Login | Register
Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

December 05, 2021, 02:03:43 pm

Author Topic: [English] Language Analysis  (Read 3012 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stick

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3774
  • Sticky. :P
  • Respect: +466
[English] Language Analysis
« on: February 03, 2013, 07:04:04 pm »
0
Here is the article I had to analyse: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/its-a-safe-bet-the-urge-to-take-a-punt-cannot-be-legislated-away/story-fnfenwor-1226508677041

This essay was not written to time. I've also decided that I'll be handwriting my essays this year, to get used to writing with a 'linear' train of thought (when you write something on the computer, you have the freedom to move things around - a freedom you don't get on paper in the exam). I hope that it's not too messy and that you can still read it.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. :)









2017-2020: Doctor of Medicine - The University of Melbourne
2014-2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine - The University of Melbourne

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 07:40:04 pm »
0
Could you type it up, leaving it unchanged? I don't think it would take more than ten minutes for an average typist.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

Stick

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3774
  • Sticky. :P
  • Respect: +466
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 08:07:16 pm »
0
I don't really have time to do that now unfortunately. I'll see if I can get around to it sometime next week - otherwise it will have to wait until next weekend. Sorry. :(
2017-2020: Doctor of Medicine - The University of Melbourne
2014-2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine - The University of Melbourne

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 10:11:02 pm »
0
That's all good man, stress less - it's just much easier to give feedback when I can type next to the spot I'm referring to. Can you afford to wait the time it will take for you to be available?
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2013, 10:28:16 pm »
0
Yeah, like Brenden said, you should definitely type this up when you have time. From a quick glance over, I think you really need to look at your sentence structures and overall lengths - some sentences are very, very long. Eg your conclusion is 1 massive sentence.

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 12:42:44 am »
+7
A few things:

Intro:
- You should start it with a broader contextualising statement, introduce the article after this.
- You need to watch your expression. Eg. don't say 'the author employs a tone ranging from cynical to serious' but say 'the author varies his tone from one of cynicism to one of seriousness' etc.
- 'Manifested this issue within the local landscape'??? This is corny AND wordy

Body para 1:
- First sentence is overly wordy and lengthy
- You need to embed quotes into your analysis more seamlessly. If you can read the sentence aloud and can't pick out where the quotation marks are, then you have quoted well
- Say 'the writer' or 'Richardson' more. It is not a text response, avoid saying 'author' too often
- You move from example to example way too quickly. You need to stop and analyse
- 'Get them onside early' is extremely generic
- 'As it is successfully advanced only if...' is yet another example of weak expression. Rest of that sentence is wordy

Body para 2:
- 'quickly transitions such that..' you need to reword this
- 'the target audience is suddenly confronted' sounds like a running commentary here
- 'so he continues to..' is informal language
- The sentence starting with 'He deliberately involves himself..' is poorly written. Read over it again and you will notice how you mention 'He' and then you discuss readers and then you say 'providing himself'. It is very confusing, be more specific and clear in terms of who you are referring to
- 'intending to rationalise a potentially conflicting viewpoint...' say what?!! you could easily halve the word count here
- The last sentence of 2nd body para is strange. Not sure what you're doing here

Body para 3:
- 'The author resumes an intimidating tone..' needs to be rephrased
- You fail to specifically discuss the effect on readers
- 'make readers feel' is bad wording
- Again, you move from one example to the other wayyy too quickly.
- Work on EMBEDDING your quotes in, 90% of your quoting is either after a colon (:) or it's within its own clause. Try to actually include it into sentencing
- 'By intending to...' - try to write in active voice, less passive voice
- 'involving them emotionally' - way too general. What emotions?

Body para 4:
- 'get readers onside'??????
- 'it appears he is...' makes you seem unsure about what you are trying to say...
- 'may have been..' again makes you seem very uncertain about your own analysis.
- Hmm.. the comment analysis has been done very poorly. You need to expand on your analysis, expand more on the linkages, explain how these comments correlate to the writer's intent and purpose
- avoid the word 'persuade'

Conclusion:
- Like I said earlier, the conclusion is one big sentence. Big no no
- Expand on it

Did you forget to analyse the headline?

