Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 30, 2024, 01:00:01 am

Author Topic: [LA Club] Week 19  (Read 8082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
[LA Club] Week 19
« on: July 20, 2016, 03:35:30 pm »
+5
Would you like the good news, or the bad news?

Well, the good news is that you only have a single sentence to analyse this week. The bad news is that that sentence comes from an emboldened Herald Sun headline quoting a vapid woman with some very uninformed world views.

Remember: you're not allowed to have opinions in Language Analysis. Your task is not to evaluate the author's argument and state whether it's right/wrong or whether or not you agree with it - assume this is persuasive, and just tell me HOW+WHY! So ignore the many problematic and rather racist undertones in this story and just concentrate on the language features being employed. I know it's mystifying that a person could cram so many logical fallacies into eight words, but don't let your frustrations get the better of you :P


Background information:
Media commentator Andrew Bolt wrote an opinion piece postulating that the reason why France has experienced an increased number of terrorist attacks recently is linked to their intake of Muslim migrants. His piece has since been thoroughly debunked, but not before morning show host Sonia Kruger mentioned on-air that she would support a ban on Muslim migration to Australia for the sake of national security. Her argument largely hinged on her declaration that she was afraid for the safety of her child and that as a mother, she had a right to feel safe in her country.

Here, I don't want you to worry about discussing the specific publication, so you can skip the introductory content for this one and just focus on analysing this specific quote and the kind of logical implications it's setting up. If you like, you can simply begin your analysis with: "Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests..." and just take things from there.



Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2016, 06:45:14 pm »
+1
Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that her reasons for the banning of Muslim immigration into Australia is justified and should be welcomed by the Australian public. The underlying calm yet assertive tone employed by the author in the heading aims to persuade the audience by removing any hints extremism from her claim allowing it to appear logical and coherent to the audience. The bold words, "I'm just a mum" aim to persuade the audience by providing a common ground, whereby they can appreciate the Kruger's assertion and identify with it to a greater extent than if she was not a 'concerned' parent. This notion is supported by the accompanying image which displays Kruger standing confident and secure. This aims to persuade the audience by displaying the current fortunes had by Australians and the fortunes which could be lost with the threat of weak national security elevating Krugers claims of not being a "racist" but being a concerned parent who wishes the best for Australian residents and their security.

Any tips on improving guys? I really love LA, so much better than context :P

blacksanta62

  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • "Anything is possible"-KG
  • Respect: +2
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2016, 06:46:14 pm »
0
I didn't want to post anonymously, my mistake  ;D
2016:
Spesh | Methods CAS | Chem | Bio | Eng |

2018-2020:
BSc @ UoM

Evan C

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • May the force be with you
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Nossal High School
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2016, 01:09:17 am »
0
So rather than bemoaning how much I suck at English, I thought I'd give this shot and maybe finally start that long journey towards becoming somewhat decent at this.
I feel like I went a little crazy here, but I've never had just one sentence to analyse so I didn't really know how to go about things.

Sonia Kruger attempt to disassociate herself from “racist(s)” to avoid attracting the reader’s disapproval, as individuals considered “racist” typically espouse prejudiced views which are commonly denounced in today’s society. The immediately following endearing assertion by Kruger that she is “just a mum” establishes a stark juxtaposition which when compounded with the connotations of the homespun variation of mother, “mum,” aim to engender reader’s sympathy for this “mum” who has no ulterior motives, and is simply concerned because she is a parent. Via this dichotomy, Kruger implies that her position can be justified as the current situation appears to contravene her interests as a parent, and thus ultimately her stance is simply preserving those fundamental tenets of parenthood.

Any feedback/comments are appreciated. I would've given the other person feedback but I'm really not in a position to do so.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 01:15:30 am by heidiii »

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2016, 01:11:45 am »
0
Idk why all my writing's crossed out lol

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2016, 01:16:35 am »
0
If you put square brackets round an s that's the forum code to start a strikethrough, fixed it for you :)

Also, you're doing English, you're totally in a position to give feedback! :D
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

Uni (2021-24): Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash Clayton

Work: PCA in residential aged care

FallingStar

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
  • Be yourself and be your best self.
  • Respect: +19
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2016, 02:01:49 pm »
+2
So rather than bemoaning how much I suck at English, I thought I'd give this shot and maybe finally start that long journey towards becoming somewhat decent at this.
I feel like I went a little crazy here, but I've never had just one sentence to analyse so I didn't really know how to go about things.

