Comment on my language analysis

[Nick]

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

An assessor doesn't "like" as such, they identify that all the key components of a strong piece of writing are evident. An introduction should be swift, carefully constructed and contain all the key elements that an introduction requires. That is,
a) Author of the piece, publication, date
b) A brief introduction to the issue and the view points that exist
c) The contention and tone of the writer

The introduction should also demonstrate that the student understands the wider implications of the issue. That is, they understand the core focus of the issue and the forces that the issue will affect.

[brendan]

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

well even then, that's only the introduction. i doubt it very much that you would have much confidence in a mark that was given by an assessor that didn't read the actual piece you were analyzing.

[Nick]

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

well even then, that's only the introduction. i doubt it very much that you would have much confidence in a mark that was given by an assessor that didn't read the actual piece you were analyzing.

True. I was quite surprised by it actually. Obviously they don't undertake the exam marking process without having read the original article, but the assessor was just demonstrating that although the actual content of the article is important, the structure and expression of the piece is sometimes just as important as the way in which you specifically analyse the use of language.

I would gather from his comment that many assessors automatically assume that good expression and structure are usually directly linked to a solid analysis.

[costargh]

Coincidentally I was given this to analyse by my English teacher. I'd personally rate it 6/10-7/10 MAX. What do you think? Language Analysis has gone way down hill for me.

Paradise lost! Language Analysis

Jade’s letter to the editor shows a clear disagreement with Paradise Council and developers plans to develop the ‘pearly sands’ of Paradise. In her letter, she contends that development will destroy the “nature at its unspoiled best” and that the community should fight to save the destruction of the “rainforests”, “mangroves” and the “bay.” Jade urges the “lovers of paradise” to “do something now!”

The writer has carefully crafted the title to immediately instil a sense of urgency in the reader with respect to the issue. Jade continuously refers to development of Paradise as a sin through references to biblical texts. By referring to developers as “serpents” and “the devil”, Jade is immediately developing a critique of their planned actions and is attacking their sense of morality. These continued attacks position the reader to feel that the actions of the developers are unethical and that they are sin or a ‘wrong’ against society.

Jade continually provokes the developers with insults such as “overweight capitalists” and “rednecks”. These loaded terms position the reader to feel infuriated with the attempts of the developers to make money out of the pristine habitat. Constant repetition and rhetoric in the form of questions allows the writer to question the reader about who the development affects and ultimately the reader is positioned to realised that it is in fact, themself. 

The writer uses terms such as “war zone” and refers to the beaches in the future as being filled with “broken beer bottles” to sensationalise the issue.
This creates a sense of disgust for the reader and can be slightly misleading due to the writer’s emotive appeal. This deludes the reader into the idea that the issue is more serious than what is realistically foreseeable.

The writer’s reference to precedents such as “Franklin Dam” and “Fraser Island” where the community fought against large corporation’s development and use of natural resources highlights the realism of a change. This positions the reader to feel positive about the chances of success if they take a stand and speak out against the development. Jade’s strong use of emotional appeal urges the reader to get involved and fight to make difference. “Write a letter”, “contact your local member” and “do something now!” all urge the reader to feel connected to the issue and the imperative tone used highlights the significance of what is at stake; “nature at it’s unspoiled best”!

[neophyte]

I think you need to focus more on delving into the effects the language is having on the reader's belief system - specifically analyse the ways in which language is used to persuade the reader. Each quote should be adequately explored.
An analysis should be a coherent piece of prose - try enhancing the flow of your piece by using ... ing words (for example, ... positioning the reader to)
Avoid using superficial language
Avoid labelling techniques, such as 'repetition' 'rhetorical questions' etc
Remember this is a language analysis, not an argument analysis

I would score the piece 6/10

[costargh]

Thanks for the criticisms. Ill try implement it throughout the year.
=)

[brendan]

Avoid labelling techniques, such as 'repetition' 'rhetorical questions' etc

no, you should label, but that shouldn't be the ONLY thing that you do. You should identify the language technique and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader).

[neophyte]

Avoid labelling techniques, such as 'repetition' 'rhetorical questions' etc

no, you should label, but that shouldn't be the ONLY thing that you do. You should identify the language technique and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader).

