English Language essay submission and marking

[Mieow]

Feedback on my essay would be greatly appreciated. Please be as critical as possible 

Spoiler

Language has the power to shock, offend and incite emotion. How have recent stories shown this to be true?
Language can be manipulated to incite a positive or negative emotion according to audience and context. Language is used to conform to covert and overt norms, in which there is an ‘in-group’ and an ‘out-group’. This causes different audiences to interpret language differently, influenced by human experience and their identity. Recent stories in the media reflect these, where advertisements and statements from public figures have evoked mixed reactions from the audience.

Covert and overt norms cause audiences to respond to language differently. The language will be molded in a way that only the ‘in-group’ can comprehend the intended semantics behind the language used, while often the ‘out-group’ will be shocked or disturbed by it. An example of this can be seen in a banned Call of Duty advertisement that was released in 2012, in which utterances such as “some people have steady aim and other people just spray everywhere” were said. This sparked controversy because the wider audience, who were the ‘out-group’, argued that the commercial was inappropriate because of the sexual connotations in the semantics. Conversely, players of the game - who were the ‘in-group’- considered it to be humorous and consequently it built rapport with them. This reflects how the media can strategically formulate language to incite emotions such as shock or humour from their audiences.

Language that might shock some audiences can also be used for social purposes. As Australia values egalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism, swearing does not offend the large majority of the Australian general public because this is perceived as a method of reducing social distance and building solidarity. In 1960 Helen E. Ross explained that “social swearing was intended to be friendly and a sign of ‘being one of the gang’” which accurately describes the purpose of swearing in an Australian setting. In 2012, a leaked video of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd showed him swearing for its expletive functions such as using declarative “this fucking language…” Although some were offended by it, many Australians perceived Rudd to be more relatable and a ‘true Australian bloke’.

However, society does not tolerate language that targets gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. Lexemes that discriminate aspects of people that they cannot change, for example being a woman, being of African-American descent, or being homosexual, are less tolerated and are often more loaded. The media will often employ swearing for its stylistic feature although it will cause controversy from some audiences, but offensive language will spark controversy from almost all audiences without the need to swear. For example, current Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott said in February 2010 “we just can’t stop people from being homeless if that’s their choice.” The Australian audience perceived this to be incorrect and offensive as they argued that homelessness is never a choice. Swearing was absent in Abbott’s statement, but it was still considered offensive because it targets a certain group for something beyond their control which evoked the audience’s morality.

Stories in the media and public figures prove that language can incite emotions of shock, humour or empathy from the audience. They respond to language differently because of covert and overt norms, where some groups embrace the pragmatics behind the language and others reject it. To Australian audiences, language that is deemed offensive and shocking such as swearing by other countries is often perceived as relatable and ‘Australian’. However there is a distinction between swearing and offensive language, in which the latter is more loaded and touches on society’s values for social justice. Authors Frompkin, Blair and Collins attest to this in stating that “words and language are not intrinsically good or bad but reflect individual or societal values’.

[MrsNicoleB]

For Mieow:
Great essay overall. 
Being picky - I would consider revising your topic sentences - some of them are not clear (in meaning), some of them aren't topic sentences.
"Covert and overt norms cause audiences to respond to language differently." - link this to the question - don't make the examiner read between the lines.  Make it clear why this aspect is relevant.
"Language that might shock some audiences can also be used for social purposes." - no kidding, all language has a social purpose.  Re-word so that you're saying something more meaningful.  I would be specific and list the contrasting purpose, rather than just saying 'other purposes'.
"However, society does not tolerate language that targets gender, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. "  Avoid starting a sentence with "however" - grammar nazis will be out to get you, and this sentence is not linked to the question.  Ditto for writing 'etc' in an essay - don't do it.  Ever.  You can be more specific or add 'such as' somewhere into the sentence. 
I recommend using words from the question in your topic sentences, that way it is very clear that you are on topic.

For Robert123:
Topic sentences are very vague.  Skip the vague sentence and discuss the purpose in the topic sentence instead.
contractions are "non-standard features of spoken language." - erm, re-word.  They are not non-standard, nor are they only used in spoken language.
Overall you had many interesting things to say about the text, well done

[psyxwar]

Feedback on my commentary please! It's on Obama's speech announcing bin Laden's death. Speech under first spoiler tag, commentary under second.

