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, 01:41:58 pm

Author Topic: FEEDBACK - Language Analysis  (Read 1413 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rajinikanth

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
FEEDBACK - Language Analysis
« on: October 08, 2014, 10:39:32 pm »
0
Hey guys the article can be found here: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2013/2013english-w.pdf
I would really appreciate any feedback/tips  :D    :D

In reference to the recent newsletter by the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group, the proposition to convert the area of “abandoned” land for a community garden is presented and communicated in an informative and friendly tone to local residents in an attempt to persuade and influence readers to accept and support the opinion of Grow Slow Garden Group. The newsletter is accompanied by two visuals, one poster and one bar chart aimed to providing supporting and irrefutable evidence.

The headline “getting our future back on the rails-slowly” is an attention grabbing headline and is aimed solely for the residents of the surrounding area. The word “rails” is purposefully used in reference to the previous use of the land for railway lines, and the phrase is meant to prompt a sense of positive change in the interest of all residents. The author opens the newsletter by invoking a sense of ownership of the decision, by providing a negative aspect of the current use of the land the author attempts to influence the reader to share his view of the land being used for a community garden instead of a place “good only for rats, snakes and those few anti-social citizens who dump rubbish illegally.”
The fourth paragraph directly contrasts the community to the rest of the world, conjuring the reader to a sense of conformity and hinting that rejecting this proposal would mean not belonging or being “up to date with the rest of the world”. Furthermore the author provides a rebuttal argument to the main restraining force of change, through the phrase “its amazing what we can achieve when we work together and support each other” the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group provides optimism of the pessimistic views shared by some residents, and further more calls for community spirit and an optimistic approach meant to recruit the audience into the views of the author.

The following two paragraphs provide external examples of positive advances in “community gardens.” With the reference to World War, the author immediately appeals to patriotism of the readers, and reminds the reader of the previous positive effects of community gardens. With the introduction of the next paragraph the author provides a current example, meant to rebuke the claim of “it was in the past”, that could be shared amongst readers. With the deliberate reference of the queen and first lady, the audience is influenced to conform to those ideologies if they are shared by prominent figures of the current era.
The author then turns his approach to appeal to rationality of the readers, through the mention of economical advantages as opposed to persuasion by conformity. Through the concluding phrase of the eighth paragraph; “everybody benefits”, the author provides the reader a sense of security with the proposition. If everybody wins then there is no sense in opposing the cause, thus influencing readers to accept the author’s proposition.  The leader of Grow Slow Garden furthermore asserts his opinion through providing the reader with consequences of buying vegetables from the stores, claiming that the trips and “hidden price tags” come at a drastic cost to the wellbeing of the environment. This provokes the reader to reflect on rational judgement, concluding that growing your own vegetables will reduce much of the pollution to the environment. The reader then goes on to present a personal anecdote sympathising with the reader. The heartfelt approach provides a sentimental benefit of gardening, claiming “we might remember the satisfaction of the first harvest”. This approach is directed to conjure a sense of acceptance by appealing to the human nature of the reader, wanting a connection or friendship such as that provided by the author.

The visual provided on page twelve portrays a poster advertised during the war, as mentioned by the author the “dig for victory” campaign. The “dig for victory” phrase is a play on words in reference to the Australian “diggers” of the war and also in common knowledge of gardening. The visual is accompanied by the phrase “for their sake, grow your own vegetables”, meant to invoke a sense of responsibility and obligation, as a lack of action will result in those dependent to pay the price and also reminds the reader of the “revolution” in earlier times.

The second visual is a statistical representation of the “processed food wastage in just one state”. Firstly the deliberate inclusion of words “just one” informs the reader that the following information is just a proportion of the loss incurred as a result of wastage, and secondly serves as a visual representation to back up the claims made by the author in reference to disadvantages of purchasing vegetables from stores. The visual is accompanied by the rhetorical question “what price does planet earth have to pay for your convenience” meant to assert guilt to the reader as a result of their actions being of harm to the environment in excuse for convenience, prompting a sense of change to stop the inflicted damage.

The final paragraph of the newsletter makes a final plea to support the proposition, and furthermore persuading the reader to side with the notion of it being a common goal, and making the impression of a revolution of movement with the slogan “Dig for victory”. The final use of repetition of the inclusive word “our”, reminds the reader that the proposition is in the interest of all the residents and not a sole beneficiary, thus furthermore invoking a sense of acceptance. The author’s appeals to conformity and community spirit are deliberately used to persuade the readers who are the local residents who are overall pushed towards viewing the community garden as a positive approach both for the wellbeing of the community and environment.