In my experience, examiners find labelling superficial and many immediately form a negative impression, having discussed the issue with my former english teacher, who is an examiner. While one can still compose a high-scoring piece with some labelling involved, I do not recommend doing so, given the inherently unnecessary disadvantage.

[brendan]

Avoid labelling techniques, such as 'repetition' 'rhetorical questions' etc

no, you should label, but that shouldn't be the ONLY thing that you do. You should identify the language technique and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader).

In my experience, examiners find labelling superficial and many immediately form a negative impression, having discussed the issue with my former english teacher, who is an examiner. While one can still compose a high-scoring piece with some labelling involved, I do not recommend doing so, given the inherently unnecessary disadvantage.

its because some students tend to label and leave it at that rather than also analyze it. if its an appeal to tradition then yes call it that and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader). call a spade a spade, and get on with the task of analyzing it.

these hard and fast rules were generally not created for the top student, they were created for the weaker student because they typically trap themselves into simply naming the technique and then leaving it at that.

[Nick]

Costa I received your analysis via email- I've marked 80% of it, I'll finish the rest after work tomorrow night and email it back to you.

[neophyte]

Avoid labelling techniques, such as 'repetition' 'rhetorical questions' etc

no, you should label, but that shouldn't be the ONLY thing that you do. You should identify the language technique and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader).

In my experience, examiners find labelling superficial and many immediately form a negative impression, having discussed the issue with my former english teacher, who is an examiner. While one can still compose a high-scoring piece with some labelling involved, I do not recommend doing so, given the inherently unnecessary disadvantage.

its because some students tend to label and leave it at that rather than also analyze it. if its an appeal to tradition then yes call it that and then analyze how it persuades (its effect on the reader). call a spade a spade, and get on with the task of analyzing it.

these hard and fast rules were generally not created for the top student, they were created for the weaker student because they typically trap themselves into simply naming the technique and then leaving it at that.

Logically speaking, if one was to just quote from the article and subsequently explore the effect you are likely to be more precise with your analysis. In any case, labelling does not improve your score, I assure you this. It is unnecessary.

May I ask, by the way, how you did in english?

[brendan]

Logically speaking,

If what was to follow was so logical, why did you feel the need to point it out? It's own logic would speak for itself.

if one was to just quote from the article and subsequently explore the effect you are likely to be more precise with your analysis. In any case, labelling does not improve your score, I assure you this. It is unnecessary.

If its a rhetorical question, call it a rhetorical question. If it's a pun, call it a pun. If it's repetition, call it repetition. But like i said before identifying isn't the only thing you should be doing. You should also analyze how the language persuades (its effect on the reader).

May I ask, by the way, how you did in english?

May I ask if you know of the concept of discussing the message rather than the messenger. Or may I ask if you know of a thing called a genetic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

[BA22]

Classic Brendan, haha.

I agree with Brendan, one must highlight key techniques, as you are actually assessed on identification. Naming the technique is the most succinct method of identifying it

[neophyte]

Look, you can label techniques and still score a 10; it's just unnecessary and detracts from the number of words which are utilised to actually analyse the ways in which language is used to persuade the reader. Deep and insightful analysis is what scores the marks, so you may as well concentrate on that.

I've offered you evidence: examiners' reports, the view of my former teacher (an examiner and head of english) and my personal experience.
If you refuse to accept evidence then there is no more I can do for you.

[melodrama]

i agree with both to an extent.

i agree with brendan that labelling is vital to a language analysis. it makes no sense to discuss the effects of persuasive techniques without informing the reader what technique you are actually referring to, and can only result in confusion and a lower score.

however, i also don't believe that you should limit yourself to simply naming it them as puns, rhetorical questions and whatnot, as it does get extremely monotonous for markers. i suggest that you inject some variation into the piece by labelling them in different ways. for example, rather than saying that "the author has stressed the negative effects of this scheme with hyperbole", you can say "the author has stressed the negative effects of this scheme by exaggerating the truth", or labelling it more subtly through quotes as neophyte has mentioned. this will give a more sophisticated response.