Ok second attempt at Analysis of Language

[Faraz]

yoo for the peeps that marked my other one (http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6115.0.html) just see if I have improved or not thanks


Chickens Range Free

Analysis of language use

Jo Smith’s “chickens range free” argues that we as Australians are no longer
aware of what is going on before our eyes, we no longer see animal cruelty
for what it is because of the human-centred view that we have obtained over
the years from the criticising media and other surroundings. She wants the reader
to put away their selfish thoughts and views and think about the issue upheld from
a new perspective.

The headline “chickens range free” which is the reverse of “free range chickens”
instantly brings the issue being argued to the reader. And the visual of the caged
chicken will tell the reader what side she will be arguing, therefore the reader already
knows her point of view on the topic. The photograph supports her statements about
the suffering animals and the injustice which beholds them. another effect of the
photo is that it will shock readers and hold their attention, it will also demonstrates
the emotive language used such as “trapped” making the reader feel the guilt and
increase their awareness.

The writer defends the actions of the activist and believes it to be justified.
She criticises the media on their describing of the farmer, and the presenter
making a muck of the problem by beginning his show with “fancy a free range chicken?”.
She shows sympathy for the activists “someone has to stand up for the rights of animals”
and wants the reader to do the same. She uses emotive language such as
“murders” and “tortures” to describe the people of the industry. She repeatedly uses
“we” and “should” to call upon the reader to take actions in the support of animals.
She ask the rhetorical question “shouldn’t all animals be free to lead natural lives?”
remaining the reader of their past and the equality that they should share between
the habitants of earth.

Jo Smith exaggerates and states that animals have feeling to and that they can suffer
the same ways as we do. The reader must feel some sense of sympathy or understanding,
if they do not it will implicate that they are separate from the human kind and that they
are no better than the farmers. She uses “cages only 450 square centimetres in size” to
get the point across to the reader as to the full extent of the issue, and to get support
from the reader. The describing of the animals as “furred and feathered friends” makes
them seem cute and cuddly and in the need of our aid, also arouses a deep feeling in the
reader to protect them.

Jo Smith’s argument is a one-sided and bias only looking at it from the animal’s point of
view not from the farmer having to go to these accents to survive these hard times, or
the buyers who cannot afford that extra few dollars to buy the free range chicken.
Therefore the reader is persuaded to support her views and accept the actions of the
activist, by the techniques she has used such as appeals, rhetorical questions, emotive
language and praising etc. The articles one sidedness leaves little room for the reader to think
of the others who are suffering.

Words: 533

[shinny]

I'll just do a paragraph by paragraph correction.
1. Expression errors immediately in the first sentence. Like I said last time, just give a very concise sentence involving 'The writer contends that...' and get straight to the point. Maybe something like...'Smith contends in a passionate tone that the liberation of the chickens by the animal activists was a justified act.' The last sentence also seems a bit speculative and vague too. Also, mention that there's a photograph accompanying the article.

2. The first thing you analyse there is a pretty weak point. Theres MUCH better stuff to be analysing rather than just something like 'The writer tells readers what she's going to be arguing', because that's pretty much what you did. Even in doing so, you haven't stated why thats persuasive (if it is at all anyway) and so it really didn't get anywhere. Your image analysis lacks use of correct metalanguage and you're making statements about its effects without actually stating WHY. Pure speculation.

3. First sentence is obsolete - you've already identified the contention. Also, don't use the word 'muck' - its clearly too informal. Also, you've identified the quotation 'fancy a free range chicken', but you haven't stated what it implies, how the language works and so on. Following this, you've pretty much fallen into the trap of merely listing technique after technique and labelling what they are - don't. Each paragraph should only have one or two groups of examples with similar effects in them which you can collectively analyse, state their purpose, and then state the potential effects on readers. Some of your analysis is slightly misguided too, but that's a hard skill to develop. For example, you say the words 'murder' and 'torture' are used to describe the people...but how does that make sense? They're more words that describe the ACT of killing chickens, and it dysphemistically presents such an act to be viewed as more of a slaughter as opposed to an industrial process from which we merely source our KFC.

4. Some very controversial statements such as 'The reader must feel some sense of sympathy or understanding, if they do not it will implicate that they are separate from the human kind and that they are no better than the farmers'. Firstly, never put readers MUST - some readers may, others might not give a shit; who knows? Just say readers may feel etcetc. Secondly, since when were farmers not human o_o Once again, with the 450 square cm quote, state WHY it gets support from the reader.

5. Too much speculation as to what readers may do in regards to the article yet again.

OVERALL: Too many grammar/puntuation/expression errors and such too which I didn't even bother mentioning before because they're just everywhere - proof read your work. Also, yet again probably too short, you need another paragraph. A general guide is 3 paragraphs on the article, and an entire paragraph devoted to the image. I feel as if your actual analysis has gotten seriously worse since the last one, so I have no idea what happened there...There's just seriously too much listing.

[bridgethuss]

dont want to be harsh, but i dont like your intro. it might just be me, but i like to start with a little insight into the actual issue, before mentioning the article.
eg - with the recent proposal for a new abortion bill, debates have arose (sp?) amongst the community, with those arguing for pro life, and others firmly believing in pro choice. retired teacher bob lee recently had his say on the topic, and his opinion piece "pro choice is the choice" was published in the herald sun on 14/10/08. in an agressive tone, lee contends to the intended readership of parents, that ....cant think of a contention right now..

i just made that up on the spot, so its not perfect, but i hope you get the idea.

i also think you need to use more sophisicated language. dont say "the writer wants"  or "the reader must feel". instead say it influences readers, intends to position readers, aims to provoke strong feelings etc

[bridgethuss]

im a really bad speller.