I would score this a 5.5-6/10. See above comments

Stick

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3774
  • Sticky. :P
  • Respect: +466
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 09:49:39 pm »
0
Ugh. I know that the greatest issue with my English is my expression. >_< It's an issue that's popping up basically all the time now. How should I address the matter?
2017-2020: Doctor of Medicine - The University of Melbourne
2014-2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine - The University of Melbourne

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 10:01:34 pm »
0
Yeah it's gonna be an issue for you across the 3 essays. Just read your work out loud, see what you can rephrase, have a good bank of sentence structures to use etc. As for your sentence lengths, you really need to cut sentences in two. Expression is something you will continually need to improve until the exam. For now, I think you need to focus more on your analysing technique - you are spending too little time on each example.

Stick

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3774
  • Sticky. :P
  • Respect: +466
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2013, 04:25:11 pm »
0
Thanks, werdna. I'll be honest - seeing a 5.5 out of 10 was pretty disappointing, seeing I usually get 8 out of 10 for this sort of quality with my teachers. :/ I am going to write another language analysis keeping those things in mind. Although, I'll write this one in stages so that I don't lose focus.

Onwards and upwards from here! :)
2017-2020: Doctor of Medicine - The University of Melbourne
2014-2016: Bachelor of Biomedicine - The University of Melbourne

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2013, 04:36:16 pm »
+1
Only early days, you'll do well!

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2013, 10:20:06 pm »
+1
Thanks, werdna. I'll be honest - seeing a 5.5 out of 10 was pretty disappointing, seeing I usually get 8 out of 10 for this sort of quality with my teachers. :/ I am going to write another language analysis keeping those things in mind. Although, I'll write this one in stages so that I don't lose focus.

Onwards and upwards from here! :)
One of my essays once scored 4/10. How hard you bounce back after being disappointed is a good measure of what you're really like as a person. It's easy to try hard and always succeed, harder to try hard and keep failing until you succeed. I've no doubt that come October I'll be giving you on or above an 8.

Werdna - did you always analyse the title?
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Respect: +287
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2013, 11:42:19 pm »
+1
Yep I always analysed the headline, no matter the type of article. I know many students/teachers choose not to analyse the headline in an editorial since it's not 'technically' created by the writer, but I still analyse it since it forms part of the editorial & will play a part in persuading and manipulating the audience.

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2013, 12:40:34 am »
+1
Note: I'm typing this out so I can mark it because Werdna wanted to compare and ilyW.

Graham Richardson's "It's a safe bet the urge to take a punt cannot be legislated away" is a highly influential opinion piece that aims to demonstrate that Australia can benefit from an invasive gambling crusade if its Government is willing to observe the situation from a different perspective. Published in 'The Australian' on November 2 2012 in light of the Melbourne Cup Racing Carnival, the author employs a tone ranging from cynical to serious as he outlines how betting agencies have manifested this issue within the local landscape. Throughout the article, Richardson targets "well-meaning anti-gambling crusaders" and intends to exemplify that children, punters and local clubs are not necessarily victimised by embracing a developing gambling culture. The writer's argument is supported by comments provided by Nick, Robert Webb and Symon, who forwarded the discussion using relaxed and informal language.

Richardson immediately attempts to gain the support of his readers as he emphasises the rapid expansion of betting agencies and their services in the national community. This is achieved through "the horse has well and truly bolted" - and effective visual pun designed to draw in and excite some members of the audience. The author continues to use visual language via the cliche "unless you have been living under a rock", intending to relate with readers as he factually discusses the undesirable (?) prominence of gambling providers in Australia's commercial environment. In conjunction with a cynical tone, critical language is used in "[Bet365] is spending squillions advertising its wares" and "Money back (not all of it, of course) is a favourite," emphasising the greed displayed by betting agencies to unlock the sense of hatred lying within the author's prescribed target audience. Richardson continues to enhance the reader's confidence in his argument, again assuming visual language in "Gone are the days when the image of a bookmaker was a bloke with a bag, a pencil and rotating lists of races in different states," also applying an appeal to the audience's memory in his quest to get them onside early. The author's frequent attempts to forge a unique connection with his readers are essential to the progression of his argument, as it is successfully advanced only if he can delicately manipulate their minds to accept his unique impending viewpoint.

