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, 12:35:04 pm

Author Topic: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis  (Read 2075 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DylanBurrowes

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« on: February 10, 2013, 10:11:09 pm »
0
Hey guys, I'd love some feedback on this language analysis we had to write for class. It's the first one I've done for the year, but please tear it to shreds - I can't improve if I don't know how. Thanks in advance! :)


Language Analysis - Taking Stock - 
2010 VCAA Exam
By Dylan Burrowes

Speaking with conviction at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, Professor Chris Lee contends that although the United Nations believes 2010 to be a “celebration of life”, there is little to celebrate about on the world biodiversity front, with species “being driven” to extinction “by the destruction of natural habitats”. With a varying alarmist and almost disappointed, serious and passionate (which could be easily misinterpreted as angry) tone, Prof. Lee coherently and clearly outlines to his fellow conference members, most of which are well-educated and currently working as “leaders” in conservationist fields, that despite mouthing “platitudes”, little has been done to reduce rates of biodiversity loss over the previous decade. Additionally, with the help of simple yet powerful imagery in the speakers visual slides, Prof. Lee concludes with an inspiring call to action to take control and reduce “what damage our lifestyle is doing to our world”.


Professor Lee opens to his audience in a formal, serious and almost ‘calm-before-the-storm-esque” tone, indicating 2010 is a year of ‘vital significance’ in relation to biodiversity, with his highly-educated status as Professor making his words seem more believable and trustworthy, urging the audience to take heed of the points he delivers. He questions the audience several times on how well “we” have achieved the goals they set out to, reminding the audience that these goals cannot be achieved alone, and probes the audience into really considering how well they worked towards their targets, evoking varying emotions depending on the actual action taken by various audience members in past. The speaker then indicated that he will “work with” the audience towards “our goals for the next decade”, not making the audience feel like they have been pushed into a corner and isolated, making them more likely to listen and respond to his words. He outlines the outcomes of these goals to further position the audience better to listen, while mentioning that these goals were what he and the audience “set out” to do “idealistically” in the previous decade, rapidly attacking the audience for their obvious lack of action, evoking feelings of disappointment and discontent in audience members.


The audience is quickly jolted into experiencing senses of guilt as Prof. Lee’s accusatory and attacking tone simultaneously reveals the extent to which, as a result of “our own thoughtless human actions”, biodiversity has been lost, weaving subtle inclusive language elements into his speech to assure the audience that no one person can not be held responsible for this damage. Prof. Lee outlines that the species of the world are being lost at “up to 100 times the natural rate of extinction”, including “804” species already extinct, with this hard evidence proceeding the short emotive sentence, “It is too late for them”. This blatantly reminds the audience of their own personal and communal contributions to biodiversity loss, and positions the audience to feel regret and agree and accept that they are to blame for the current biodiversity loss, making them more likely to respond to the speaker’s later call to action. Prof. Lee reminds the audience that “reversing this negative trend” is no longer an option, but “essential” to the wellbeing of all humans, inspiring further immediate action by the audience, further enforced by the fact that the audience is considered the “most educated” of all generations, and thus there is “no excuse for inaction”. Further attacks to the audience’s “lack of unity” and “genuine commitment” are assisted by constant inclusive and repetitive language, with “we” the operative word, to appeal to the audience’s sense of community strength and power, promoting additional action. The author then concludes what could be considered the first half of his speech mentioning the “grim situation” that we are now in. This contrasts heavily with the opening slide of the speaker’s presentation - a depiction of a utopian society wherein many different species of organism, alongside humans in the centre and ‘control’ of the others, are living in harmony. This alone evokes a sense of responsibility to the audience, alongside that in the picture, a small child is depicted holding the hand of, and looking up to an adult figure, whom appears to be looking reassuringly back at the child. This image evokes a sense of humanitarian responsibility and allows the reader to recognise that it is the future generations of the Earth that will be most affected by our actions now, and that future generations should be assured with confidence that their lives, nor the lives of any other species, should be negatively impacted by a loss of biodiversity.


