp concluding paragraph which sums up the the author's intention and their ability to persuade the intended audience.

[brendan]

Well we need to see the original article.

You don't need the original article to comment on the structure and effectiveness of a language analysis piece. The examples are cited and the intended effect is explained. Therefore it is not imperative to provide the actual article.

I think you need it. You can't adequately determine whether or not he has actually done a good job of the language analysis, because he may have left out some important language techniques, or misinterpreted some other language devices,etc. Then there's the question of whether he understood the ideas and points of view in the original piece. You can't assess that to any acceptable degree without actually seeing the original piece.

[brendan]

There's quite a few grammatical and spelling errors here and there, but I'll leave that for others to point out.

1/ "Simpson draws upon the great works of John Milton to present a reasoned argument."

The point with the language analysis is that you are supposed to be quite objective as to the issue itself. The writer is trying to convince you that her argument is "reasoned". The question of whether it actually is "reasoned" is moving into the territory of argument analysis, not language analysis. So you should have instead written:

"Simpson draws upon the great works of John Milton in an attempt to present a reasoned argument."

2/ "Juxtaposition of the scheduled constructions in Paradise to Lucifers destruction of the Garden of Eden conjures the argument that these ‘developments’ are a blasphemous sin. The author intends to leave readers with the sense that to support such development is sacrilege"

You've repeated yourself there. The two sentences are effectively saying the same thing. You could just simply write:

"Juxtaposition of the scheduled constructions in Paradise to Lucifers destruction of the Garden of Eden gives readers the impression that these ‘developments’ are a blasphemous sin."

3/ "The clever use of alliteration adds substantial ring to the philippic delivered- ‘a huge hotel and fat farm for overweight capitalist’. This is intended to impugn the motives of the council and force readers to steer clear of agreeing with the development, unless willing to be on the receiving end of her captious critique."

I didn't think you talked enough about the use of the terms "overweight capitalist".

4/ "Through a plethora of rhetoric, ‘what about the bushwalkers? ...What about the locals...’ the author positions the readers to ponder the consequences of the ‘destruction’, playing on the readers feeling of guilt of having affected others, namely; the bushwalkers, the wildlife and the locals. This leaves the audience, especially the ‘greenies’, open and susceptible to further persuasion."


I would have changed:
"guilt of having affected others" to "guilt of having negatively affected others"
"plethora of rhetoric" to "plethora of questions"

5/ "Readers are awed at the transformation and feeling of remorse is instilled in the reader for having not been involved against the fight against this destruction."

I wouldn't put it so strongly. You can't know for sure just how readers are going to feel, so it is better to write "It is likely that readers ..."

[Nick]

Hey guys.
This is my language analysis and i was hoping for some assessment and suggestions of any alterations. Be ruthless, the harder i fall the higher i shall rise.

Overall, I believe your piece is very thoughtful and structured well. You have made same good observations about how the writer is utilising language, and you are citing your examples well. Here are a few tips:

Jade Simpson in her article Paradise Lost, fervently reproaches the Paradise council members for their plan to reconstruct the town of Paradise and contends that these supposed ‘development’ are an ‘eyesore’ that is destroying ‘nature at its unspoiled best’. Simpson cries out to all ‘greenies’ to ‘do something now!’

You need to cite your source- the exact name of the publication and the date it was released/published. You have introduced the issue well, and clearly demonstrated that you understand the implications of the author's contention.

   With the punning title, Simpson draws upon the great works of John Milton to present a reasoned argument. Juxtaposition of the scheduled constructions in Paradise to Lucifers destruction of the Garden of Eden conjures the argument that these ‘developments’ are a blasphemous sin. The author intends to leave readers with the sense that to support such development is sacrilege. Those pious in the audience are left moved by this argument and are invited to sympathise with her plight.

The first sentence is very awkward. "Punning title" is a bad choice. Maybe describe the title as "carefully constructed" or "cleverly crafted". Instead of saying that the pun simply has a reasoning effect, go further by explaining what this reasoning effect actually does to the reader. By using such terminology, you could claim that the reader feels at ease or is more likely to understand the implications of the plan due to the familiarity of the term.

   Her audience, now dismayed at the sinful act of ‘development’, are now bombarded by sharp attacks on the opposition. The clever use of alliteration adds substantial ring to the philippic delivered- ‘a huge hotel and fat farm for overweight capitalist’. This is intended to impugn the motives of the council and force readers to steer clear of agreeing with the development, unless willing to be on the receiving end of her captious critique.

Change your word choice in relation to the word "bombarded"- it is a very strong word that probably isn't necessary given the examples you are using.
Rephrase the part where you claim that the language devices make the reader, "steer clear of agreeing". It's a little basic and can be more specific. You could claim that it, "stirs up fierce opposition amongst the readership" or "positions the reader to feel uneasy when considering the implications of the writer's argument".

Through a plethora of rhetoric, ‘what about the bushwalkers? ...What about the locals...’ the author positions the readers to ponder the consequences of the ‘destruction’, playing on the readers feeling of guilt of having affected others, namely; the bushwalkers, the wildlife and the locals. This leaves the audience, especially the ‘greenies’, open and susceptible to further persuasion.