Sonia Kruger attempt to disassociate herself from “racist(s)” in order to avoid attracting the reader’s disapproval, as individuals considered “racist” typically espouse prejudiced views which are commonly denounced in today’s society. The Immediately following endearing assertion by Kruger that she is “just a mum” establishes a stark juxtaposition which[color=red,[/color] when compounded with the connotations of the homespun variation of mother, “mum,” aim[coolor=red]s[/color] to engender reader’s sympathy for this “mum” who has no ulterior motives, and is simply concerned because she is a parent. This appears to jump around a lot, as in straight from the example to the effect, without explaining anything. See comment below Via this dichotomy, Kruger implies that her position can be justified as the current situation appears to contravene her interests as a parent, and thus ultimately her stance is simply preserving those fundamental tenets of parenthood??? which tenets? . This sounds like you are actually giving an opinion, which is not what you're meant to do. See comment below

Any feedback/comments are appreciated. I would've given the other person feedback but I'm really not in a position to do so.

You are still in a position to give other people feedback. In fact a particularly strong student here was a little concerned about giving feedback too, and the moderators relied that they would help you if you do it incorrectly. Plus, the feedback can be given anonymously if you don't feel comfortable posting it with your username.

I think you need to elaborate on the connotation of the word "mum." Perhaps you could mention concern for children, or a caring nature. Then, you talk about the implications of this connotation. For more information on this please see Guide to Connotative Analysis by Lauren. This should help because this sentence is all about the connotations of the words involved. Think what the connotations of the word "racist," "Mum." If you really want to take it further, you can analyse the first person pronoun and the word "just."

You last sentence appear to be giving an opinion, even though I can tell you don't mean to do that. Instead of:
          Kruger implies that her position can be justified as the current situation appears to contravene her interests as a parent, and thus ultimately her stance is simply preserving those fundamental tenets of parenthood.

You could say:
         Through presenting the current situation as contravening to her interests as a parent, Kruger implies that her position can be justified, thus ultimately suggesting that her stance is... (insert your words here).

What's the difference you may ask? Well the difference is that you used the word "is" which is very definitive of an opinion. Instead use words such as imply, suggest, hint, imply (see A Vocabulary Bank for LA for language analysis vocabulary).

Don't worry. You have time to work your way to be decent. And I also warn you: To stop telling yourself that you suck is easier said than done.

williamzhang600

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2016, 11:12:49 am »
0
The headline presents a stark contrast of the words 'racist', a negatively connotative term, and 'mum'. This serves to emphasise the notion that Sonia Krugar is simply exhibiting a point of view which is in the best interests of her children, a highly laudable attribute in Australian society, and to steer the readership away from the opinion that she is a racist. Consequently, the audience is positioned to view her endorsement for a ban on Muslim immigration to be justified, as they may relate to the concern for the welfare of their children.
There is a subtly allusion to the iconic scene in The Elephant Man where the protagonist screams, 'I am not an animal, I am a human being', after being cornered by a mob. Therefore, there is an implication that Krugar is being unfairly subjected to the scathing criticism of the public, eliciting sympathy from the audience. As a result, the readers are more inclined to oppose the labeling of Krugar as a 'racist'.



I know I made a huge leap with the elephant man thing. Keep in mind i'm used to people telling me i'm wrong so don't hold back when giving feed back.

