VERY Confused with Language analysis structure etc.

[sanam]

Hi guys. So in year 11 we only got one article and one image to analyze. So this is how my essay was formatted (btw our school prefered the sectionalized approach rather than having one entire paragraph on a particular technique):
Para1: Intro (stating contention of article AND image)
Para2: analysis of first section of the article
Para3: analysis 2nd part of article
Para4: analysis of last part/conclusion of the article
Para5: Analysis on techniques conveyed in the image
Para6: Conclusion
Now i have heard that in year 12 its quite different cos you get 3 texts and you have to use a comparison approach. Can someone explain how this works and whether you sectionalize the articles or talk about them as a whole. this is probably not making sense to anyone so just tell me if you dont get it and ill try to explain what i mean. and could someone just break it down for me like what you need in each paragraph and how many paragraphs you need to write?

[Greatness]

I dont think there really is structure that you have to follow for language analysis. I usually try to keep linked ideas in the same paragraph and it's probably easier to anaylse it in chronological order. Paragraph structure doesnt really matter; you can have as many paragraphs as you want.

[lexitu]

Yeah, you were right, year 12 SACs require analysis of at least three articles. In the exam it is likely to be only one.

For three articles, you can do it in a many ways. Write as many or as little paras as you want. You can continue with the sequential approach if you wish. There is no right or wrong way, but your school may prefer you to do it in one particular way. In the exam you have complete freedom (and you should in your SACs too really). Check with your teacher, you might not be required to make a direct comparison between the three articles.

A simple way of breaking it up is doing one para on each article. So really briefly and off the top of my head:

Maybe something like:

Intro - orient the reader by telling them how the issue arose, the media and public response, the stakeholders in the issue, and cite the articles. Be brief and intertwine the aspects cleverly.

One para for each piece - state contention/intention + more in-depth discussion examining how the author delivers a message to their target audience. Mention writing style / tones, persuasive techniques + intended effects. Consider how persuasiveness is added overall and close-up. Discuss how image complements the article. You might just get an image as an 'article' in some cases.

Comparison if needed - contrast how the authors vary their style and persuasive techniques to deliver different messages to particular audiences.

Conclude by giving summation of conclusions / perspectives offered and how this connects with issue as a whole.


Hope that helps, let me know if you have any specific questions

[sanam]

Thanks for your advice lexitu and swarley. My schools criterions states that students must provide "analysis and comparison of all the texts and thoughtful and coherent discussion of the writing approach, with appropriate use of metalanguage". So it seems that for our school it is mandatory to provide comparisons. and btw what is metalanguage?

[Greatness]

metalanguage is pretty much language techniques.

[lexitu]

Oh okay, it's good that they let you know that The simplest way to do the comparison would be within one paragraph, or you could try and juggle a discussion through your whole analysis by grouping aspects of articles by techniques/functions, but that's pretty complicated and not necessary for a good score. So, if you use the paragraph approach you can comment on the different purposes/contentions, different tones used for different reasons, different techniques/styles/voices to complement the intention/audience, how the images vary for different reasons, the different emotions evoked, the suitability of the author's piece for the publication (does the author give credibility to a conservative newspaper for example by giving liberal views?), etc.

Metalanguage is language that describes language, put simply. This is VCAA's definition: "A language used to discuss language conventions and use; for example, the terms and definitions used in the various grammars to describe the functions of words in sentences and the terms used to describe and categorise structural features of different kinds of texts.

[sanam]

Lexitu ur a GREAT help. how do i give you points or karma. im a bit of a newbie  :angel:

[Greatness]

you need 50 posts ><

[lexitu]

It's alright, I appreciate the sentiment anyway. Thanks

[herzy]

Lexitu seems to have covered a lot of what I was going to say, but I'll say it anyway (perhaps from a slightly different perspective):

What I always intended to do when approaching a language analysis was to look at the ideas, and the method of persuasion/argument used by the writer, and discuss this. Often this can be done sequentially, but often not necessarily. For example, if I were to write a piece on why teenagers shouldn't smoke, I might structure my article like so:

-anecdote describing the social disadvantages of smoking (how it's now become out of fashion, you won't hook up with girls because you smell, antisocial as you have to go outside, whatever)
- highlight the scientific reasons for not smoking (increases every type of cancer, destroys skin, ageing, etc)
-end with a joke

In an essay analyising such an article, I would lump the argumentative techniques used into 3 main themes:
- use of language techniques, voice etc. to relate to a teenage audience (sloppy grammar, anecdote, jokes, slang, etc.)
- social desirability in order to make smoking seem 'uncool' (again, this may be reinforced by specific language tools as evidence above)
-appeal to logic and/or scare tactics (use of authority and scientific findings lend credibility and make me seem unbiased, while bombardment with statistics make it hard to argue logically pro smoking)
- I would also put in a comment on how the combination of appeals to both an emotional and logical side of the audience makes it signficantly more likely to be effective.

Not sure if this was clear, because I was thinking of it as I was typing it, but if not just ask - essentially what I mean is that you should try to lump it into main themes or methods of argument, and then use metalanguage/specific examples to explain how this argument was made (e.g. slang -> casual voice -> appeals to a young audience). Metalanguage is language about language, so really you describing language techniques. Don't limit yourself to this though, make sure you keep in mind the big picture, and how it all fits together to create an overal persuasive piece (all articles are persuasive pieces).

When tackling multiple pieces, you can either compare or contrast, but again this will be easier when focussing on the themes. I found it easier to do one paragraph on a single article, then another on the two together and their similarities and/or differences, etc.

Often your teachers will give you opposite contentions in your pieces in order to encourage you to discuss how differing opinions can be persuasively argued in different ways using different techniques. Discuss these and you'll do fine