Recent Parisian terror attacks and the ensuing racial rallies have prompted discussion regarding the need for an open and peaceful exploration of terrorist-related issues. Of these responses is an editorial Expression is a bit weird here - go for simplicity in L.A. sentence structure, especially in the introduction as you're assessed on your clarity, not your writing flair from newspaper, The Herald Sun, first published on November 23, 2015. Entitled, “Don’t give in to extremists”, the Herald Sun condemns these attacks and the “clashes” that resulted. The article continues on to address 'also addresses...' (don't draw attention to the chronology unless it's an important part of your analysis. Saying 'the article then goes on to discuss...' or 'later in the piece, the author...' are fairly weak transitions. It's much more impressive if you can make a connection based on the ideas, eg. 'this portrayal of terrorists as dangerous and threatening is also reinforced by...' or you can just use linking words like 'furthermore' and 'likewise' for efficiency's sake) the need for amalgamation word check - 'amalgamation' does mean 'coming together,' but it'd be more fitting in the context of 'Company A and Company B amalgamated to avoid bankruptcy,' or 'the amalgamation of the two proposals simplified the problem.' It's a very business-y word, so you can't really use it in the context of, say, 'I amalgamated the flour and the milk to bake a cake' or 'the people amalgamated outside of the cinema.' Something like 'camaraderie' or 'solidarity' would be preferably here in times of conflict, not division, emphatically entreating their audience of concerned Victorians who may possess any inclination to “turn on each other” to remain united in seeking to maintain the freedoms the newspaper evinces terrorists seek to rob them of. Really good summation of the contention here, and you've skillfully avoided evaluating the issue (in a way that might have been intentional, but I thought I'd explain it here anyway just so you know what you're doing right.) If you had said '...seeking to maintain the freedows that the terrorists seek to rob them of,' you would've essentially been casting judgement on the issue and providing your opinion (i.e. 'that terrorists seek to rob people of freedom') and regardless of whether or not you're right, that kind of evaluation is irrelevant to the task, and therefore worth no marks. However, because you've slotted in that '...the newspaper evinces...' qualifier there, you've stopped this from being evaluative and instead turned it into analysis because you've made it clear that you're aware this is something the author is doing! Overall, good structure for this intro, a few weird phrases, but mostly succinct and accurate.
On the outset Should be 'from the outset...' but remember that you don't necessarily have to begin your piece by discussing the opening; you might sometimes find it easier to jump in to some point halfway through, and then revisit the beginning once you've already got a stable basis for your analysis of their article, the Herald Sun opens with a frank censure of the racial rallies, labeling them “ugly [and] violent”. This newspaper employs these terms because they are commonly associated with danger and chaos. Okay, you're off to a good start here, but you need to do a bit more. So you've isolated the quote "ugly [and] violent" as an example of persuasive language, and you've mentioned some things that these words are associated with in the next sentence, but what is this language doing, exactly? Basically, fill in this sentence: The Herald Sun opens with a frank censure of the racial rallies by labeling them "ugly [and] violent. By associating the rallies with these connotations of danger and chaos, the editorial seeks to...(?)" These elements are further highlighted by the newspaper’s reference of these rallies as “clashes,” which implies that there is a great deal of noise and commotion with very little social harmony. This is because this term is often associated with loud noises and a lack of harmony. Try not to separate the words from their meaning if you can avoid it. Also, notice that all these points of analysis are occurring in a very similar format? 