Words: 964

Time: 1hr 15mins



rajinikanth

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
Re: FEEDBACK - Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2014, 09:36:44 am »
0

In reference to the recent newsletter by the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group, the proposition to convert the area of “abandoned” land for a community garden is presented and communicated in an informative and friendly tone to local residents in an attempt to persuade and influence readers to accept and support the opinion of Grow Slow Garden Group. The newsletter is accompanied by two visuals, one poster and one bar chart aimed to providing supporting and irrefutable evidence.

The headline “getting our future back on the rails-slowly” is an attention grabbing headline and is aimed solely for the residents of the surrounding area. The word “rails” is purposefully used in reference to the previous use of the land for railway lines, and the phrase is meant to prompt a sense of positive change in the interest of all residents. The author opens the newsletter by invoking a sense of ownership of the decision, by providing a negative aspect of the current use of the land the author attempts to influence the reader to share his view of the land being used for a community garden instead of a place “good only for rats, snakes and those few anti-social citizens who dump rubbish illegally.”
The fourth paragraph directly contrasts the community to the rest of the world, conjuring the reader to a sense of conformity and hinting that rejecting this proposal would mean not belonging or being “up to date with the rest of the world”. Furthermore the author provides a rebuttal argument to the main restraining force of change, through the phrase “its amazing what we can achieve when we work together and support each other” the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group provides optimism of the pessimistic views shared by some residents, and further more calls for community spirit and an optimistic approach meant to recruit the audience into the views of the author.

The following two paragraphs provide external examples of positive advances in “community gardens.” With the reference to World War, the author immediately appeals to patriotism of the readers, and reminds the reader of the previous positive effects of community gardens. With the introduction of the next paragraph the author provides a current example, meant to rebuke the claim of “it was in the past”, that could be shared amongst readers. With the deliberate reference of the queen and first lady, the audience is influenced to conform to those ideologies if they are shared by prominent figures of the current era.
The author then turns his approach to appeal to rationality of the readers, through the mention of economical advantages as opposed to persuasion by conformity. Through the concluding phrase of the eighth paragraph; “everybody benefits”, the author provides the reader a sense of security with the proposition. If everybody wins then there is no sense in opposing the cause, thus influencing readers to accept the author’s proposition.  The leader of Grow Slow Garden furthermore asserts his opinion through providing the reader with consequences of buying vegetables from the stores, claiming that the trips and “hidden price tags” come at a drastic cost to the wellbeing of the environment. This provokes the reader to reflect on rational judgement, concluding that growing your own vegetables will reduce much of the pollution to the environment. The reader then goes on to present a personal anecdote sympathising with the reader. The heartfelt approach provides a sentimental benefit of gardening, claiming “we might remember the satisfaction of the first harvest”. This approach is directed to conjure a sense of acceptance by appealing to the human nature of the reader, wanting a connection or friendship such as that provided by the author.

The visual provided on page twelve portrays a poster advertised during the war, as mentioned by the author the “dig for victory” campaign. The “dig for victory” phrase is a play on words in reference to the Australian “diggers” of the war and also in common knowledge of gardening. The visual is accompanied by the phrase “for their sake, grow your own vegetables”, meant to invoke a sense of responsibility and obligation, as a lack of action will result in those dependent to pay the price and also reminds the reader of the “revolution” in earlier times.

The second visual is a statistical representation of the “processed food wastage in just one state”. Firstly the deliberate inclusion of words “just one” informs the reader that the following information is just a proportion of the loss incurred as a result of wastage, and secondly serves as a visual representation to back up the claims made by the author in reference to disadvantages of purchasing vegetables from stores. The visual is accompanied by the rhetorical question “what price does planet earth have to pay for your convenience” meant to assert guilt to the reader as a result of their actions being of harm to the environment in excuse for convenience, prompting a sense of change to stop the inflicted damage.

The final paragraph of the newsletter makes a final plea to support the proposition, and furthermore persuading the reader to side with the notion of it being a common goal, and making the impression of a revolution of movement with the slogan “Dig for victory”. The final use of repetition of the inclusive word “our”, reminds the reader that the proposition is in the interest of all the residents and not a sole beneficiary, thus furthermore invoking a sense of acceptance. The author’s appeals to conformity and community spirit are deliberately used to persuade the readers who are the local residents who are overall pushed towards viewing the community garden as a positive approach both for the wellbeing of the community and environment.