Richardson's cynicism quickly transitions such that the article assumes a more serious tone, and he focusses his prose on the potential consequences that lie ahead for local clubs, regular gamblers and youngsters. The target audience is suddenly confronted through "too many of the anti-gambling campaigners just haven't figured it out " - the author aims to force the readers to question whether campaigning against gambling is the best course of action in dealing with the issue. However, it is clear Richardson realises that such a provocation may be detrimental to his cause, so he continues to command the attention of his readers through "I do not blame the clubs with the poker machines or the bookies with their bags who took so much of my father's money." He deliberately involves himself in his own argument on an emotional level, causing readers to emphasise with the writer, whilst also providing himself with a sense of credibility. Richardson safely uses a relatively neutral tone in his appeal to tradition: "I still cling to the somewhat old-fashioned notion of personal responsibility," intended to rationalise a potentially conflicting viewpoint amongst his audience. He persists in forwarding his argument using logic and reason, present in "you can't turn people into better parents or better people" and "you can't legislate [the get-rich-quick desire of people who don't have much] away." In an effort to appease any remaining doubts in the minds of his readers, Richardson provides a possible solution to the matter, following with "[It is] far better to counsel those who have not yet fallen victim than to attempt to fix the afflicted." A sense of unwavering emotional support is crucial to the author's argument to ensure he can effectively instill a lasting impression of accountability amongst his target audience.

The author resumes an intimidating and belittling tone as he intends to demonstrate how various members of Parliament have approached Australia's gambling issue in the wrong manner. He continues to amke readers feel accountable for their own actions through "I do not believe it is the job of governments to save citizens from themselves," employing critical 'matter-of-fact' language to encourage a sense of skepticism in the Government's viewpoint. Richardson further attempts to degrade the credibility of Australia's Government by highlighting a flaw in their current approach to the issue: "I wonder about penalising those who only have the odd occasional flutter." After providing factual evidence that outlines the benefits of growing the gambling industry in a positive manner, the writer aims to intimidate opposing readers into following his contention through "Big projects always attract criticsim from small minds," attempting to make the target audience doubt their beliefs in regards to what is good for their country. Richardson adds "if a few wealthy Chinese go home with lighter wallets, I don't mind," again resorting to a cynical tone to strongly advance the potential benefits that lie ahead for Australia's national economy. By intending to lure his target audience in this argument and then involving them emotionally in the issue, the author emphasises his critical language, allowing for a more powerful finish that will better resonate with readers.

The coments shared by Nick, Robert and Symon support the viewpoint proposed by Richardson, despite the use of a more colloquial tone. In his approach to get readers onside, Nick utilises frequent appeals to tradition and patriotism, clearly evident in "take two up; a totally Australian innovation." Contrastingly, Robert employs more negative and critical language, potentially trying to stir some readers in "people will do wha they want to do even if everybody else disagrees" and "at least they are alive. Picture the family wiped out by a drunk driver." It appears he is highly dismissive of the opposing view, playing with readers' minds on emotional grounds. Whilst unrelated to his overall argument, Richardson's footnote regarding the latest Victoria Cross medal may have been strategically added to better relate with the audience at the end of his opinion piece, suggested by Robert's comment "Oh, and I agree with you about the latest VC winner as well. Happy day." It must be noted, however, that as these comments were submitted online, it is highly probably these comments were approved by the author before appearing on the website. By displaying differing approaches to the same overall argument, Richardson manipulates his target audience such that they appear to be in the minority, appealing to the readers' sense of belonging in a final attempt to persuade them that prohibiting gambling is not the solution to Australia's widespread betting culture.

The literary devices and varying tones applied by Graham Richardson successfully allow him to argue that gambling can be beneficial for Australian society if citizens are able to move beyond the associated risk tied to the practice.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

FlorianK

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Respect: +64
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2013, 04:57:44 am »
+2
so nice of you brenden <3

I'll mark this piece as well probs :p, but I can't see the original piece  :'( and anyways don't let a mark bring you down. About a month before the exam I did a prac exam and got 5.5 for text response, in the exam I got a 10 :D. However for the same prac exam I got a 9 for LA in comparison to my 7 in the exam :'(. So yeah marks can vary alot from piece to piece, just keep practicing. I'm sure you'll do great if you start this early


And if you're sad about the mark just read this essay I wrote in April for a SAC. We were allowed to write this SAC at home and hand it in to our teacher twice, this is my 2nd redraft and hence my final version. The last line of the body paragraph is of particular jocularity.
NOTE: it is NOT a troll essay, I was trying to do my best and score as high as possible.