 

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2016, 12:48:02 pm »
0
Kruger’s blunt pronouncement she was “not a racist” dissociates her from the stereotypical “racist” who was irrational and unreasonably xenophobic. Her calm delivery of this assertion challenges whatever inclinations the reader may have harboured towards dismissing her comments as those of an intolerant “racist”. By dissociating herself from this label, Kruger intimates that her concerns are legitimate and that more needs to be done toward increasing national security. Kruger seeks to justify her public support for a ban on Muslim migration into Australia for the sake of national security by reasonably indicating that she was “just a mum”. In doing so, Kruger capitalises on public concern for the safety of themselves and their loved ones to directs her audience’s fear and anger following the French terror attacks to the scapegoat – Muslim migrants - thereby implying that allowing these individuals to Australia will pose a greater security risk to this nation. This generalisation compels the reader to prioritise their own welfare and the welfare of their families and embrace Kruger’s perception that Muslim migration directly threatens the security of Australia.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2016, 02:16:43 pm »
0
Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that she agrees with banning Muslim migration is for her family values but not from a racist position. The juxtaposition between “racist” describing an unreasonable prejudice and “mum” implies commitment of a mother. Her discard of being “racist” isolates her first expression as a racist that audience will think about. The word “just” hints that her purpose is no more no less as a parent who does her best to protect her child. This again emphasises she does not hate Muslim migration. The second phrase “a mum” explains her opposition to Muslim migration is for Australian children as a parent. These appeals to parental values of protection and devotion makes her becomes an affectionate mother. This Therefore, from audience’s perspective, her contention will be supported by parent audience who are in the same position as Sonia Kruger as they all care about their children most.

I have been avoid doing LA because English is not my strength. But I don't want to avoid it forever, I want to change and I hope I can do better. So, please help. This was my best effort.Thanks for your help.
 :D :D :D

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2016, 09:08:17 am »
+3
The headline presents a stark contrast of the words 'racist', a negatively connotative term, and 'mum'. This serves to emphasise the notion that Sonia Krugar is simply exhibiting a point of view which is in the best interests of her children, a highly laudable Be careful with stuff like that cuz remember you have to be subjective in language analysis. In this instance you qualified it with "in Australian society" but be careful nevertheless. attribute in Australian society, and to steer the readership away from the opinion that she is a racist. Consequently, the audience is positioned to view her endorsement for a ban on Muslim immigration to be justified, as they may relate to the concern for the welfare of their children. v. good.

There is a subtly subtleallusion to the iconic scene in The Elephant Man where the protagonist screams, 'I am not an animal, I am a human being', after being cornered by a mob. where is this allusion in the text? I feel like this may be a bit of a jump. Not saying it's wrong but you need to be more explicit about the connection and actually say hey, this allusion is in relation to this. Not much of a deal here cuz you only got one phrase to analyse but could become a big deal. Therefore, there is an implication that Krugar is being unfairly subjected to the scathing criticism of the public, eliciting sympathy from the audience. As a result, the readers are more inclined to oppose the labeling of Krugar as a 'racist'.This is a bit too simplistic and is ultimately a repetition of what you had previously already said. Feel like this would have been better without this sentence.

I know I made a huge leap with the elephant man thing. Keep in mind i'm used to people telling me i'm wrong so don't hold back when giving feed back.

 

Ugh. I'm a little rusty so I may have screwed up. Dont murder me. Hopefully Lauren will pick up on anything I've screwed up. Overall it was good and there was some solid analysis.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2016, 07:56:08 pm »
+3
Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that her reasons for the banning of Muslim immigration into Australia is justified <-- careful with plurality/expression and should be welcomed by the Australian public. The underlying calm yet assertive tone employed by the author in the heading aims to persuade the audience by removing any hints extremism from her claim allowing it to appear logical and coherent to the audience. The bold words, "I'm just a mum" aim to persuade the audience by provide a common ground, whereby they can appreciate the Kruger's assertion and identify with it to a greater extent than if she was not a 'concerned' why are there quotes around this? Unless you're citing from the material, you don't have to do this parent. This notion is supported by the accompanying image which displays Kruger standing confident and secure. This aims to persuade the audience by displaying the current fortunes had by Australians and the fortunes which could be lost what do you mean by this? Instead of moving beyond the material, is there anything you can say about her facial expression, body language, or even the fact that they'd choose to include an image alongside the text with the threat of weak national security elevating Krugers claims of not being a "racist" but being a concerned parent who wishes the best for Australian residents and their security.
^You kind of start to touch on this towards the end, but as a general tip for L.A. try to find these 'logical' set-ups that an author creates. In this case (if we're treating Kruger as the 'author' of this comment/quote,) it's as though she's setting up a relationship between the idea of being a 'racist' and a 'mum' - more specifically, she's implying that one can't be both (i.e. 'I can't be a racist! Look at me - I'm a mum!') Therefore, she's setting up a dichotomy (<--another great thing to comment on in L.A. when you find it) between the pejorative word 'racism' and the positive connotations of nurture and compassion associated with being a 'mum.'