Obama's Speech

Barack Obama Announces Osama bin Laden’s death
May 2011

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbours a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defence. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda.

Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must -- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad.

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. I've made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we've done. But it's important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people.

Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who's been gravely wounded.

So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defence of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor  know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.

And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Commentary

The text is a speech by US President Barrack Obama announcing the death of Osama bin Laden, leader of the terrorist organisation al Qaeda. It's ostensible function is referential; it is informing the American people -- and those of the wider world -- about bin Laden's demise as well as giving information about the 9/11 attacks and the impacts they had on the American community. However, it also serves a secondary function in promoting the Obama administration to the American people, making them more willing to vote for them in the next election.  The text's register is formal and is reflected through the use of formal lexis such as 'billowing' (11), 'conducted' (5) and 'counterterrorism' (31) and the text's general syntactic complexity.

The text's lexis reflects its social purposes. Obama's use of proper nouns 'Osama bin Laden' (5), 'al Qaeda' (5), 'Flight 93' (11) and the 'United States' (4) immediately conveys to the reader the nature of the speech  and sets the tone as a serious one. The noun phrase "9/11" (19) is used throughout the text and is an exophoric reference to the plane hijacking that occurred on September 11, 2001. Obama utilises inference to convey his message in a more concise and effective manner - his audience is familiar with what "9/11" refers to and the term has come to represent the event. Obama uses the active lexical verbs 'collapsing' (10), 'conducted', 'killed' (5) and 'saved' (12) to effectively convey the events that have happened, and the use of the active voice serves to make the events more personal to the audience, as well as placing syntactic front focus on the persons responsible. For example, the clause "that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden" (5) emphasises that it was the United States that killed Osama bin Laden and the use of the active voice subtly suggests that bin Laden's death was a result of a sustained, active effort on the part of the United States; they did not simply stumble upon him. Obama also is trying to stress the importance of unity amongst the American people, and this is achieved through the repeated use of lexeme 'unity' and near-synonyms such as 'indivisible' (22,24, 105,115) and the prevalent use of inclusive pronouns in the text 'we' (14,24,27,31, etc), 'our' (20,21,30,45,etc), which serves to make American listeners feel as if this is their achievement and helps reinforce Obama's point that together the American people are strong. This also helps fulfil the text's secondary function in making the Obama administration look more appealing to American voters - Americans who are not Democrats are encouraged to put their differences aside and support Obama, whom is portrayed is a very capable leader thanks to the killing of bin Laden. This is further exemplified by Obama's description of bin Laden as al Qaeda's 'leader and symbol' (57) and his killing a 'significant achievement' (59), making the American people feel that America, and thus by extension the current Obama administration, has made great strides forward in the war against terrorism.

Obama uses figurative language to paint a vivid picture in the audience's mind of the devastation caused by al Qaeda on 9/11. The metaphor 'that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history' uses the contrast between the denotations of lexemes 'bright' and 'darkened' to convey how devastating the 9/11 attacks were, highlighting the text's referential function.  Similarly, the metaphor 'hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky' (9-10) exemplifies the destruction caused by the hijacked planes by making the audience visualise the planes as sharp knives that are destructive enough to cut even the sky. Obama describes the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in vivid detail through the use of short, active, descriptive sentences strung together in a paratactic style 'hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon' (9-11).  This is used to help capture the chaos that surrounded 9/11; the use of discrete sentences strung together captures how quickly the events unfolded - one thing occurred after the other, with there being very little time to react. Obama also employs the rhetorical device of triplets frequently. The triplet 'a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children' (6) is used to highlight the indiscriminate nature of bin Laden's killings and how nobody was spared, even if he or she was a child. The use of near-synonyms 'citizens', 'friends' and 'allies' (28)  in the triplet  'we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies' (28)  that differ slightly in meaning reinforces America's resolve to protect anybody on their side.  His use of triplets also serve a more general function in making the speech more engaging. Obama also employs euphemism and buzzwords that are characteristic of political discourse in his speech. In line 32, he euphemistically refers to how America 'removed' (32) the Taliban government.  The verb 'remove' does not have negative connotations and the audience does not associate it with the bloodshed and horror characteristic of war; it is painted as a quick, clean operation akin to removing a stain from a shirt. The euphemistic 'firefight' (55) is also used to describe the killing of bin Laden rather than the more appropriate 'assassination'. Assassination carries very negative connotations and Obama does not want the audience to view this as a state sanctioned assassination; rather, he is painting it as a two-sided conflict where bin Laden fought back and where the only option the NAVY Seals had was to kill him. The jargonistic buzzword 'targeted operation' (52) is ambiguous and is also used to avoid explicitly stating that it was an assassination.