I'm fine with people making fun of it, cause I do too haha

@Andrew, do you see why my GA for the SACs wasn't particularly great :p ?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 07:00:48 am by FlorianK »

FlorianK

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Respect: +64
Re: [English] Language Analysis
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 06:56:18 am »
+4


Contextualizing sentence is missing. Graham Richardson's "It's a safe bet the urge to take a punt cannot be legislated away" is a highly influential a no-go imo opinion piece that aims to demonstrate that Australia can benefit from an invasive gambling crusade you sound pretentious if its Government is willing to observe the situation from a different perspective. Published in 'The Australian' on November 2 2012 in light of the Melbourne Cup Racing Carnival, the author employs a tone ranging from cynical to serious say the author varies his tone from one of cynicism to one of seriousness’, since you’re supposed to be talking about what the writer does directly with this phrase instead of saying it indirectly as he outlines how betting agencies have manifested this issue within the local landscape again pretentious. .Throughout the article, Richardson targets "well-meaning anti-gambling crusaders" and intends to exemplify that children, punters and local clubs are not necessarily victimised by embracing a developing gambling    culture. The writer's argument is supported by comments provided by Nick, Robert Webb and Symon, who forwarded I think you mean ‘continued’ the discussion using relaxed and informal language.

Richardson immediately attempts to gain the support of his readers as he emphasises the rapid expansion of betting agencies and their services in the national community. You should state what you’ll be talking about in the following, kind of. So for example structure your LA by arguments of the writer and state the argument in the topic sentence, which is what I liked to do and in the following explained how it was persuaded. This is achieved through "the horse has well and truly bolted" you need to embed quotes properly - an effective visual pun designed to draw in and excite some members of the audience Intended Effect is missing!!!. The author continues to use visual language via the cliche "unless you have been living under a rock", intending to relate with readers as he factually discusses the undesirable (?) prominence of gambling providers in Australia's commercial environment Don’t retell the text and intended effect!!!. In conjunction with a cynical tone, critical language is used in "[Bet365] is spending squillions advertising its wares" and "Money back (not all of it, of course) is a favourite," emphasising the greed displayed by betting agencies to unlock the sense of hatred lying within the author's prescribed target audience Better wording would be “Through the use a cynical tone in conjunction with critical language found in phrases such as …” And why would he want to unlock the hatred? Wouldn’t he want them to realize the hatred?. Richardson continues to enhance the reader's confidence in his argument, again assuming visual language in "Gone are the days when the image of a bookmaker was a bloke with a bag, a pencil and rotating lists of races in different states," too long quote and badly embedded also applying an appeal to the audience's memory in his quest to get them onside early. The author's frequent attempts to forge a unique connection with his readers are essential to the progression of his argument, as it is successfully advanced only if he can delicately manipulate their minds to accept his unique impending viewpoint What are you trying to say in this sentence? I don't really understand it, but I'm a fob so thats ok :p. But srly its hard to read and says nothing, also too long. Well long sentences are alright, if they have flow, when they are overly wordy and are peppered with ‘big words’, you already forgot the start of the sentence when you're reading the end. Hence there is the need to read it again, which means the examiner marks you down on the effective use of language appropriate to the task.

Richardson's cynicism quickly transitions such that the article assumes a more serious tone, and he focuses his prose on the potential consequences that lie ahead for local clubs, regular gamblers and youngsters Better than the last sentence of the first paragraph, but I had to read it slowly in order to understand it in the first go. The target audience is suddenly confronted through "too many of the anti-gambling campaigners just haven't figured it out " again bad embedding of the quote and even worse continuation with that hyphen NEVER USE A FREAKIN HYPHEN IN THE WAY AS HERE!!!!!!!11111oneelevenoneeleven- the author aims to force the readers to question whether campaigning against gambling is the best course of action in dealing with the issue. However, it is clear Richardson realises that such a provocation may be detrimental to his cause, so therefore he continues to command the attention of his readers through "I do not blame the clubs with the poker machines or the bookies with their bags who took so much of my father's money." Too long and badly embedded He deliberately involves himself in his own argument on an emotional level, causing readers to emphasise with the writer, whilst also providing himself with a sense of credibility. Richardson safely uses a relatively neutral tone in his appeal to tradition: "I still cling to the somewhat old-fashioned notion of personal responsibility," Worst embedding ever, sorry, but please don't use a colon to introduce a quite intended to rationalise a potentially conflicting viewpoint amongst his audience Why does he want to do this? Intended effect!!!. He persists in forwarding his argument using logic and reason, present in "you can't turn people into better parents or better people" and "you can't legislate [the get-rich-quick desire of people who don't have much] away." Bad embedding as well as absence of the purpose of the phrases and the effect of them   In an effort to appease any remaining doubts in the minds of his readers, Richardson provides a possible solution to the matter, following with "[It is] far better to counsel those who have not yet fallen victim than to attempt to fix the afflicted." A sense of unwavering emotional support is crucial to the author's argument to ensure he can effectively instill a lasting impression of accountability amongst his target audience.
Don’t think the last sentence is a good choice. Learn to embed quotations AND write about the intended effect of the writer throughout body paragraphs.

