hey everyone!
Here is a language analysis i did - its from the 2007 VATE sample exam.
I would like any feedback you guys could give! This is my worst thing out of any subject and need all the help i can get!
OMG! 8 days till the English exam!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAM ? language analysis (practice 1)
Practice language analysis from the 2007 VATE practice exam.
Following a decision by the state government, outlined in a parliamentary speech, to introduce mandatory exercise sessions for students, a teacher?s organisation published a response in their newsletter. The article passionately opposed the decision, defending the position of schools and raising concerns about the effects of implementation and the suitability of the approach. The author, a teacher, voices their concerns assertively to the intended audience (fellow teachers) who share a common vested interest with the writer.
The assertiveness of the piece is reinforced by the authors denigration of his/her opponents via the derogatory language used to describe their approach to the issue. The writer refers to the government ministers as ?politicians? and their policies as ?edicts from on high? immediately evoking within the audience deep seeded feelings of distrust of their approach. He/She discredits the government further by claiming that they ?kowtow? to community demands and juxtaposes their ?quick fix, band aid solution? with the ?enormous amounts of time and effort? undertaken by schools in their approach to the issue. The writer?s authoritive position as a teacher gives further credit to their viewpoint aligning the reader with the struggling teachers and against the ?brains trust?.
The writer?s passionate voice is further evidenced through the threatening and alarmist language used to defend their position. The writer claims that the policy has the potential to ?blow out? and ?seriously disrupt education? and threatens that it may ?exacerbate? problems or even turn children ?off exercise for life?. As the audience are teachers themselves and perhaps even parents, the idea that the policy could have such effect raises fear and concern. The writer implies that values which are held in high regard by the reader, ?children?, ?education? and ?literacy and numeracy? are in danger and as such the policy should be opposed. The audience is left no choice but to oppose the ?lunacy? that threatens their values so directly.
Throughout the piece the author writes inclusively and appeals to their audience directly. Opening the article with the word ?we?ve? immediately signifies to the audience that the reader is one of them; this encourages the audience to align with the writer?s viewpoint. The writer constantly makes appeals to their fellow teachers by making reference to the ?burgeoning industry? and insisting that ?anyone who works in schools? and ?those who work in schools? can ?easily see? the potential negative effects of the policy. The audience is made to feel included in the argument and their personal experience within schools, which possibly mirrors the claims of the writer, increases their acceptance of the author?s point of view.
Despite the passionate and assertive tone and the alarmist language used by the writer, the piece is persuasive toward its intended audience. Being teachers themselves they will freely accept the insight of a professional like themselves with whom they share similar vested interests. The close appeals to the audience, the derogatory dismissals of the opponent and the threats raised by the writer all help to position them against the policy approach taken by the government on the issue. Whilst the language used may not be influential on a different audience, the writer is successful as he/she is essentially preaching to the converted.
Home
Help
Search
Login