Syntactically, the speech's structure is predominantly complex and compound-complex, reflecting its formal register. Obama uses relative clauses to provide the audience with additional information such as 'that were unseen to the world' (14) and 'which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country' (27), helping to fulfil the text's referential function. However, short simple sentences such as 'No Americans were harmed' (54) are employed occasionally to break up the rhythm and make the speech sound more interesting, as well as to convey information concisely. In fact, Obama employs a paratactic style by stringing together discrete sentence fragments together in lines 14-16 'The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace'. These sentences fragments are noun phrases and refer to those who were affected most by 9/11 - the families of the victims. The lack of predicates in these sentence fragments places emphasis on these people and gives it a greater impact by forcing the audience to dwell over and think about the consequences 9/11 had on these people without explicitly stating it. The majority of sentences in the text are declarative, fitting in with it referential function and helping to facilitate the effective communication of information. The imperatives 'May God bless you' (117) and 'may God bless the United States of America' are part of the formulaic closing and is characteristic of the text's formal nature and its text type as a presidential speech. He utilises adverbials of time frequently to pre-modify his sentences, allowing him to paint a timeline of events in the reader's mind for the actions leading up to the eventual killing of Osama bin Laden and thus serving to make the speech more coherent by giving it a logical structure. The adverbial "On September 11, 2001" (19)  is used to qualify when the 'American people came together' and when the American 'time of grief' was. The use of the adverbial "so shortly after taking office" (41) to describe Obama's direction to CIA director Leon Panetta to make killing or capturing bin Laden a top priority paints the Obama administration in a positive light; they seem competent and attuned to the interests of the American public because they were able to deal with bin Laden.  The adverbial "For over two decades" (57) is used to premodify a sentence on bin Laden's role in al Qaeda and serves the text's referential function by informing younger readers as to how long Osama bin Laden has been a thorn in the side of the US. It also emphasises how great the achievement of killing bin Laden is, which fulfils the text's secondary function through making Obama more appealing as a President for the American people.  Obama also employs antithesis in line 66-67 'Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murder of Muslims' in an effort to make Americans more sympathetic to Islam and more aware of the fact that Muslim extremists are not representative of the entire religion. The contrast between 'Muslim leader' and 'mass murderer of Muslims' turns Muslims from perpetrators to victims in the eyes of the American public, and helps the audience understand that Muslims too detest bin Laden.

The speech is a cohesive and coherent one. Anaphoric references are frequently used, such as  'we' in line 19 referring to the 'American people' (19). This reduces clutter in the speech through not repeating lengthy noun phrases such as 'American people' and thus makes the speech more cohesive.  A topic comment structure is also employed in lines 22-24 "On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to or what ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family. We are also united in our resolve...". This makes the speech more coherent by grouping ideas thematically; Obama brings up the concept of unity, and then elaborates on it.  Sentence initial coordinating conjunctions such as 'yet' (37), 'and' (41) serve to link ideas together and make the speech more cohesive and coherent by giving the speech a logical ordering.

Overall, the speech is a coherent and cohesive one that fulfils both its referential function in informing Americans and people of the world of the killing of bin Laden and its secondary function in promoting the Obama administration.

[Robert123]

Practice analysis for the Blurb at [url=http://www.sustainableseafood.org.au/Sustainable-Seafood-Guide-Australia.asp?active_page_id=697]
Please critique harshly

Spoiler

Promotional Blurb Analysis.