The speaker then moves swiftly to an accusatory, highly passionate and logical tone, making high use of adjectives to paint a clear picture of the inaction currently taking place. “Wonderful words, glossy brochures, inspiring documentaries”, all slightly exaggeratory statements, effectively positions his audience to feel guilt for their substitutions for “real action”. Almost mockingly, the speaker reminds the audience that while they are sitting “in the comfort of an air-conditioned and sumptuously catered conference hall”, they are yet to produce “concrete results”, all highly connotative language that evokes further guilt in the audience. Prof. Lee questions strongly what “WE”, as well as “YOU and YOUR country” have done to work towards the achievement of their biodiversity goals. These words are turned highly attacking with the use of exclusive language with the audience forced to review their own actions – or lack thereof – and not help but feel embarrassment and regret. These emotions are further provoked out of the audience with Prof. Lee blatently explaining in a shaming manner that “there is no need to remind” them why “biological diversity is so important”. Then to further shame, actually lists why it is so important – points the audience should already be aware of. His attack, commenting that “our failure to conserve” biodiversity “is resulting in” “repent illnesses” and “deepening poverty”, as well as “environmental degradation”, assuring the audience that the problem is occurring here and now, and appropriate steps need to be taken. The use of adjectives in his description adds negative connotations to his point of view, evoking the audience’s contempt towards themselves and each other.


A vivid image of the suffering poor is painted by Prof. Lee, and in a serious, passionate and alarmed tone, explains that “biodiversity loss” increases the “vulnerability” of the poor. Stressing that “poor rural communities depend on biodiversity” for survival establishes in the readers mind that there can be no alternative but to reduce biodiversity loss, to conform to humanitarian responsibility, as “they are not in a position to do anything about it”. With the startling statistic that “more than 1.1 billion people” still “remain in extreme poverty”, Prof. Lee emotively explains that “it is the dependence of the poor” on biodiversity “which is most crucial”. The repetition of the word “crucial” in the relation to “poverty eradication” further evokes action in the audience, in that biodiversity sustainability is essential, and the time for action should be now. Prof. Lee uses imagery to paint the audience as “powerful economic giants”, whereby “the needs of the poor are often subordinated to the interests of” them. Not only does this provoke shame to the audience for their selfish ways, but also produces a sense of duty to poverty-riddled countries. This description compliments perfectly with the speaker’s opening slide, in which the image of the adult and child holding hands could be depicted as the adult – “the powerful economic giants” – holding the hand and looking after the child – the helpless poverty-stricken countries who reply directly on us and our current actions, provoking a sense of duty to the audience to look after their ‘children’. Prof. Lee informally tells the audience to stop “kidding ourselves”, before presenting a final call to action that as “leaders”, “this message” must be delivered to “those in power”, leaving the audience feeling like they can make a difference to this world and reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. The speaker’s last slide of his presentation with a quote assures the audience that the fact that biodiversity loss should be prevented “at all costs” means that they should be actively fighting “its diminishment”, and on the slide, with the lighting focused on the Earth held gently in the hands of an unknowing person, symbolizing that it could/should be everyone, with Africa forward facing on the globe, reminds the audience that they have a role in the reduction of biodiversity.


In his speech, Professor Chris Lee argues strongly in an overly passionate and alarmist tone that the rate of biodiversity loss needs to be reduced, and that the time for action is now. To his audience of “leaders in the area of biodiversity”, Prof. Lee reminds them of their duties and responsibilities, to mother nature, and mankind.
2012: Psychology (49) and Music Performance (45)
2013: English, Mathematical Methods (CAS), Chemistry, Biology

ATAR Aim: 100

dilks

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
  • Respect: +35
Re: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2013, 10:18:59 am »
+3
I'd advise you to save VCAA exams for later in the year.
English (49) Software Development (44) Psychology (43) IT Applications (40) Methods (35) Physics (34) ATAR: 97.15 Course: Master of Engineering (Software) Also providing English tuition. Students in the North Eastern suburbs especially convenient as I live in Ivanhoe. Interested in giving tuition to students studying Computing.

DylanBurrowes

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2013, 06:12:55 pm »
0
I agree but it was required for class :)
2012: Psychology (49) and Music Performance (45)
2013: English, Mathematical Methods (CAS), Chemistry, Biology

ATAR Aim: 100

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2013, 09:51:37 pm »
+2
Hey man, sorry about the wait... A bunch of aliens came down and were essentially like "Brenden, you need to stop marking essays and travel to another universe in order to save your own"... Then I had to like, do all this adventure bullshit, fight Digimon-like monsters, trek up mountains et al. But yeah back now, all good.