[Faraz]

lol... oh god  :uglystupid2:

I dunno what to do..

[bridgethuss]

just keep practising, youll be ok!
have a look at some sample ones, there are some up on these forums, even in that insight english book

[shinny]

Although it's often nice to have a lead-in sentence introducing the issue in the intro for completeness sake, it really isn't necessarily in the exam considering the time constraints. Perhaps it's worth doing it in SACs where you have time, but it definitely won't score you any more marks in the exam since the task is to analyse the language, and just that. Also, it's often quite hard to make one for the exam articles since they're fictional or general situations - nothing as controversial as the abortion debate. Save yourself some time and just leap straight into identifying tones+contentions I'd say...

[Faraz]

  lol I dont have the english insight cause I didnt think we be using it. Like every other year where Id buy books that I would never tocuh all year

can u please link me the example ones ??  

[shinny]

I think reflect on your last one and see what went wrong as opposed to this one and compare the criticisms since you definitely showed some pretty good ability to analyse in the last one you did. Then just take on board what others have said and I guess you'll be set to improve.

[bridgethuss]

Although it's often nice to have a lead-in sentence introducing the issue in the intro for completeness sake, it really isn't necessarily in the exam considering the time constraints. Perhaps it's worth doing it in SACs where you have time, but it definitely won't score you any more marks in the exam since the task is to analyse the language, and just that. Also, it's often quite hard to make one for the exam articles since they're fictional or general situations - nothing as controversial as the abortion debate. Save yourself some time and just leap straight into identifying tones+contentions I'd say...

i have no problems with doing a little intro like that, and it makes me feel more comfortable when writing. and the abortion example was just off the top of my head, which should be obvious when looking at my quality of writing haha 

[Faraz]

Is it possible for someone to show me a guideline that I can follow cause clearly what I have isnt from this planet...

and like make examples on the what, how and why

cause I dont seem to ever include the why or how, or maybe I get them mixed up.

[Faraz]

I think reflect on your last one and see what went wrong as opposed to this one and compare the criticisms since you definitely showed some pretty good ability to analyse in the last one you did. Then just take on board what others have said and I guess you'll be set to improve.

lol shinjitsuzx thats what I tryed to do and this is the outcome.. hehe

its so sad its funny...

[sisqo1111]

Ok, here is a simple yet effective outline of how to set a language analysis (Nick helped me with this)

Intro: outline the issue, writer, date, paper and then the contentions offered. mention tone

Body paragraphs: analyse all the persuasive devices (do not just simply list), give detailed views on the effect on the reader especially, elaborate lots on the effect/impact

Conclusion: a summary of the writer's arguments and a brief explanation of whether it was an effective piece

[danieltennis]

yoo for the peeps that marked my other one (http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6115.0.html) just see if I have improved or not thanks


Chickens Range Free

Analysis of language use

Jo Smith’s “chickens range free” argues that we as Australians are no longer
aware of what is going on before our eyes, we no longer see animal cruelty
for what it is because of the human-centred view that we have obtained over
the years from the criticising media and other surroundings. She wants the reader
to put away their selfish thoughts and views and think about the issue upheld from
a new perspective.

The headline “chickens range free” which is the reverse of “free range chickens”
instantly brings the issue being argued to the reader. And the visual of the caged
chicken will tell the reader what side she will be arguing, therefore the reader already
knows her point of view on the topic. The photograph supports her statements about
the suffering animals and the injustice which beholds them. another effect of the
photo is that it will shock readers and hold their attention, it will also demonstrates
the emotive language used such as “trapped” making the reader feel the guilt and
increase their awareness.

The writer defends the actions of the activist and believes it to be justified.
She criticises the media on their describing of the farmer, and the presenter
making a muck of the problem by beginning his show with “fancy a free range chicken?”.
She shows sympathy for the activists “someone has to stand up for the rights of animals”
and wants the reader to do the same. She uses emotive language such as
“murders” and “tortures” to describe the people of the industry. She repeatedly uses
“we” and “should” to call upon the reader to take actions in the support of animals.
She ask the rhetorical question “shouldn’t all animals be free to lead natural lives?”
remaining the reader of their past and the equality that they should share between
the habitants of earth.

Jo Smith exaggerates and states that animals have feeling to and that they can suffer
the same ways as we do. The reader must feel some sense of sympathy or understanding,
if they do not it will implicate that they are separate from the human kind and that they
are no better than the farmers. She uses “cages only 450 square centimetres in size” to
get the point across to the reader as to the full extent of the issue, and to get support
from the reader. The describing of the animals as “furred and feathered friends” makes
them seem cute and cuddly and in the need of our aid, also arouses a deep feeling in the
reader to protect them.

Jo Smith’s argument is a one-sided and bias only looking at it from the animal’s point of
view not from the farmer having to go to these accents to survive these hard times, or
the buyers who cannot afford that extra few dollars to buy the free range chicken.
Therefore the reader is persuaded to support her views and accept the actions of the
activist, by the techniques she has used such as appeals, rhetorical questions, emotive
language and praising etc. The articles one sidedness leaves little room for the reader to think
of the others who are suffering.

Words: 533

Are you in year 11?

[Faraz]

No...