Text 5: Promotional Blurb Analysis
This text is a formal promotional blurb for the “AMCS Sustainable Seafood Guide”. The social purpose of the text is to inform potential customers of the damage done by overfishing in Australia to persuade them in buying this guide about buying sustainable seafood.
Lexical choice:
The text incorporate a frequent use of the first person plural pronouns- “we” (6, 7, 11, 12, 42, 44) and “us“(6, 10)-  as well as the first person plural possessive pronoun- “our” (1, 14). By doing so, it demonstrate to potential buyers  that the result of destruction in the ocean due to overfishing is due to them, therefore, making them responsibility for fixing it. This aids the social purpose since it persuade them to buy this guide as it will help solve the “global fishing crisis” (45). Fishing and cooking jargon such as “marine” (26), “panacea” (11), “aquaculture” (32) and “southern bluefin tuna” (37 are also utilise within the text. By using these lexical items, it adds credibility to the statistics that show that “overfishing is the single biggest threat to our oceans” (23), thus persuading the customers that this is a great crisis that need to be dealt with, hence, the need of the seafood guide.
The rhyming phrase “clean and green” (4&5) give a visual memory cue of the high standard of produce we rely on. Adjectives such as “Leading” (26), “dispassionate” (30), “alarming” (23) and “grim” (42) give the audience a vivid image of the situation while adding credibility and formality to the text. This demonstrates to the audience that the threat from overfishing is indisputable and must be dealt with.
Syntax:
Since this text is attempting to persuade future customers by using factual evidence, it primarily uses declarative sentences such as “Leading marine scientists are saying that unless we fast-track massive changes to the way we manage our seas, we face a continued crash in fish stocks” (26-28).  In general, the text utilises an active voice to clearly demonstrate a cause and effect relationship in solving the overfishing crisis as seen in line 44-45, “If we act now, we can avoid the global fishing crisis- if we take action now”. By using the active voice, it obviously demonstrates to the audience that this crisis can be solved by buying this guide.

Cohesion and Coherence
This text is structured by the use of paragraphs to allow a logical progression of ideas throughout the text which aids cohesions. The first 2 paragraphs give an introduction to how fish has become the “centrepiece of Australian cuisine” (6). This is built upon in paragraph four which demonstrate the damage done by overfishing using factual evidence to support it social purpose of persuasion. Finally, the text concludes this progression of ideas in the last two paragraphs by concluding that “we need… a guide without commercial bias” (47-49) which clearly states the overall function of this text.

Thanks

[Marrogi12]

hey guys , feedback on my essay on formal language would be greatly appreciated , English teacher is too lazy to reply to emails -_-   

[Reus]

hey guys , feedback on my essay on formal language would be greatly appreciated , English teacher is too lazy to reply to emails -_-

Great essay, however lacks an adequate amount of examples and clarification. Note you are also missing a conclusion, an integral statement which summarises your contention.

[MrsNicoleB]

Practice analysis for the Blurb at [url=http://www.sustainableseafood.org.au/Sustainable-Seafood-Guide-Australia.asp?active_page_id=697]
Please critique harshly

Spoiler

Promotional Blurb Analysis.

Text 5: Promotional Blurb Analysis
This text is a formal promotional blurb for the “AMCS Sustainable Seafood Guide”. The social purpose of the text is to inform potential customers of the damage done by overfishing in Australia to persuade them in buying this guide about buying sustainable seafood.
Lexical choice:
The text incorporate a frequent use of the first person plural pronouns- “we” (6, 7, 11, 12, 42, 44) and “us“(6, 10)-  as well as the first person plural possessive pronoun- “our” (1, 14). By doing so, it demonstrate to potential buyers  that the result of destruction in the ocean due to overfishing is due to them, therefore, making them responsibility for fixing it. This aids the social purpose since it persuade them to buy this guide as it will help solve the “global fishing crisis” (45). Fishing and cooking jargon such as “marine” (26), “panacea” (11), “aquaculture” (32) and “southern bluefin tuna” (37 are also utilise within the text. By using these lexical items, it adds credibility to the statistics that show that “overfishing is the single biggest threat to our oceans” (23), thus persuading the customers that this is a great crisis that need to be dealt with, hence, the need of the seafood guide.
The rhyming phrase “clean and green” (4&5) give a visual memory cue of the high standard of produce we rely on. Adjectives such as “Leading” (26), “dispassionate” (30), “alarming” (23) and “grim” (42) give the audience a vivid image of the situation while adding credibility and formality to the text. This demonstrates to the audience that the threat from overfishing is indisputable and must be dealt with.
Syntax:
Since this text is attempting to persuade future customers by using factual evidence, it primarily uses declarative sentences such as “Leading marine scientists are saying that unless we fast-track massive changes to the way we manage our seas, we face a continued crash in fish stocks” (26-28).  In general, the text utilises an active voice to clearly demonstrate a cause and effect relationship in solving the overfishing crisis as seen in line 44-45, “If we act now, we can avoid the global fishing crisis- if we take action now”. By using the active voice, it obviously demonstrates to the audience that this crisis can be solved by buying this guide.