'The piece labels X as Y. This is because Y has connotations of Z.' - I'll talk more about this in the end comments. The newspaper goes on to label this “clash” a “collision”, highlighting the brutal nature how does the word 'collision' create a sense of brutality? You haven't really justified this point, and I'm inclined to think 'collision' has more to do with characterising the aggressively opposing viewpoints involved, rather than suggesting the conflict is especially brutal of these conflicts. These terms alienate audiences from these rallies, positioning them to perceive them as an unnecessary escalation of heightened tension v good vocab and discussion of the effect on the audience. It would've been good to examine this even closer (e.g. where did you get the sense that this was an unnecessary escalation? What language gave that away?). Disdainfully, the newspaper suggests these rallies “have no place in our society.” This cliché is this a cliche? enables the Herald Sun to establish their belief try to use more verbs to describe what the piece is intending to do to the audience's thoughts/feelings/beliefs these rallies are not conducive to public unity and encouraging open discussion regarding terrorism. This firm statement so is it a cliche or a firm statement? appeals to the audience’s reason and logic, implying “society” – a term commonly associated with civilised life – is one where violence, such as those observed in these rallies, should be perceived as uncivilised and thereby unwelcome. <-- THIS IS REALLY GOOD!!!! The editorial continues on to if you're going to structure your piece chronologically, you still need better links than just 'Next...' or 'The piece then says...' refer to the French terror attacks as a “massacre”, alluding to the way in which many innocent civilians were killed. The term accentuates the violence of their deaths. how? why? These short, choppy sentences are breaking up your flow a little bit. By continuing to convey emphasise “hundreds of police” were needed to prevent the rallies from escalating, the newspaper seems to highlight the threatening nature of these rallies. This is because police are commonly associated with danger; they are usually called upon to mitigate threats to the public. This implication regarding the nature of these rallies is further accentuated by the Herald Sun’s use of terms such as “resort” and “subdue”, intimating the assemblage of protestors were out of control and violent beyond reasoning. this is also really good, but because you haven't contextualised the quotes, it's hard to give you full credit? What do "resort" and "subdue" have to do with anything? You are allowed to assume your assessor has read the piece, but you can't chuck single word quotes around unless you're going to paraphrase a bit and given them some context, otherwise your analysis could just become: 'The fact that the author uses the word "yellow" highlights the severity of the issue.' - you might be right about that, but we can't tell unless more information is provided. (e.g. The fact that the author describes the colour of his left tow to be "yellow" highlights the severity of the issue of his nicotine addiction - now we know what's happening 
) These terms suggest law enforcement officials present had no other alternative than to use drastic measures to control the crowd. This enables audiences to perceive these rallies as dangerous. The newspaper further underscores just how sinister these rallies are by referring to them as “street warfare”; the term “war” carries strong connotations to brutality, aggression and atrocious violence. By continuing on to suggest the parties involved “exploited… public concern”, the tabloid appeals to the reader’s desire to not be taken advantage of. This serves to render those involved in these rallies as sinister figures that set out to manipulate and play on the vulnerabilities of the public. The newspaper continues to vilify those who partook in these rallies by establishing that they were led by the “thrill of a fight more than meaningful dialogue.” Through this statement, the Herald Sun seeks to undermine the purpose with which these individuals assembled bit more explanation here would be good. The defamation of the protesters is further developed when the newspaper refers to some them as “serial pests”. The hyperbolic term “pests” has strong connotations that imply these protestors are unwanted and irksome presences I was about to pull you up on saying the word had "strong" connotations, which is usually way too generic a comment to make, but you backed yourself up by being more specific afterwards by saying they're "unwanted and irksome"... so I guess I'll let you off 
Be careful not to use any techniques like "connotative language" or "emotive language" unless you're able to then specify which connotations and which emotions. In culmination, Thus/ Therefore/ Hence/ To this end... the newspaper seeks to form an association between the violence of the rallies to and the violence of the terror attacks that indirectly prompted them while vilifying those who partake in such rallies, placing the readership in a position where they perceive these “clashes” as abhorrent. Excellent paragraph conclusion.
