@AngelWings; I've always found the 'reactions' to a variety of non-PC language (eg. Izzy Folau earlier this year) seem to be more reflective of the attitudes to varieties and views of taboo than original examples. Do you think it's fair to bring up these 'responses' (eg. Clementine Ford's labelling of Leuning as a '...gronk') as good pieces of evidence for essay topics requiring 'the views of Australian society on discriminatory, taboo, or socially divisive language'?
As I said, it’s been a while since I did Eng Lang and that area was a smaller aspect of the study design in my time, if my memory serves me correctly, so I might be on the wrong track entirely. The main part right now is probably to agree with the current study design and what VCAA assessors are after, so if they don’t really agree that responses should be included, then simply don’t risk it during the exam and, instead, we look for a different example.
I brought this example up purely because I thought it might be helpful, although I was unsure of its usefulness to begin with. Upon re-reading my reply above, my interpretation seems to cross between a language analysis for English and contemporary examples for Eng Lang Section C, so... sorry for leading you all on.
Feel free to disregard or interpret the linguistics of that example as you wish.
Do I think it’s fair? Maybe - in a pinch. I’m not so sure...
Summary: Depends on whether VCAA assessors like using responses, which last I heard wasn’t exactly ideal and should be resorted to as back up. It’s more than likely my interpretation and this example wasn’t as helpful as I’d imagined it to be, so use the above with your utmost caution.
Likewise, do you think you could call Leunig's cartoon 'formal'?
Honestly, I’m not 100% sure myself. I’m generally more inclined to say informal language, but formal context (as it’s published in The Age), but after those mistakes above, I’m not so sure of myself.