Other than that, some decent vocab on display here - it'd be great to see you closely unpack some of the language in other weeks' tasks here or maybe have a go at balancing your analysis with some longer material :)

Sonia Kruger attempts to disassociate herself from “racist(s)” to avoid attracting the reader’s disapproval, as individuals considered “racist” typically espouse prejudiced views which are commonly denounced in today’s society. The immediately following endearing assertion by Kruger that she is “just a mum” establishes a stark juxtaposition which when compounded with the connotations of the homespun variation of mother, “mum,” aim to engender reader’s sympathy for this “mum” who has no ulterior motives, and, she implies, is simply concerned because she is a parent <-- v. good unpacking of the suggestion here; you could do a bit more with the word 'mum' if you wanted to, as just acknowledging it as a 'homespun variation of 'mother'' doesn't really cover everything. I've also added a little qualifier to this last bit just to prevent it from teetering on the brink of evaluation, but otherwise all good :) Via this dichotomy, Kruger implies that her position can be justified as the current situation appears to contravene her interests as a parent, and thus ultimately her stance is simply preserving those fundamental tenets of parenthood nice, succinct summary here.

Any feedback/comments are appreciated. I would've given the other person feedback but I'm really not in a position to do so. You absolutely are! Even tentative comments like 'not sure this is clear enough' or 'maybe try using this word instead' can be useful to others, and I guarantee reading and critically thinking about other people's pieces will be useful to you!
Not much else to say beyond FallingStar's feedback; solid vocabulary and a really good grasp of the argument Kruger is making here. See also: those links posted above, if you need :)

The headline presents a stark contrast of the words 'racist', a negatively connotative term, and 'mum'. This serves to emphasise the notion that Sonia Krugar is simply exhibiting a point of view which is in the best interests of her children, a highly laudable attribute in Australian society this is a littly iffy; I'd let it slide, but I know other super pedantic assessors who wouldn't see this as a worthwhile addition because it's based on your external knowledge and not on the actual material/language. However, this piece is itself based on external/real-world stuff, and the exam won't be, so it's no big deal. Just be wary of referencing 'common Australian values' or anything like that in the exam, unless you've been given some specifics in the background info to work with, and to steer the readership away from the opinion that she is a racist. Consequently, the audience is positioned to view her endorsement for a ban on Muslim immigration to be justified, as they may relate to the concern for the welfare of their children why would they do this? You're right, but take me through your thinking step-by-step..
There is a subtle allusion to the iconic scene in The Elephant Man where the protagonist screams, 'I am not an animal, I am a human being', after being cornered by a mob. Therefore, there is an implication that Krugar is being unfairly subjected to the scathing criticism of the public, eliciting sympathy from the audience. As a result, the readers are more inclined to oppose the labeling of Krugar as a 'racist' okay, I quite like that you were able to justify this, but the trouble is that this is more like you projecting meaning onto the language, rather than extracting meaning based on the author's intentions. In other words, I don't think Kruger was going for an 'Elephant Man' allusion, which makes this section of your analysis look a bit tenuous. Try not to draw too much from sources outside the material as, in the exam, everything you need to discuss will be provided to you..