The first part of the sentence is great, but it deteriorates towards the end. I don't think these devices "play of the readers' feeling of guilt". You could claim that such devices create a feeling of distress amongst the readership, as they are directly faced with the broader implications and long term effects that the development could have.

The author then adopts powerful use of imagery to exemplify the deleterious effects that will soon be reality at Paradise beach. The striking image of a serene beach with ‘pearly sand’ is starkly compared to a soon to be ‘rubbish dump’ with ‘broken beer bottles’. Readers are awed at the transformation and feeling of remorse is instilled in the reader for having not been involved against the fight against this destruction.

I'm not quite sure about this whole "remorse" element. I think you could claim that the device has a binding effect on the readership, as it encourages them to stand up and seek action. It also instills a belief amongst the readership that it necessary to verbally express their concerns.

   The writer refers to the opposition as ‘they’ thus positioning the reader as a victim of ‘there’ development. This appeals to the readers self interest as the reader personally feels affected by the development. Having positioned the readers in such a way the writer concludes by asking for immediate action, ‘stand up and be counted...Write letters... Do something, now!’

I wouldn't analyse the use of the word "they" in this paragraph. It probably isn't an overly effective device and doesn't really need to be analysed. The second part of the paragraph is great- it ends the piece very powerfully and simplistically.


Overall, it is a great first effort. There is some awkward phrasing in the piece, but it can be fixed up relatively easily. Some of your descriptions of the "intended effects" are at times a little inappropriate, but it is a very good analysis.

Well done- 7/10.

[Nick]

Well we need to see the original article.

You don't need the original article to comment on the structure and effectiveness of a language analysis piece. The examples are cited and the intended effect is explained. Therefore it is not imperative to provide the actual article.

I think you need it. You can't adequately determine whether or not he has actually done a good job of the language analysis, because he may have left out some important language techniques, or misinterpreted some other language devices,etc. Then there's the question of whether he understood the ideas and points of view in the original piece. You can't assess that to any acceptable degree without actually seeing the original piece.

I went to a lecture ran by the English chief assessor in October last year. He claimed that within moments of picking up a language analysis piece, the assessor can almost grant the piece a score out of 10. The structure and the content of the introduction immediately demonstrate the extent to which the student is likely to achieve a high or low mark. It therefore isn't entirely necessary to consider the original article when marking/considering the effectiveness of an analysis. If the key components are evident and there is logical descriptions of the intended effects, you can assess an analysis most effectively.

[brendan]

Well we need to see the original article.

You don't need the original article to comment on the structure and effectiveness of a language analysis piece. The examples are cited and the intended effect is explained. Therefore it is not imperative to provide the actual article.

I think you need it. You can't adequately determine whether or not he has actually done a good job of the language analysis, because he may have left out some important language techniques, or misinterpreted some other language devices,etc. Then there's the question of whether he understood the ideas and points of view in the original piece. You can't assess that to any acceptable degree without actually seeing the original piece.

I went to a lecture ran by the English chief assessor in October last year. He claimed that within moments of picking up a language analysis piece, the assessor can almost grant the piece a score out of 10. The structure and the content of the introduction immediately demonstrate the extent to which the student is likely to achieve a high or low mark. It therefore isn't entirely necessary to consider the original article when marking/considering the effectiveness of an analysis. If the key components are evident and there is logical descriptions of the intended effects, you can assess an analysis most effectively.

That's because as a chief assessor, he has read the original piece before hand.

How can you know whether a person has analyzed a piece successfully if you don't know what he is analyzing? If a teacher was marking my language analysis, I'd expect her to have actually read the original piece that I analyzed to have any confidence in the mark that she finally gives.

[ItsSKC]

Thanks guys for that help i really appreciated it. Wow i just realized i have a lot of work to do this year in English to get to that standard (hopefully i can)

[brendan]

you should take a look at this thread: http://freestudynotes.com/VCEforum/index.php/topic,42.0.html

[Nick]

Well we need to see the original article.

You don't need the original article to comment on the structure and effectiveness of a language analysis piece. The examples are cited and the intended effect is explained. Therefore it is not imperative to provide the actual article.

I think you need it. You can't adequately determine whether or not he has actually done a good job of the language analysis, because he may have left out some important language techniques, or misinterpreted some other language devices,etc. Then there's the question of whether he understood the ideas and points of view in the original piece. You can't assess that to any acceptable degree without actually seeing the original piece.

I went to a lecture ran by the English chief assessor in October last year. He claimed that within moments of picking up a language analysis piece, the assessor can almost grant the piece a score out of 10. The structure and the content of the introduction immediately demonstrate the extent to which the student is likely to achieve a high or low mark. It therefore isn't entirely necessary to consider the original article when marking/considering the effectiveness of an analysis. If the key components are evident and there is logical descriptions of the intended effects, you can assess an analysis most effectively.

That's because as a chief assessor, he has read the original piece before hand.

No. It was said in the context of an assessor not having actually considered the content of the original article.

[kido_1]

How do you make an assessor automatically 'like' your piece of writing?
Is it with a fiesty introduction..