Hey, I'll be brief, because I don't have much of time. I read through the piece, and overall, it's pretty decent, and some sections are excellent, however it strikes me that the verbosity and over emphasis on language devices detracts from the
actual analysis. Within the excessively long paragraphs you tend to get lost occasionally, by focusing largely on "How" and "What" is being said, rather than "Why" or the
intended effects on the target audience (i.e. retelling the plot or analyzing the grammar of the articles will not gain marks).
Many of the previous comments highlight this to an extent - and I think that the if you were to do this in exam, you would lose marks (quality not quantity!). There are some excellent sections of analysis - but on the whole, the use of incorrect adjectives, the arguments that do not lead on (non-sequitor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 and the excessive verbosity really hinders the flow of the piece. I used to write like this, in an overtly pretentious and seemingly erudite style, and I was severely penalized for it. Using terms such as "entity", "pedagogical" and "syntactical" mask over the meaning of what you are try to say by replacing actual analysis with flashy words. There are also some parts where you miss out on the nuanced and intended persuasive techniques - (where was the analysis and effect of the term "orwellian" the images of monolithic bureaucracy or the
effects of using a term such as "crime" to describe state educators.)
Remember, brevity is the soul of wit (Shakespeare), and this is what I would urge you to concentrate on when you write your next piece.
On a side note, when writing a dual analysis (2 articles + image), there are essentially two ways to do it.
The first way, is to analyze each piece separately and conclude by summarizing your analysis of both (the approach you have taken). Whilst this may be seen as a safer, it reads as two separate pieces of work within one piece. This can detract from the flow and movement of the piece.
The second way involves interweaving both pieces around similar techniques (i.e. 1 paragraph analysing the appeal to Australian values in both pieces. . .one paragraph analysing similar rhetorical techniques etc. . ) I find this construct far more superior, because it saves having to repeat the same technique over and over across many paragraphs (which I also found in your piece): e.g:
However, it can be deduced that the writers do utilise similar literary elements; for instance, this writer uses brusquely syntactic sentences, similar to Buckle
I see that JVG has clarified some grammatical/prose related errors, so I'll try not to overlap with specific examples.
from the Australian Council of Educational Research deduced that several of our curricula have “all the consistency of our century railway gauges”. Through this, readers are encouraged to compare the novel findings with the “century” grade railway gauges, which also serves to build up Buckle's credibility as an authoritative figure who is seemingly up-to-date.
From the onset, Buckle permeates and imbues his credibility by placing the matter into a political context and initiating a contemplative but sustained tone of voice.
Tone or even context does nothing to "imbue credibility". A stronger piece would've focused on the fact that the author is a deputy principal - and
this rather than what he writes, enhances his credibility. The fact that he's a principal portrays him as a seasoned educator who understands children's needs and concerns thus leading parents to view him as reliable and trustworthy.
By juxtaposing the seemingly “sensible idea” with the negative imagery in that it has caused as much as a “furore” as if the Government put “cannibalism on the curriculum”, Buckle aims to position readers to feel receptive towards upholding a more upbeat reaction to the proposal
How do you feel when you hear the words “cannibalism on the curriculum"? Do you feel "receptive" and "upbeat"? Or do you feel shocked and alarmed. As I mentioned earlier, this is a classic non-sequitor, as you identify the persuasive forms of language, and you then miss the intended effect completely. The best thing to do in an analysis is to ask yourself - "How does that make
me feel?" because other readers will probably react the same way.
In assimilating the community's “furore” with the assumed power of the Government, Buckle may compel readers
This is but one of the many instances where you substitute an incorrect term into the sentence that does not adhere to the register (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%29) of the English language. You will never see anybody use the word "assimilate" in this context. I had this exact same problem when writing Hebrew essays for VCE Lote - using a thesaurus to stick in as many impressive words as possible to impress the examiner. 99% of the time, those words miss the register, and the sentence sounds clumsy, and the examiner thinks you're a pretentious bastard. I'm not going to go into the many instances that this occurs in your piece - just remember to use appropriate words.
Buckle goes on to weave alliteration and antithesis into one sentence; stating that, he states that, having students in “Bunbury and Bundaberg” learn “entirely different things” in “entirely different ways” is cognisant of the incomprehensible nature of the current system
Where is the appeal to Australian values here? What of the use of geography subtly compelling parents to consider the benefits of a single curriculum regardless of geographic constraints? ("Physics does not change in the middle of the Marray", "Darwin to Davenport"). You've touched on the idea of 'sameness' - expanding that would be a good idea.
Similar to Buckle, this writer also demonstrates the profound use of anaphora, through the repetitive use of the term “for” to begin each successive clause.
This isn't supposed to be a grammar analysis.
Through the use of negatively-charged emotive terms “hapless” and “ruthless”, along with the emphasis on the negatively-connotative “-less” suffix, Buckle is able to channel readers' sympathy, as the statement would no doubt resonate with parental readers.
Better responses at his point would point out the fact that parents are motivated by seeking the best for their children, and appeal to victim-hood (in both articles btw) alarms them for/against by playing on basic parental instincts.
Furthermore, derogatory language - “alleged 'educators'” - and alliterative phrases - “curriculum crimes” - help Buckle to put the matter into perspective.
You should avoid generic phrases such as "put the matter into perspective". These don't actually say anything. If you ever listen to one of Noam Chomsky's speeches, this is how he talks, and nobody has a clue about what he is saying: e.g. he will say something like "these systems lynchpin a position on a modern social discourse". You should avoid writing like this at all costs (unless you have won the Nobel Prize, and have a sea of admirers across the entire leftist political spectrum.)
The effect of this stance is heightened by the derisory adjective “alleged”, as well as the fact that there are, exaggeratedly, “curriculum crimes” existent in society
What about discussing how these terms denigrate state-educators and detract from their credibility - compelling parents to seek a better alternative for their children? And what is this "stance" that you constantly speak of?
This is just the first paragraph, but most of the mistakes are relatively the same and repeated throughout. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and give this piece a 7/10 - even though you have a clear appreciation of literary devices and you identified the target audience, actual analysis is sorely lacking in some areas, and the prose used to construct this piece is simply insufferable.
As has been mentioned, you should start writing to time. Otherwise, as long as you focus on analyzing effects on the reader, rather than focusing excessively on metalanguage, I think you will be ready in time for the exam.
Good Luck.
Home
Help
Search
Login
