VCE Stuff > VCE English Work Submission and Marking

[English] "Don’t blame me, blame Julia Gillard" language analysis

<< < (3/4) > >>

LOVEPHYSICS:
Comments:
(1) Dealt with the language techniques rather well
(2) Appropriate analysis on the author's intents
(3) Writing is controlled and well-structured
(4) Expression is strong, though not without its problems
(5) There is an assurance about the response, you have clearly thought about the piece and it shows in the writing.

Points to note:
(1) Try not to be repetitive with the techniques
(2) "(due to the way the Government has ‘recklessly weakened’ the immigration laws), (which, as implied by Bolt, could be achieved through a change in Government)"
NO, do not use brackets. Putting on brackets not only make the sentence sloppy, it UNDERRATES the significance of the content within.

I find this paragraph rather interesting, so I thought I would try to improve it.

Bolt’s use of emotive language is strong as he uses words such as ‘killed’ and ‘dead’ as dysphemistic alternatives to phrases such as ‘the victims’ or ‘those who have passed away’. This provokes feelings of shock and dismay within the reader and the mere experience of these feelings brings the audience to question those who may have been involved in causing such a horrific tragedy.The emotive language that Bolt employs puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, as he shifts the blame to their 'compassionate politics' and positions the reader to conclude that the Gillard government are responsible and thus must be held accountable. Bolt also uses emotive language to create a strong visual image in the reader’s mind, by describing ‘[the] latest boat [which] smashed into the rocks of Christmas Island’. Use of the word ‘smashed’ endows the inevitable loss of lives, as complemented by the dramatic photograph which depicts the shipwrecked boat struggling against the empowering tides. This photograph personifies the issue at hand and is one of the many pieces of evidence in which Bolt used to press his assertion that the terrible tragedy could have been avoided if not for the Labour government's 'weak laws' and the politics they played in misleading desperate refugees.

Otherwise, a high response. 8/10. You should be proud of your efforts.

lexitu:
I think your analysis is not specific enough and you are taking generic descriptions of intended effects and substituting them into your analysis. If you can take what you wrote and use it for another article then it is not specific enough. E.g. "The use of this technique continually reinforces the point that Bolt is trying to make throughout this opinion piece and ensures that the reader remains aware of what he is trying to argue."

Also, careful not to evaluate - saying that a technique is "particularly affective" serves no purpose.

Your writing is coherent but you need to improve at the task. 7/10.

Water:
Reread the article, with a refreshed mind and I would certainly give it an 8/10. I base my mark on the merits that the author has demonstrated a very clear understanding of the effects. I share the same views as the other posts in your flaws, overall. Good job well done :)

Mint:
Overall, a very well written analysis.
I think you have a great vocabulary and your writing is very fluent.
Your analysis of each technique is detailed but there are a few generic descriptions.
I particularly like the conclusion, wraps up the piece well :)

good job! 8/10

CharlieW:
Not gonna give a full wrap, as werdna and co. have done their bit, just a few small things

You're first paragraph is fine, the onyl nit picky thing i can say is try to find a synonym for repeat or repetition, i think u used it 3-4 times, which is absolutely fine, but i like mixing it up with fancy stuff like incessant use of bla bla bla, rather than just repetition reptition reptition.

paragraph after that:
Use of the word ‘smashed’ is particularly affective in this instance and works well to complement the dramatic photograph of a shipwrecked boat that accompanies the article. This photograph helps bring to life the issue at hand and is one of many pieces of evidence that Bolt presents in the article.

This is lovely, only thing i could raise  a question is works well, seems borderline value judgement.

Somewhere in you're essay you said:

"The emotive language that Bolt uses puts the Gillard Government in a negative light, allowing the reader to quickly jump to the conclusion that they are responsible and feelings of shock and dismay seem to become associated with the mention of the Government."

last clause is kinda awkward, doesn't feel right.

Apart from that I really like it, if it was written under exam conditions, I'd give it about a 9.

EDIT: 8/10 sorry, i read it thru again, and there was little mention of a target audience (excludings readers), u know really specific audience groups, e.g. more right orientated readers, ppl who see themsevles as compassionate, conservative readers, even say something like the Australian ppl is more specific than readers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page