Put a 'contextualising  sentence' as your first sentence. Literally just something giving a bit of background on the issue that warms up your essay. Sort of like foreplay. Just gives a nice transition in the mind of the reader. When you have a 'background information' box, you can essentially reword this. Eg. "In 2002 and international pact was created to reduce human behaviour that detracted from life on Earth, with an overarching aim for preservation and alleviation of poverty." Then we obviously say, yknow this speech is a follow up etc as we introduce the author. Speaking with conviction at the International Biodiversity Conference 2010, Professor Chris Lee contends that although the United Nations believes 2010 to be a “celebration of life”, there is little to celebrate about on the world biodiversity front, with species “being driven” to extinction “by the destruction of natural habitats”.This sentence has too much going on. Seems a tad on the lengthy side and the quotes detract from the flow. Think - the examiners have read the article, you don't need to write it back to them. We quote in a Language Analysis so that the examiner knows what we're analysing. You could phrase the contention more directly and it would sound punchier, and don't forget to mention that along with the contention, the speaker also aims to motivate the listeners to do their bit. With a varying alarmist and almost disappointed, serious and passionate (which could be easily misinterpreted as angry) toneWaaaaay too much going on. Limit it to two tone words in your introduction and say "usually in a x, y tone" - to leave you room to discuss tonal shifts in your essay. Also avoid brackets at all costs., Prof. Lee coherently and clearlythis shows indecision in your writing. which one? same thing, really. Perhaps would have been okay if there wasn't so much going on in the previous sentence.  outlines to his fellow conference members, most of which are well-educated and currently working as “leaders” in conservationist fields, that despite mouthing “platitudes”, little has been done to reduce rates of biodiversity loss over the previous decade. Additionally, with the help of simplecomma yet powerful imagery in the speakerpossessive apostrophes visual slides, Prof. Lee concludes with an inspiring call to action to take control and reduce “what damage our lifestyle is doing to our world”.


Professor Lee opens to his audience in a formal, serious and almost ‘calm-before-the-storm-esque”you definitely don't want to show the examiner that you need "esque" to describe something. Little too much, again tone, indicating 2010 is a year of ‘vital significance’ in relation to biodiversity,you need a full stop here and I'd go on to analyse the effect of "vital significance' now that you've mentioned it. The next stuff is too unrelated to be with a comma -> with his highly-educated status as Professor making his words seem more believable and trustworthy, urging the audience to take heed of the points he delivers. He questions the audience several times on how well “we” have achieved the goals they set out to we and they in the same sentence detract from it. , reminding the audience that these goals cannot be achieved alone, and probes the audience into really considering how well they worked towards their targets, evoking varying emotions depending on the actual action taken by various audience members in past.Seems a cop out The speaker then indicated that he will “work with” the audience towards “our goals for the next decade”, not making the audience feel like they have been pushed into a corner and isolatedNever tell the reader what somebody is not doing. Humans crave knowing what is BEING done. Imagine reading Harry Potter, and having JKR say "He isn't tall or blonde. He certainly doesn't weigh over 50kg and doesn't look like he got punched in the face lately". You want to be definite with your writing. Confident, punchy. Instead of saying they don't feel isolated, say that he aims to instill a sense of camaraderie. , making them more likely to listen and respond to his words. He outlines the outcomes of these goals to further position the audience better to listen, while mentioning that these goals were what he and the audience “set out” to do “idealistically” in the previous decade, rapidly attacking the audience for their obvious lack of action, evoking feelings of disappointment and discontent in audience members.Not a bad foundation at all. With your attitude you could end up very great :). As a general trend, you like to use commas a lot. I think you're trying to be like "x, this pertains to x, this also pertains to x", whereas that latter "pertains to x" should just be broken up into another sentence or be worked into the sentence a different way. There's a lot going on in your sentences, and I think fixing the comma use will fix this. Your analysis isn't terrible
(hehe see how I'm telling you how it isn't and you don't like it - you want me to tell you what you analysis is?)
but I think we could improve it with more elaborate and specific discussion of how the language is working together to produce emotive effect. In this regard, I think if you went to the worked examples thread, read the articles that people have written essays on, then read the essays themselves, you'll see the way in which you should be analysing individual connotations of words and how this is working together with the other language in the article etc.



