Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 03:22:19 am

Author Topic: Language Analysis  (Read 774 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rosecookiie

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Respect: +1
  • School Grad Year: 2017
Language Analysis
« on: February 13, 2017, 08:11:52 pm »
0
Feedback greatly appreciated, I really need to improve   :-\

The controversy surrounding the resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees has garnered a great deal of global debate throughout the past few years. Both the writer of the editorial ‘Pushing back boats does not fix anything’ (The Age, 2015), and the illustrator of a cartoon published by the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (2008), shed light on this divisive matter by contending their respective viewpoints.

The writer of the published editorial openly declares his stance by stating that the government’s adopted solution of turning the boats back is an “ultimately unsustainable strategy”. He then goes on to assert that by simply “pretending that the problem ends at the horizon” the government are not in fact finding a solution to the issue at hand, but are more rather “foolishly” evading it. In turn, Australian readers are compelled to view the government’s approach towards asylum seekers and refugees as illogical and flawed. The writer additionally states that this practice in particular has not resulted well, as the “world has seen time and again”. This again further reinforces the idea of the government’s failed plan, somewhat portraying them as negligent for continuing to engage in such a futile act. Utilizing a reasoned tone, the writer reveals that those who journey across the water do not do so “on a lark”. Employing such a colloquial term, the writer aims to create a more personal bond with the reader all while drawing attention to the gravity of the issue. In doing so, the audience is encouraged to acknowledge the writer’s primary viewpoint that pushing the boats back is just as useless as it is “patently immoral”.

Moreover, the writer highlights the motive for which asylum seekers and refugees readily “take to open waters” as being nothing more than a desperate search for somewhere “less debilitating and less dangerous” than their homeland. Having interwoven alliteration and repetition, the writer places additional emphasis onto two already evocative words in an attempt to stress just how grievous the predicament is that asylum seekers and refugees find themselves in. Sympathy and compassion are thus ignited within readers, ultimately prompting them to consciously reflect upon why the Australian Government is denying such innocent people the right to a safe life.

Shifting his tone to one of a more commanding manner, the writer strongly condemns government nationals for failing to meet their “immediate moral obligation” in regards to refugees and asylum seekers, positioning readers to view the government as uncompassionate and merciless. He then goes on to expose the government’s incompetency, stating that it was a group of Indonesian fishermen who rescued some 700 people, doing “what their government would not”. Here, the writer endeavours to again convince the audience of the government’s immense lack of judgement, which, in turn, aims to prove that there lies no solution in “pushing back the boats”.


Petit a petit, l’oiseau fait son nid

zhen

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • The world is a bitter place
  • Respect: +338
Re: Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2017, 09:18:16 pm »
0
Feedback greatly appreciated, I really need to improve   :-\

The controversy surrounding the resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees has garnered a great deal of global debate throughout the past few years. Both the writer of the editorial ‘Pushing back boats does not fix anything’ (The Age, 2015), and the illustrator of a cartoon published by the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (2008), shed light on this divisive matter by contending their respective viewpoints.

The writer of the published editorial openly declares his stance by stating that the government’s adopted solution of turning the boats back is an “ultimately unsustainable strategy”. He then goes on to assert that by simply “pretending that the problem ends at the horizon” the government are not in fact finding a solution to the issue at hand, but are more rather “foolishly” evading it. In turn, Australian readers are compelled to view the government’s approach towards asylum seekers and refugees as illogical and flawed. The writer additionally states that this practice in particular has not resulted well, as the “world has seen time and again”. This again further reinforces the idea of the government’s failed plan, somewhat portraying them as negligent for continuing to engage in such a futile act. Utilizing a reasoned tone, the writer reveals that those who journey across the water do not do so “on a lark”. Employing such a colloquial term, the writer aims to create a more personal bond with the reader all while drawing attention to the gravity of the issue. In doing so, the audience is encouraged to acknowledge the writer’s primary viewpoint that pushing the boats back is just as useless as it is “patently immoral”.

Moreover, the writer highlights the motive for which asylum seekers and refugees readily “take to open waters” as being nothing more than a desperate search for somewhere “less debilitating and less dangerous” than their homeland. Having interwoven alliteration and repetition, the writer places additional emphasis onto two already evocative words in an attempt to stress just how grievous the predicament is that asylum seekers and refugees find themselves in. Sympathy and compassion are thus ignited within readers, ultimately prompting them to consciously reflect upon why the Australian Government is denying such innocent people the right to a safe life.

Shifting his tone to one of a more commanding manner, the writer strongly condemns government nationals for failing to meet their “immediate moral obligation” in regards to refugees and asylum seekers, positioning readers to view the government as uncompassionate and merciless. He then goes on to expose the government’s incompetency, stating that it was a group of Indonesian fishermen who rescued some 700 people, doing “what their government would not”. Here, the writer endeavours to again convince the audience of the government’s immense lack of judgement, which, in turn, aims to prove that there lies no solution in “pushing back the boats”.



First of all, I think most of your expression is clear and concise which is good, but occasionally there are some moments where I think your could phrase yourself better. For example "rescued some 700 people", sounds clunky. I think it would be better just to say 700 people. For your introduction, you haven't addressed the contention at all. You say they are "contending their respective viewpoints", but in the introduction you should say what these view points are.

Overall, you correctly identify the techniques correctly, but at points you don't seem to analyse them with enough depth or you don't seem to explain them properly. For example, when you mention that it is a “ultimately unsustainable strategy”, you simply ignore the quote and move on without analysing it properly, which is kind of wasting this quote.

Another example is this. "He then goes on to assert that by simply “pretending that the problem ends at the horizon” the government are not in fact finding a solution to the issue at hand, but are more rather “foolishly” evading it. In turn, Australian readers are compelled to view the government’s approach towards asylum seekers and refugees as illogical and flawed."

In this sentence you don't really explain how the "pretending that the problem ends at the horizon" positions the reader in viewing their approach is illogical and flawed. I know that this is implied, but I feel like you still need to explain it.

This part of your essay seems poorly explained. "He then goes on to expose the government’s incompetency, stating that it was a group of Indonesian fishermen who rescued some 700 people, doing “what their government would not”. Here, the writer endeavours to again convince the audience of the government’s immense lack of judgement".

Here the explanation does not really fit the quote. How does fisherman rescuing survivors "convince the audience of the government's immense lack of judgement". I feel like it shows that the government is immoral, as they would not rescue these fisherman. Since I haven't read the article, I may be wrong, but your explanation hear should probably be clearer so I can properly see how this quote and explanation links together.

Overall I think you're on the right track, since from what I've seen you are able to accuraately identify the techniques and analyse them reasonably. Just so you know, take my advice with a grain of salt, since I'm in year 12 this year.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 12:42:22 pm by zhen »