Cohesion and Coherence
This text is structured by the use of paragraphs to allow a logical progression of ideas throughout the text which aids cohesions. The first 2 paragraphs give an introduction to how fish has become the “centrepiece of Australian cuisine” (6). This is built upon in paragraph four which demonstrate the damage done by overfishing using factual evidence to support it social purpose of persuasion. Finally, the text concludes this progression of ideas in the last two paragraphs by concluding that “we need… a guide without commercial bias” (47-49) which clearly states the overall function of this text.

Thanks

o   Make mention of ‘audience’ rather than just ‘potential buyers’ – I think it would make it a stronger point (where you discuss how ‘they’re responsible’). 
o   Cooking jargon – where are the examples?  Do you know what ‘panacea’ means?  Look it up…  It is not related to cooking or fishing.
o   Visual memory cue – rethink.  This is not metalanguage that we use in EL.  Try ‘assonance,’ or ‘collocation’
o   With the ‘alarming’ etc examples, try to discuss one or two in more detail i.e. explain why you think those words in particular have been chosen.  This kind of description is much more valuable than just ‘vivid image’. 
o   You need to discuss all aspects of the context.  Make sure all points are linked back to an aspect of context i.e. function / social purpose, field, mode (and discourse form), setting (public/private), relationship between participants.  Remember, the main question we’re answering with an analysis is ‘how does the context influence the language used?’

[Marrogi12]

hey guys im not sure if this thread is still active ,but feedback on my essay would be great , wrote it in an hour on paper ( sac revision )  then quickly transferred it word for word on my computer 

[psyxwar]

Feedback for the below essay is appreciated. Am I using enough contemporary examples?

Topic: How are the linguistic features of public language used to exercise power and authority in contemporary Australian society?

Public language is the language of political and business leaders and civil servants; the language of power and of influence (Don Watson).  Hence, as public language is associated with the upper echelons of society, it follows that it serves a role in highlighting power differentials and asserting authority. In contemporary Australian society, this is achieved through the depersonalisation of texts, the use of jargon in establishing expertise as well as to obfuscate meaning, and the conformance to negative face norms.

Formal syntactic features are frequently employed in public discourse in order to depersonalise and obfuscate. Nominalisation is frequent and involves the conversion in word class from verbs to nouns. Hence, actions become concepts, which are inherently more abstract, and harder to comprehend. For example, the sentence 'I met my friend' becomes 'I was in attendance at a meeting with my friend', which is lengthier, more complex and more difficult to derive meaning from. The nominalised style makes texts more authoritative and distant because it is reminiscent of the erudite style of formal academic texts (Burridge), which is objective and depersonalised. Agentless passives also serve to depersonalise by removing the actor of a sentence altogether, removing the human quality of a sentence and thus making it a more objective, detached recounting of facts. This depersonalisation removes the ability of the text to appeal to human sentiment and thus removes any potential common ground between writer and audience, emphasising the social distance between the two and hence underscoring the authority of the speaker. The fact that the performer of an action is ellipted altogether with the agentless passive also serves to obfuscate; information can deliberately be withheld from the audience. The ostensible function of this may be to omit irrelevant or unnecessary information, but it also means that those in positions of authority can hide information under this pretence of it not being relevant to the public. This cements the power differential between those in positions of power and those not, as it implies that the public is not qualified to or needs to know such information, but those in positions of power do.

Jargon is also a linguistic feature that is frequently used to exercise power and authority in the public domain. It is the technical language of a particular field, and its use makes the speaker seem more knowledgeable and more authoritative on a particular issue. Jargon's ostensible function is to convey meaning precisely and economically to an in-group that is familiar with the field being discussed and thus familiar with its associated jargon. However, its frequent use in a political context - a context where a good portion of the audience is not familiar with the jargon being used - is not done with the interests of clarity or the audience at heart. It is deliberately used to make the speaker sound like he knows what he is talking about whilst being vague, ambiguous and difficult for the audience to understand. In the Australian Government's Budget Speech for the fiscal year beginning July 2014, Treasurer Joe Hockey used complex, jargonistic terms such as 'medical research endowment fund', 'Economic Action Strategy', and  'corporate welfare'. The audience is able to roughly decode the meaning of such terms, but what Treasurer Hockey is actually referring to is unclear. For example, the proper noun phrase 'Economic Action Strategy' likely refers to the government's plan for tackling the budget deficit, but it is not clear to the audience if this refers to the actions outlined in the budget or some devious measure yet to come.  Furthermore, jargon has been applied broadly to many inappropriate contexts, and the consequence of this is that it loses its denotative meaning and becomes a 'weasel word' - a meaningless word whose only function is to sound impressive. For example, Treasurer Hockey describes the budget's tough measures as 'sustainable' - the lexeme 'sustainable' has had its meaning eroded through 'repetitive parrot like use' (Don-Watson) and in this context functions as nothing more than a hollow justification for the government's tough measures. This serves to paint the government in a better light and to make it seem as if they have a good idea of what they are doing, thus asserting power and authority.