The audience is quickly jolted into experiencing senses of guilt as Prof. Lee’s accusatory and attacking it's okay to use two tone words, but with the frequency you use many words to describe something it makes your writing look indecisive. I'd also be hesitant with the definiteness of your analysis. It's okay to be confident sometimes but I think you should work in phrases such as "This has the potential to influence..." - to be less definitive, yknow? Normally you would never aim to be less definitive in a piece of writing but like... Unless you took a survey of every person who listened to it and asked them "were you quickly jolted into experiencing x" then you just can't say that everyone was. Chafeel? tone simultaneously reveals the extent to which, as a result of “our own thoughtless human actions”, soon after this you've analyse the weak connotations on the word 'human' in this context and how it is implying imperfection instead of a species. that's analysis that will get you marks biodiversity has been lost, weaving subtle inclusive language elements into his speech to assure the audience that no one person can not be held responsible for this damage.Why is this good? How? Prof. Lee outlines that the species of the world are being lost at “up to 100 times the natural rate of extinction”, including “804” species already extinct, You need a full stop here. I think you did this earlier in the essay ".. comma, with" and it was a separate idea. Here you'd analyse how confronting these figures are and the effect that could have!!with this hard evidence proceeding the short emotive sentence, “It is too late for them”. This blatantly reminds the audience of their own personal and communal contributions to biodiversity loss, and positions the audience to feel regret and agree and accep ' feel regret and agree and accept'. toooo much. take out agree. this is good stuff thought that they are to blame for the current biodiversity loss, making them more likely to respond to the speaker’s later call to actiongreat. . Prof. Lee reminds the audience that “reversing this negative trend” is no longer an option, but “essential” to the wellbeing of all humans, inspiring further immediate action by the audience, further enforced by the fact that the audience is considered the “most educated” of all generations, and thus there is “no excuse for inaction”. raped by commas. do you see what i mean? If you get rid of the commas it will force you to vary your sentence length and make your essay flow better naturally Further attacks to the audience’s “lack of unity” and “genuine commitment” are assisted by constant inclusive and repetitive language, with “we”  being the operative word, to appeal to the audience’s sense of community strength and power, promoting additional action. The author then concludesthis promotes you giving a summary of the article or "commentating" instead of "analysing" i like to say. "The author then" prompts you to retell what could be considered the first half of his speech mentioning the “grim situation” that we are now in. This contrasts heavily with the opening slide of the speaker’s presentation - a depiction of a utopian society wherein many different species of organism, alongside humans in the centre and ‘control’ of the others, are living in harmony. This alone evokes a sense of responsibility to the audience, alongside that in the picture, a small child is depicted holding the hand of, and looking up to an adult figure, whom appears to be looking reassuringly back at the child. This image evokes a sense of humanitarian responsibility and allows the reader to recognise that it is the future generations of the Earth that will be most affected by our actions now, and that future generations should be assured with confidence that their lives, nor the lives of any other species, should be negatively impacted by a loss of biodiversity.Excellent analysis of the image! Well done :) (except for commas)


The speaker then moves swiftly to an accusatory, highly passionate and logical toneagain with the tone rape. This one even conflicts. Accusatory and passionate don't exactly lend themselves to a logical tone. , making high use of adjectives to paint a clear picture of the inaction currently taking place. “Wonderful words, glossy brochures, inspiring documentaries”, all slightly exaggeratory statements, effectively positions his audience to feel guilt for their substitutions for “real action”. Almost mockingly, the speaker reminds the audience that while they are sitting “in the comfort of an air-conditioned and sumptuously catered conference hall”, they are yet to produce “concrete results”, all highly connotative language that evokes further guilt in the audience.how? Prof. Lee questions strongly what “WE”, as well as “YOU and YOUR country” have done to work towards the achievement of their biodiversity goals. These words are turned highly attacking with the use of exclusive language with the audience forced to review their own actions – or lack thereof – avoid the dashes. and not help but feel embarrassment and regret. These emotions are further provoked out of the audience with Prof. Lee blatently blatantly explaining in a shaming manner that “there is no need to remind” them why “biological diversity is so important”. Then to further shame, actually lists why it is so important – points the audience should already be aware of. His attack, commenting that “our failure to conserve” biodiversity “is resulting in” “repent illnesses” and “deepening poverty”, as well as “environmental degradation”, assuring the audience that the problem is occurring here and now, and appropriate steps need to be taken. The use of adjectives in his description adds negative connotations to his point of view, evoking the audience’s contempt towards themselves and each other.
It's like you're quoting what you should be analysing for good analysis, but then you never follow through. It's like you're quoting as evidence that you've read the article, rather than a base for you to analyse. Remember, the examiner has read the article, they don't need to be told what's in it, they just need to be told what you're analysing. THat's why you quote.