The author resumes an intimidating and belittling tone as he intends to demonstrate how various members of Parliament have approached Australia's gambling issue in the wrong manner wrong use of resume. He continues to make readers Very bad sentence start and from now on never use ‘make’ again in a formal essay again and it should be 'the reader' feel accountable for their own actions through "I do not believe it is the job of governments to save citizens from themselves," employing critical 'matter-of-fact' language to encourage a sense of skepticism wrong use of ‘encourage’ in the Government's viewpoint. Richardson further attempts to degrade the credibility of Australia's Government by highlighting a flaw in their current approach to the issue: "I wonder about penalising those who only have the odd occasional flutter." Please change the way you embed quotes After providing factual evidence that outlines the benefits of growing the gambling industry in a positive manner, the writer aims to intimidate opposing readers into following his contention Which is what? You need to state it somewhere through "Big projects always attract criticsim from small minds," attempting to make the target audience doubt their beliefs in regards to what is good for their country Where is the intended effect?. Richardson adds "if a few wealthy Chinese go home with lighter wallets, I don't mind," again resorting to a cynical tone to strongly advance the potential benefits that lie ahead for Australia's national economy You need to change the way in which you discuss the writers tone. By intending to lure his target audience in this argument not sure about the use of the word ‘lure’ here and then involving them emotionally in the issue, the author emphasises his critical language, allowing for a more powerful finish that will better resonate with readers.

The coments shared by Nick, Robert and Symon support the viewpoint proposed by Richardson, despite the use of a more colloquial tone Despite would mean that the words that follow oppose the words before in a sense, but the colloquial tone is not really doing that. In his approach to get readers onside, Nick utilizes frequent appeals to tradition and patriotism, clearly evident in "take two up; a totally Australian innovation." You need to say why this fits with the target audience. Contrastingly, Robert employs more negative and critical language, potentially trying to stir some readers in "people will do wha they want to do even if everybody else disagrees" and "at least they are alive. Picture the family wiped out by a drunk driver." Too long and badly embedded It appears he is highly dismissive of the opposing view, playing with readers' minds on emotional grounds being highly dismissive is not something persuasive and it just provokes anger towards the author, which he doesn’t want, but didn’t read the official piece so maybe I’m wrong. Whilst unrelated to his overall argument, Richardson's footnote regarding the latest Victoria Cross medal may this word basically tells the reader of your LA that he should skip the rest of the sentence, because it’s probably not true have been strategically added to better relate with the audience at the end of his opinion piece, suggested by Robert's comment "Oh, and I agree with you about the latest VC winner as well. Happy day." It must be noted Bad expression in a formal piece of writing however, that as these comments were submitted online, it is highly probably these comments were approved by the author before appearing on the website What is the purpose of this sentence? Why did you put it into the piece of prose?. By displaying differing approaches to the same overall argument, Richardson manipulates his target audience such that they appear to be in the minority, appealing to the readers' sense of belonging in a final attempt to persuade them that prohibiting gambling is not the solution to Australia's widespread betting culture.

The literary devices and varying tones applied by Graham Richardson successfully allow him to argue that gambling can be beneficial for Australian society if citizens are able to move beyond the associated risk tied to the practice. I reckon the LA would’ve been better off without the conclusion, tbh


Werdna's mark is correct I guess, maybe even .5 lower.

Stephen, I know this marking has all looked really harsh, but this has the makings of an EXCELLENT essay at the moment – the only problem is the quote embedding, the absence of the intended effect as well as the purpose at some stages and your expressions, just work on those 3 things and you’ll do amazingly. Just the embedding of the quotes will boost your mark by a whole point Take in the advice and keep up the good work, it is amazing seeing you working this hard already at start of the year.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 07:05:14 am by FlorianK »