Maintaining social distance is a key facet of asserting power and authority, and hence adhering to negative politeness principles is a technique that can be used to underscore power differentials.  Verbs of high modality such as 'will', 'must', 'can', 'may' dictate obligation, permission, ability and desire and hence their use implies that the speaker is in a position of authority. For example, the terms and conditions of the 2014 Australian Open states that 'guests may not bring children under 3 to the AO without a ticket for that child'. In this context, the modal auxiliary 'may' is used to assert what guests are and are not able to do, setting boundaries and asserting the power that the management of the Australian Open has over the guests at the event. Prime Minister Tony Abbott also frequently employs the modal auxiliary 'can', for example 'We are getting spending down, so that we can get taxes down'. Its use implies ability but not obligation; the government is not committed to action, merely stating that doing one thing will give them the ability to do another. In the world of politics, the mastery over the precise denotations of words is a necessity, as it enables politicians to play games with semantics. In the above example, Abbott technically did not promise to lower taxes, and hence if he does not follow through he can argue he has not actually broken any promises. This sort of careful language use enables politicians to manipulate public perceptions towards them and thus allows them to stay in power for longer. Society also dictates that those in positions of power are referred to by honorifics such as 'Prime Minister', 'Sir', 'Madam'.  The non-reciprocal use of address terms highlights the difference in power and position between two individuals - for example, in a classroom environment a teacher would call a student by their given name, but a student would use the address term 'mister' or 'sir'.

As linguist Norman Fairclough put it 'the use of language for control purposes is simultaneously a reflection of existing power relationships and an exercise in extending and entrenching them'. Therefore, power and authority can be entrenched and extended in the public sphere in contemporary Australian society through the use of obfuscation and depersonalisation, the conformance to negative politeness norms, and carefully crafted lexical choice.

[emilyhobbes]

Feedback for the below essay is appreciated. Am I using enough contemporary examples?

Topic: How are the linguistic features of public language used to exercise power and authority in contemporary Australian society?

Public language is the language of political and business leaders and civil servants; the language of power and of influence (Don Watson).  Hence, as public language is associated with the upper echelons of society, it follows that it serves a role in highlighting power differentials and asserting authority. In contemporary Australian society, this is achieved through the depersonalisation of texts, the use of jargon in establishing expertise as well as to obfuscate meaning, and the conformance to negative face norms.

Formal syntactic features are frequently employed in public discourse in order to depersonalise and obfuscate. Nominalisation is frequent and involves the conversion in word class from verbs to nouns. Hence, actions become concepts, which are inherently more abstract, and harder to comprehend. For example, the sentence 'I met my friend' becomes 'I was in attendance at a meeting with my friend', which is lengthier, more complex and more difficult to derive meaning from. The nominalised style makes texts more authoritative and distant because it is reminiscent of the erudite style of formal academic texts (Burridge), which is objective and depersonalised. Agentless passives also serve to depersonalise by removing the actor of a sentence altogether, removing the human quality of a sentence and thus making it a more objective, detached recounting of facts. This depersonalisation removes the ability of the text to appeal to human sentiment and thus removes any potential common ground between writer and audience, emphasising the social distance between the two and hence underscoring the authority of the speaker. The fact that the performer of an action is ellipted altogether with the agentless passive also serves to obfuscate; information can deliberately be withheld from the audience. The ostensible function of this may be to omit irrelevant or unnecessary information, but it also means that those in positions of authority can hide information under this pretence of it not being relevant to the public. This cements the power differential between those in positions of power and those not, as it implies that the public is not qualified to or needs to know such information, but those in positions of power do.