A vivid image of the suffering poor is painted by Prof. Lee, and in a serious, passionate and alarmed tone,tones< explains that “biodiversity loss” increases the “vulnerability” of the poor. Stressing that “poor rural communities depend on biodiversity” for survival establishes in the readers mind that there can be no alternative but to reduce biodiversity loss, to conform to humanitarian responsibility, as “they are not in a position to do anything about it”. With the startling statistic that “more than 1.1 billion people” still “remain in extreme poverty”, Prof. Lee emotively explains that “it is the dependence of the poor” on biodiversity “which is most crucial”. The repetition of the word “crucial” in the relation to “poverty eradication” further evokes action in the audience, in that biodiversity sustainability is essential, and the time for action should be nowthis sentence is closer to what we want :). Prof. Lee uses imagery to paint the audience as “powerful economic giants”, whereby “the needs of the poor are often subordinated to the interests of” them. Not only does this provoke shame to the audience for their selfish ways, but also produces a sense of duty to poverty-riddled countries. This description compliments complement. Be sure to spell that right.perfectly with the speaker’s opening slide, in which the image of the adult and child holding hands could be depicted as the adult – “the powerful economic giants” – holding the hand and looking after the child – the helpless poverty-stricken countries who reply directly on us and our current actions, provoking a sense of duty to the audience to look after their ‘children’. Prof. Lee informally tells the audience to stop “kidding ourselves”, before presenting a final call to action that as “leaders”, “this message” must be delivered to “those in power”, lsuch frequent quoting really fucks up your flow, maneaving the audience feeling like they can make a difference to this world and reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. The speaker’s last slide of his presentation with a quote assures the audience that the fact that biodiversity loss should be prevented “at all costs” means that they should be actively fighting “its diminishment”, and on the slide, with the lighting focused on the Earth held gently in the hands of an unknowing person, symbolizing that it could/should be everyone, with Africa forward facing on the globe, reminds the audience that they have a role in the reduction of biodiversity.More on the image. Pretty significant, we literally hold the world in our hands - it is ours to do with what we wish. Connotations of power. Great stuff about Africa facing forward, very perceptive, but we need to go deeper (anal inception)
(analysis inception*) Could even analyse the way in which the white hand holding the world could either reinforce the concept of diversity (black africa, white hand) or sort of reinforce the guilt and target "white privilege" of the audience (even if they aren't white)



In his speech, Professor Chris Lee argues strongly in an overly passionate and alarmist tone that the rate of biodiversity loss needs to be reduced, and that the time for action is now. To his audience of “leaders in the area of biodiversity”, Prof. Lee reminds them of their duties and responsibilities, to mother nature, and mankind. Cool. I'd probably have a longer conclusion because this looks rushed but do it how your teacher tells you to.



Not too bad at all brother - This is actually really great because whilst there's so much feedback, it's on the types of things that you can fix with some work, rather than things that you'd really need to dig deep for (a greater understanding of the language if you didn't have much already). I'm sure you will improve fantastically, you seem like you have the correct attitude, or the write attitude, I should say. God I'm too funny.
Yeah general things, you quote too frequently and in not the correct way: fix it. Analyse what you do quote. Too many commas, too many things going on in your sentence. Promising, for your first essay :). Mine was sure as fuck a hell of a lot worse.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️

DylanBurrowes

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2013
Re: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 06:36:45 pm »
0
Thanks so much, I really appreciate it!
2012: Psychology (49) and Music Performance (45)
2013: English, Mathematical Methods (CAS), Chemistry, Biology

ATAR Aim: 100

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: 2010 VCAA English Exam Language Analysis
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 07:39:55 pm »
0
You're welcome :)
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️