Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 10:26:38 pm

Author Topic: Language analysis - can someone please mark for my SAC tomorrow!  (Read 908 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

maggi

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
Can someone please give mark this and give me some feedback! Much appreciated  :)

In today’s society where assaults against woman are constantly reoccurring at public transport locations, editor Olivia Oakley aims to redress this issue in her opinion piece titled, ‘is one too many?’ published on an online blog about social issues. Oakley adopts an unequivocal and alarmist tone when contending to readers of the online blog that women-only carriages are needed on the Victorian rail network. Whilst appealing to both genders, Oakley ultimately inadvertently attacks the male demographic, provoking commenter Dan from Croydon into posting his commend titled “Safety in numbers,” where he shows his disapproval of Oakley’s proposal.

Oakley begins her opinion piece by immediately segregating the men and women of her audience by directly addressing the men. In doing this, she establishes two sides, hence women can immediately associate with Oakley, while by addressing the men first; it allows her to show that she is not disregarding them, in fact she is directly appealing to them, showing their importance in her post. To introduce her contention, Oakley first establishes the problem and asks for men to consider if they have ever noticed “the women who step on board [the bus or train] who make a split second assessment.” This aims to spark recognition in the male audience, while establishing similitude with her female readers. Men are encouraged to be curious for the reasoning, to which Oakley explains using a mixture of both inclusive and exclusive language, asserting that “we women” are assessing “whether you’re a threat.” The “we” in juxtaposition with the “you” presents her side as the majority with many supporters in contrast to the isolated male reader, hence, by appealing to the readers desire for support and camaraderie, the reader is inclined to side with the majority view. She then takes a personal approach in elucidating her feelings on the matter, stating she has “never felt 100% safe on public transport.” Having previously used the term “we” grouping all women, then shifting to “I”, her statement implicitly appears to apply to all women. To avoid alienating her male readers, in a dogmatic tone, she admits, “most men won’t like to hear” the reasoning. In doing this, it allows for Oakley’s statement that she feels “safer with other women or families in a carriage,” appear less personal, and rather than an attack, she states it as a matter of fact. This way, she also comes across as not afraid to state the truth, making her appear more confident , which also imparts a sense of urgency on the matter. She concludes her point with “we all want to feel safe,” threatening the readers sense of security, before introducing her contention that women only carriages are needed on the Victorian rail network. Accompanying these paragraphs, Oakley has included an image with the writing “Women only,” and beside it there is a depiction of a woman, while underneath the writing, a comparatively smaller man in front of a no entry symbol.  The minimalism of the image and the simple use of symbols denote the simplicity of the solution. While the box surrounding the image imparts the sense of a train carriage, which is representative of Oakley’s proposed solution.

Having established her contention, Oakley continues to appeal to the reader’s emotions, describing women only carriages as a “safe haven for women and children who don’t want to experience the regular leering, grabbing and catcalling.” The contrast between “safe haven” and the experience that women have using the current public transport system aims to emphasise on the need for the women only carriage while also making the solution seem highly viable. She then lists a range of countries where this system already operates including Brazil and India. By establishing examples of success of this system, it allows for the reader to place trust in it and hence consider Oakley’s proposition more seriously. She then lists both the UK and Sydney as places where this proposition has also been suggested, explaining that this was suggested as a “safety measure” due to “a 21% increase in reports of sex offences on the British public transport system.” This significant statistic aims to threaten the reader’s sense of safety in Victoria, and again establishes the urgency of her solution before Victoria follows a similar trend.  Oakley then addresses “vocal objectors,” who may argue that India and Brazil “don’t have anything like the same levels of crime” on their transport network. She quickly repudiates this, by challenging the reader’s morality, rhetorically asking “How much harassment and violence is too much before we should do something about it?” This rhetorical question encourages readers to automatically admit- none. While readers who may initially not share this view, Oakley explicitly adds the “right answer,” that “one is too many.” She reinforces this idea, when she acknowledges the statistics that may refute her suggestion. She begins each opposing argument with “I know” which she repeats several times. This shows that she has carefully thought through her suggestion and despite the statistics, she still believes that the women only carriage is still needed. She continues her appeal on the readers ethos by refuting the many opposing arguments by simply asserting that “one guy, one journey, one woman” and “one time” is all that is needed to combat those arguments and make the women only carriage worth it, instilling the idea that there should never be trade off between a woman’s experience and her aforementioned opposing arguments.