Jargon is also a linguistic feature that is frequently used to exercise power and authority in the public domain. It is the technical language of a particular field, and its use makes the speaker seem more knowledgeable and more authoritative on a particular issue. Jargon's ostensible function is to convey meaning precisely and economically to an in-group that is familiar with the field being discussed and thus familiar with its associated jargon. However, its frequent use in a political context - a context where a good portion of the audience is not familiar with the jargon being used - is not done with the interests of clarity or the audience at heart. It is deliberately used to make the speaker sound like he knows what he is talking about whilst being vague, ambiguous and difficult for the audience to understand. In the Australian Government's Budget Speech for the fiscal year beginning July 2014, Treasurer Joe Hockey used complex, jargonistic terms such as 'medical research endowment fund', 'Economic Action Strategy', and  'corporate welfare'. The audience is able to roughly decode the meaning of such terms, but what Treasurer Hockey is actually referring to is unclear. For example, the proper noun phrase 'Economic Action Strategy' likely refers to the government's plan for tackling the budget deficit, but it is not clear to the audience if this refers to the actions outlined in the budget or some devious measure yet to come.  Furthermore, jargon has been applied broadly to many inappropriate contexts, and the consequence of this is that it loses its denotative meaning and becomes a 'weasel word' - a meaningless word whose only function is to sound impressive. For example, Treasurer Hockey describes the budget's tough measures as 'sustainable' - the lexeme 'sustainable' has had its meaning eroded through 'repetitive parrot like use' (Don-Watson) and in this context functions as nothing more than a hollow justification for the government's tough measures. This serves to paint the government in a better light and to make it seem as if they have a good idea of what they are doing, thus asserting power and authority.

Maintaining social distance is a key facet of asserting power and authority, and hence adhering to negative politeness principles is a technique that can be used to underscore power differentials.  Verbs of high modality such as 'will', 'must', 'can', 'may' dictate obligation, permission, ability and desire and hence their use implies that the speaker is in a position of authority. For example, the terms and conditions of the 2014 Australian Open states that 'guests may not bring children under 3 to the AO without a ticket for that child'. In this context, the modal auxiliary 'may' is used to assert what guests are and are not able to do, setting boundaries and asserting the power that the management of the Australian Open has over the guests at the event. Prime Minister Tony Abbott also frequently employs the modal auxiliary 'can', for example 'We are getting spending down, so that we can get taxes down'. Its use implies ability but not obligation; the government is not committed to action, merely stating that doing one thing will give them the ability to do another. In the world of politics, the mastery over the precise denotations of words is a necessity, as it enables politicians to play games with semantics. In the above example, Abbott technically did not promise to lower taxes, and hence if he does not follow through he can argue he has not actually broken any promises. This sort of careful language use enables politicians to manipulate public perceptions towards them and thus allows them to stay in power for longer. Society also dictates that those in positions of power are referred to by honorifics such as 'Prime Minister', 'Sir', 'Madam'.  The non-reciprocal use of address terms highlights the difference in power and position between two individuals - for example, in a classroom environment a teacher would call a student by their given name, but a student would use the address term 'mister' or 'sir'.

As linguist Norman Fairclough put it 'the use of language for control purposes is simultaneously a reflection of existing power relationships and an exercise in extending and entrenching them'. Therefore, power and authority can be entrenched and extended in the public sphere in contemporary Australian society through the use of obfuscation and depersonalisation, the conformance to negative politeness norms, and carefully crafted lexical choice.

Hey, this is a great essay overall, just a few comments:
- good intro, it's to the point and signposts where you're going with the essay
- first paragraph: I know you've used the "I met my friend" example, but it'd be a stronger if you found an example from the media. At the moment, you're discussing agentless passives and nominalisation quite generally, so I think if you could work in an example and kind of work your discussion around it, it'd be a more robust point.
- second paragraph: with this phrase, "speaker sound like he knows what he is talking about", I'd probably try to reword it so it's gender neutral. Great example, it's recent and shows you've been paying attention to language being used in contemporary society
- third paragraph: really good, but maybe find a linguist quote to incorporate in there?

But yeah, well done! as the year goes on, keep looking for a wide range of linguist quotes to use

[psyxwar]

Hey, this is a great essay overall, just a few comments:
- good intro, it's to the point and signposts where you're going with the essay
- first paragraph: I know you've used the "I met my friend" example, but it'd be a stronger if you found an example from the media. At the moment, you're discussing agentless passives and nominalisation quite generally, so I think if you could work in an example and kind of work your discussion around it, it'd be a more robust point.
- second paragraph: with this phrase, "speaker sound like he knows what he is talking about", I'd probably try to reword it so it's gender neutral. Great example, it's recent and shows you've been paying attention to language being used in contemporary society
- third paragraph: really good, but maybe find a linguist quote to incorporate in there?