I know I made a huge leap with the elephant man thing. Keep in mind i'm used to people telling me i'm wrong so don't hold back when giving feed back.
It's not that you're "wrong" exactly... it's more that what you're doing is outside the scope of the task. Tbh I'm inclined to reward this as an instance of how to justify interpretations because you do explain the link quite well. But from an L.A. perspective, you want to stick with the words you've been given as much as possible. Leave the creative use of external evidence for your Context pieces and turn your analytical/justification skills towards the L.A. material :)

Kruger’s blunt pronouncement she was “not a racist” dissociates her from the stereotypical “racist” who was is irrational and unreasonably xenophobic. Her calm you wouldn't have to do this here necessarily, but it's worth thinking about how you know this is a 'calm' assertion - like, what is it about language that distinguishes 'calm' statements from 'aggressive' or 'sad' etc. If you're looking to comment on tone occasionally, this kind of awareness can be really valuable, even if in most situations (like this) you don't have to delve into it delivery of this assertion challenges whatever inclinations the reader may have harboured towards dismissing her comments as those of an intolerant “racist”. By dissociating herself from this label, Kruger intimates that her concerns are legitimate and that more needs to be done toward increasing national security. Kruger seeks to justify her public support for a ban on Muslim migration into Australia for the sake of national security by reasonably indicating teensy bit evaluative here - how do you know this is a 'reasonable' indication? How does the author set this up? that she was “just a mum”. In doing so, Kruger capitalises on public concern for the safety of themselves readers and their loved ones to directs her audience’s their fear and anger following the French terror attacks to the scapegoat – Muslim migrants yes, you're absolutely right, that's exactly what she's doing, and I'm very glad people can see the illogicality of what she's saying. However, even though the examiners would never give you anything this contentious, be careful not to bring in anything too evaluative. Acknowledging something is a scapegoat or that there are flaws in the author's argument can count as evaluation, so just be wary of this - thereby implying that allowing these individuals to Australia will pose a greater security risk to this nation. This generalisation compels the reader to prioritise their own welfare and the welfare of their families and embrace Kruger’s perception that Muslim migration directly threatens the security of Australia.
V good work; pretty much all of those vocab/sentence structure concerns from ~20 weeks ago all seem to have been fixed, and the quality of your explanations is excellent. I know this material was especially contentious, but do watch out for any potentially evaluative sentences in your analysis when possible. Other than that, all good :)

Sonia Kruger's assertion that she is "not a racist" and "just a mum" suggests that she agrees with banning Muslim migration is for there may have been a typo or two here, but this expression is quite confusing her family values but not from a racist position. The juxtaposition between “racist” describing an unreasonable prejudice and “mum” implies commitment of a mother what do you mean by this? Your pick-up of the dichotomy is good, but this last point needs a bit more explanation. Her discard of being “racist” isolates her first expression as a racist that audience will think about as in, because she says she's not racist... makes the audience think she's racist? I'm not sure what you're saying here?. The word “just” hints that her purpose is no more no less as a parent who does her best to protect her child good point. This again emphasises she does not hate Muslim migration. this is a bit outside the scope of the material. The second phrase “a mum” explains her opposition to Muslim migration is for Australian children as a parent. These appeals to parental values of protection and devotion makes her becomes positions her as an affectionate mother. This therefore, from audience’s perspective, her contention will be supported expression by parent audience who are in the same position as Sonia Kruger as they all care about their children most.
At some points, it feels like your choice of wording is holding you back a little. Some of these might be accidental errors you made whilst typing this up, in which case it's no big deal. But, if you can read through these sentences and can't tell what's wrong, let me know and I can break it down for you. It may also be worth reading through some of the resources here if you haven't already. You've got a decent foundation for analysis going already, so keep practising throughout Unit 4 to refine those skills, and you should be cruising come exam time :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
  • Respect: +168
Re: [LA Club] Week 19
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2016, 12:44:01 pm »
0
V good work; pretty much all of those vocab/sentence structure concerns from ~20 weeks ago all seem to have been fixed, and the quality of your explanations is excellent. I know this material was especially contentious, but do watch out for any potentially evaluative sentences in your analysis when possible. Other than that, all good :)

As always, thank you so much, Lauren! :D

Will be sure to keep your comments in mind for future pieces.