The Herald Sun continues on starting to overuse this as a linking word now to distinguish between the “pests” and the “average Victorian”. This appeals to the audience’s desire to belong among a group, insinuating that the majority of Victorians did do not have “extreme tendencies”. By forming a distinction between these two groups, the tabloid positions their readership to perceive themselves as separate from the protesters. <--what's the connection between this idea and the next one?--> Calmly and reasonably, the newspaper acknowledges “everyone has the right to protest.” The frankness and rationality of the tabloid seems to counter rather than comment on what 'seems to' be happening, try to comment on things as though they're deliberate decisions made by the author/editorial the uncontrollable nature of the violent protesters. Proceeding to label the rallies as “skirmishes”, the newspaper seeks to undermine the intent for which these protesters originally assembled expression is a bit odd here; you don't 'assemble for an intent' - 'assemble with an intent' would be fine, so you could say 'the intent with which these protesters...' but even that might sound a bit too far removed. If in doubt, simplify the sentences; active focus is usually clearer than the passive (*explained in the end comments just in case). This enables the readership to conclude these “skirmishes” are instigated by individuals seeking meaningless violence, not meaningful discussion what is the word 'skirmish' accomplishing here? You haven't really unpacked that. The Herald Sun continues to frankly establish that these events present a “financial cost” to the average Victorian. The tabloid indicates it is their readership who must “foot… the bill”; this colloquialism galvanises readers to believe the newspaper is, like them, a concerned taxpayer, and has the reader’s apostrophe after the 's' here since it's plural possessive best interests at heart by informing them of this burden on taxpayer money this sentence is a bit clunky, and it feels like you're redundantly repeating information about 'taxpaying'. This endears the audience to the newspaper, making them more inclined to trust the newspaper’s vilification of protesters. Proceeding your piece could be much stronger if you were making argumentative or language-based links rather than chronological ones like this to liken the assemblage of law enforcement to a “flood”, enables the Herald Sun to emphasise the violent and out of control nature of the protesters in Melton. The cause and effect conclusion drawn by the newspaper – that this “flood” in Melton may have led to droughts in other localities – appeals to the readership’s reason and logic. This conclusion prompts readers to infer that subduing Melton protesters may have been at the cost of other victims of crime. The newspaper resumes their appeal to the reader’s hip-pocket notice how when you limit yourself to the structure that the author has chosen, you have to go back and forth between arguments? You could've grouped this hip-pocket concern with the earlier discussion about fiscal concerns, but instead you have to move away from that idea to talk about an appeal to logic before coming back to it again later by suggesting Melton families, by events expression beyond their control, suffered a loss of income on the day. By enumerating the damage purportedly wrought unto the public and Melton residents in a succeeding fashion, the Herald Sun seeks to shock readers by the extent and magnitude of the cost of the Melton rallies; it precludes the audience of “average Victorians” from perceiving any positive consequence of the protests when they caused financial, social and philosophical damage. The damage wrought by the protesters impels readers to associate “division and conflict” with them and the contrary – unity – with the “average Victorian”. Thus, when the tabloid continues to emphatically entreat their readers to resist “division and conflict”, the audience deduces they are also being compelled to resist joining the vilified protesters v good discussion of the effects. The use of the inclusive language “we” and “us” could use more context for these words, but overall this analysis is still good reiterates the newspaper’s message regarding the need for public amalgamation; it incites readers to remove themselves from protesters and regard themselves as an “average Victorian” you've used this quote before, which isn't inherently problematic, but it does signal that there's some repetition that could be cut down here in seeking unity. This language further suggests the protesters were part of a minority and that the majority of the public did not harbour the “extreme tendencies” also a quote that came up earlier of the protesters. The Herald Sun seeks to establish rallies such as those recently observed in Melton compromised the “average Victorian[‘s]” finances, principles and safety; implying these events should be avoided in future as they serve no great purpose other than to divide the public. v. good summation
In the newspaper’s closing statements, they ?? further malign the rallies by likening its careful with plurality here; it should be 'their' consequences if you're talking about 'rallies' consequences to the “spread[ing of] tentacles throughout… society.” The image imagery of an almost disembodied “tentacle” lurking within society is sinister in nature; this is due to the fact that “tentacle” are only ever naturally observed when attached to the body of a marine animal while the image of the disembodied “tentacle” is one readers perceive as unnatural and thereby repulsive awesome stuff here! This image imagery perturbs the readers. bit stilted - try to integrate this with a sentence on either side. This image imagery prompts readers to regard the rallies as they do the disembodied “tentacle” – with perturbation and abhorrence. The newspaper continues to employ inclusive language to reiterate the need for unity, appealing to their reader’s desire to belong to a larger group, to ultimately entreat them to unite, not divide, in the face of terrorism and its consequences.
Great job overall; you've selected some excellent language and techniques to explore, and pretty much every single statement about the broader intentions of language and the effects on the readership were totally solid.
Quality of analysis was mostly good, but I think it could definitely be
streamlined!For starters, structuring your essay chronologically is limiting your potential. Instead of just having to make your way through the piece from start to finish, you can instead take a more idea-based or argument-based approach (see the discussions of 'key players' linked in
this post for an idea of what this consists of.) It'll let you jump around the article with greater ease, and will be extremely useful later when you have to start dealing with comparative (i.e. multiple written + visual) pieces.