Oakley then shifts to a more logical approach, incorporating a statistics table to highlight the common occurrence of assault on the public transport network. She analyses that “more people are assaulted on public transport each year than have stolen from their car in the train station car park,” which she then asks “who hasn’t had their car broken into at one time or another?” She subtly associates the common occurrence of cars being broken into in general rather than at the train station car park with assault on public transport. This magnifies the amount of assault that occurs on public transport in the readers mind and is utilised to evoke shock and fear in her readership. The table is also included underneath which is sourced from “Victoria Crime Statistics.” This adds credibility to her argument and confirms the validity of the statistics. She also hints that despite the significant statistics that show “direct violence” there is also intimidation of women which may stem from “the thoughtless man spread” which may be unrecorded in the statistics, which incites the reader to imagine an even larger figure. Oakley concludes by reiterating her solution, that can “easily fix this anxiety,” which is done by men giving up “one single carriage.” The language of “easily” and “one single” contrasted with the heavy consequences of women experiencing “unwarranted and uncivilised misogyny missiles,” reminds the reader of the viability of her solutions, leaving the reader feeling inclined to agree with Oakley.

However contrary to her view, in a scathing tone, Dan disparages Oakley’s opinion piece and elucidates his disapproval on a women only carriage. In contrast to Oakley’s idyllic views of the women only carriage being a “safe haven,” Dan labels it as a mechanism that will “magnify fear and mistrust.” This juxtaposition aims to urge his readers to consider the consequences, and implies that by creating women only carriages, it merely avoids the problem and does not solve it. He then condescendingly quotes Oakley who says that the “vast majority of men are gentle, kind and considerate law-abiding people” and says that these people are “exactly the kind of people you want in your train carriage.” By quoting Oakley, it uses her own words against her, which vilifies Oakley, which in turn undermines her proposition too. In a side note, he adds that if his legs “inadvertently get in [her] way, its not a declaration of gender war.” The use of “inadvertently” denotes his innocence, while the rhetoric “declaration of war” suggests the Oakley is overly dramatic, which again aims to denunciate her arguments.

While Oakley employs a forthright tone in an attempt to redress the assault against women on the public transport network by adding a women only carriage, her reader Dan contrastingly vilifies her views in a patronising tone contending that a women only carriage will only “magnify” the underlying issue.

zhen

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • The world is a bitter place
  • Respect: +338
Re: Language analysis - can someone please mark for my SAC tomorrow!
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2017, 11:25:13 pm »
+1
I know this is late, but giving you some feedback might help you in the future. I've just skimmed over it and this is what I think.
Positives
-clear outlining of contention
-good imbedding of quotes
-shows some comparison
-some good analysis of the passage
-talks about tonal shifts, which is really good
-correct identification of techniques

Things which I think need improving (this is just my opinion, so it could be wrong)
-contention for Dan's comment isn't specific enough, since all you mention is his "disaproval"
-whenever you talk about what the person does, always include a quote. In your first body paragraph's opening sentence you mention something the writer does but you don't provide an immediate example
-I feel like you're focussing too much of breadth. It's good to cover large chunks of the article, however at times I feel like you're just glossing over things and not analysing it properly. Occasionally you should spend a couple of lines or sentences really unpacking the quotes and techniques
-doesn't talk too much about argument and how language used contributes to the arguments
-some of your quotes are too long, which makes it feel like you're just retelling the article at times. I feel like you should cut down your quotes to the important stuff.
-This sentence seems incomplete "This rhetorical question encourages readers to automatically admit- none."
-expression can be convoluted and hard to follow. Try to make your sentences a bit more concise.

Overall, this is a solid effort. Keep up the good work.  :)