But yeah, well done! as the year goes on, keep looking for a wide range of linguist quotes to use

Thanks for the feedback, will definitely keep it in mind

[dannynips]

Hi all, if anyone is looking for essay practise or could share some great ideas I definitely need help for the following essay. Any help would be much appreciated!!

What does Australian English look and sound like today, and how does it reflect our identity as a nation?

Stimulus material is attached as a photo

THANKS!

[aqple]

This is a very broad essay question so you can write about a range of things. It basically asks about the lexical and phonological aspects of Australian English (look and sound), so you must discuss this in relation to Australian identity. You could talk about:

-what is unique about AE, how this reflects and builds our identity and character (accent, idioms, diminutives)
-multiculturalism and how this has influenced AE (wogspeak, ethnolects)
-globalisation of Australia and how American English has impacted AE

You could even write a paragraph about our history, so how Australia's accent has evolved, where it came from and what aspects have been maintained and how this reflects our identity today.

[dannynips]

(null)

[dannynips]

Thanks very much for your feedback! I have gone down that line with the exception of ethonolects.

A few quick qns:

1. Does Aus English refer to standard aboriginal and ethnolects?
2. Does stimulus material B) when talking about accents is that referring to broad general cultivated or is it meaning australian , aboriginal ethonlects ? Or both?

Also I'll attach my unfinished essay below and please critique and be as honest as possible. Any feedback is helpful. I haven't written my last paragraph or conclusion which will be centered around Americas influence.

My essay so far:



Australian English is a major variety of English used across Australia, containing many distinct linguistic features making it look and sound unique and different to other Englishes. It serves as a fundamental token of the Australian national identity and is forever adapting to reflect this ever-changing Australian identity. The Australian accent is arguably our most salient feature which has undergone great change and an important bearer of history in regards to our identity. Australia’s use of slang and taboo language contribute to manifesting the national identity, however in the modern age, America’s dominance in the entertainment industry has had a large influence on Australian English. Language use in Australia has adapted and currently is indubitably an important medium to express the modern Australian identity.
The Australian English is reflective of the history of the nation and the values that are instilled in Australians. The abstract noun ‘mateship’ or the common noun ‘larrikin’ are examples of distinctly Australian lexis which reflect the self-perception of the Australian identity as they value comradery (mateship) and actually endorse boisterousness and cheekiness within a good hearted person (the modern idea of a larrikin). Instead of adopting the rhotic emphasis on /r/ that Americans are characterised by, Australians have continued to pronounce words like butter as /bʌtə/ showing the Australian perception of being laid back and easy going.  The broad Australian accent is internationally recognised as being iconically Australian, despite it only being spoken by the minority today. The accent veered up the continuum towards the more prestigious cultivated accent late 19th century as an inflow of British immigrants arrived and the Received Pronunciation became prominent. Then during the First World War to distinguish Australians from the British the accent moved away from cultivated towards broad again. The general accent is the middle ground and is the most popular accent spoken nowadays in Australia by roughly 80 per cent of the population. This accent is our “bearer of history” and maintains our identity by still sounding distinctly Australian but avoids the negative stigma often associated with the broad accent.

A widely recognised feature of Australian English is its informality and colloquial creativity. Australians take pride and show morphological innovation in their use of diminutives such as ‘servo’ for service station and the more taboo word formations such as ‘shit-faced’ for drunk. Dave Hughes demonstrated this bold sense of humour in last year’s Melbourne Comedy Festival when he employed the innovative expletive ‘whoop-de-fucking-do’. Our fondness for such colloquial usage transcends our counterparts in British and American English, which demonstrates the Australian identity and how easy-going and laid-back they are in the way they see humour from irreverent language.  One only has to look at the plethora of idioms used in Australian English to sense our colloquial and humorous personalities. At a recent funeral I attended, the idiomatic expression “even though he’s carked it, he’s still here with us,” was used, showing that even in the most formal and sincere of contexts this characteristic of Australian English is present and playful colloquial language is therefore  an innate characteristic of our identity.