In terms of your analysis, I mainly want you to focus on the way you present it, structurally. The vast majority of your points here can be boiled down to two key things:
1) what the author is doing in the article, and what language is being used
2) what this language does; its effects, and the intentions of the author
(note: author = article/editorial = w/e here... I used to hate writing on editorials for all this confusion
)
My point is, these two key elements (or five if you want to be technical) are spot on... but if you always present them in exactly the same way with exactly the same sentence structure, your assessor is going to notice the repetition.
eg. The Herald Sun opens with a frank censure of the racial rallies, labeling them “ugly [and] violent”. This newspaper employs these terms because they are commonly associated with danger and chaos.OR
The tabloid indicates it is their readership who must “foot… the bill”; this colloquialism galvanises readers to believe the newspaper is also concerned.It seems like you'll either have these components in two separate sentences, or you'll separate them with a semicolon, effectively creating two separate sentences anyway. But all you need to fix this is a healthy amount of variation.
Sentence length is another noticeable sub-issue that relates to this - with a few exceptions, you seem to have a very good grasp on what Language Analysis should involve, so if you feel confident enough, I reckon you'd be able to shake up your default sentences and get a bit more flexible with things. More specifically: see if you can write longer sentences that combine the above two concepts whilst still retaining grammaticality. Your internal grammar seems to be all good since there were no syntax issues and very few word choice errors, so pushing yourself to adopt some different sentence structures shouldn't be too problematic. You've got the core skillset under control, but now you need to manipulate the way you showcase it in order to attain marks.
There were a couple of instances where you omitted the word 'that' in places where it would've made things clearer.
eg. 'The Herald Sun continues to frankly establish these events present a “financial cost” to the average Victorian.' I can tell what you're trying to get across, but the grammar is a teensey bit weird, and assessors tend to pick up on those little things, and if it happens a couple of times per essay, then it might be something that, coupled with other issues, might cost you a mark or two.
A quick note on 'active' and 'passive' sentence structures:
(if this is something you're already familiar with, feel free to skip a bit, but I'll post this here for others anyway)
ACTIVE = 'The author endorses this idea.'
PASSIVE = 'This idea is endorsed by the author.'Active sentences are ones which tend to focus on the 'subject' of a sentence (i.e. a person doing a thing) whereas passive ones are 'object-focused' (i.e. centring on the thing being done by the person). In the English language, the active structure is the default, and is often considered the clearest way of expressing things. That's not always the case, and I'm not one of those annoying purists who claim the passive form is "wrong" or anything, but it's definitely true that the active voice sounds better to us 99% of the time. There are exceptions, and sometimes it's good to use the passive voice to change up your sentence structure a bit, but when you've got constructions as complex as "the intent for which these protesters were originally assembled," it can be better to just shift to a simpler, active-focused version for clarity's sake.
Vocabulary was excellent, and technique identification was good. Your main trouble spots just seem to stem from those dual issues of essay structure and sentence structure, so...
Stuff to work on:• Read up on some alternate L.A. essay structure methods, and if you can, read some essays where people have done this effectively. Then see if you can replicate a similar process of identifying core sub-arguments and structuring one paragraph around 3 or 4 of those, rather than having two mega-paragraphs and too much analysis in the conclusion. Drop me a line on the Q and A thread if you need clarification with any of that, since I know it can be a bit odd at first if you haven't been exposed to such methods before (& if your teacher advocates for something different, then you can just stick to that for your SAC.)
• Force yourself not to do the 'The author does X. This is because of Y // This causes Y' sentence types wherever possible. There's nothing wrong with them in moderation, but it's best to go cold turkey for a while and make yourself learn new strategies.
• By super explicit with the links between your analysis - this will hopefully be easier once you give yourself paragraph focal points, but try to utilise linking words to maximise those connections and let the assessors know that you understand how this language is all culminating in persuasion.
•
Read this - especially the end bit about L.A. sentences.• I know you said this task was given to you as homework and without a visual component, and that's all good, but later in the year when you have a say in which practice pieces you complete, try to always choose ones with visual material as there's guaranteed to be some in the exam, and you want to refine those visual analysis skills to make sure they're up to the same standard as your written stuff.
Hope that helps; let me know if you need any more clarification
Home
Help
Search
Login