Words: 964

Time: 1hr 15mins

brenden

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 7185
  • Respect: +2589
Re: FEEDBACK - Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2014, 04:17:22 pm »
+2
In reference to the recent newsletter by the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group, the proposition to convert the area of “abandoned” land for a community garden is presented and communicated in an informative and friendly tone to local residents in an attempt to persuade and influence readers to accept and support the opinion of Grow Slow Garden Group. The newsletter is accompanied by two visuals, one poster and one bar chart aimed to providing supporting and irrefutable evidence.
I think your first sentence isn't doing you any favours. It feels like you've crammed as much info as possible into that sentence so it's a lot to take in at once. I'd opt for a longer introduction altogether, for example, something somewhat close to how I teach introductions now is included in this thread: Re: [English] [Language Analysis] [Feedback]
It doesn't necessarily have to be a long intro, but more length would allow you to leave a better first impression (as opposed to leaving the impression that you've crammed words into sentences) (

The headline “getting our future back on the rails-slowly” is an attention grabbing headline and is aimed solely for the residents of the surrounding areaIt's good that you're thinking about the target audience when your'e writing. . The word “rails” is purposefully used in reference to the previous use of the land for railway linesInteresting insight, and the phrase is meant to prompt a sense of positive change in the interest of all residents Seems pretty generic. "It's meant to be positive" - how, specifically? For what purpose? (Not just "to make them agree" - for what subtle purpose? Eg, to butter them up for a future piece of persuasive language? . The author opens the newsletter by invoking a sense of ownership of the decision, by providing a negative aspect of the current use of the land the author attempts to influence the reader to share his view of the land being used for a community garden instead of a place “good only for rats, snakes and those few anti-social citizens who dump rubbish illegally.” So you haven't actually analysed here. It's quite a long sentence (and hard to follow), and the analysis you've attempted is somewhat generic and lacks specificity (yet specific analysis is what's going ot get you the marks). I mean, what is it specifically about the particular words you've quoted that manipulates the audience?
The fourth paragraph directly contrasts the community to the rest of the world, conjuring the reader to a sense of conformity and hinting that rejecting this proposal would mean not belonging or being “up to date with the rest of the world”. Okay, cool.Furthermore the author provides a rebuttal argumentTry to explain less of what the author does, and more of what the language does. You can think about the author later, after you've told me what the language does (specifically!!) to the main restraining force of change, through the phrase “its amazing what we can achieve when we work together and support each other” the leader of the Grow Slow Garden Group provides optimism of the pessimistic views Some grammar issues here in green. There was also an issue when you spoke about ownership above ^^shared by some residents, and further more calls for community spirit and an optimistic approach meant to recruit the audience into the views of the author.The content in green is generic - try to be more specific. To do this, try to quote one or two words, and say PRECISELY - HOW and WHY these words have an influence on the audience, or could have an influence on the audience. At the momet you're providing long quotes and giving an overall summation of what it does - "it makes them feel positive because what I've quoted is positive". This is okay, but you could do better by pushing yourself into uncomfortable, unfamiliar habits (single word quotes, trying to be hyper-specific in your analysis).

The following two paragraphs provide external examples The "This paragraph does X" type of opening, combined with "the author does x", makes you analysis sound more like a commentary or summation of the article. Read through the Compilation of LangAnalysis thread I've already link and just read the examples that I, and other people, have given on what actually consituttes specific analysis - it should help you. It's the difference between "the author uses slut as a negative word to attack" and "The author uses slut to dehumanise the girl, attempting to instill a notion of worthlessness within the audience so they are further predisposed to believe the sexual assault was her fault". of positive advances in “community gardens.” With the reference to World War, the author immediately appeals to patriotism of the readers, and reminds the reader of the previous positive effects of community gardens. With the introduction of the next paragraph the author provides a current example Habit of 'commentary', again., meant to rebuke the claim of “it was in the past”, that could be shared amongst readers. With the deliberate reference of the queen and first lady, the audience is influenced to conform to those ideologies if they are shared by prominent figures of the current era.This isn't as helpful to your grades as it could be. It's pretty cursory, lacking a real depth of analysis - again, reading through past essays and feedback will really help with this, as well as going through articles with a good teacher and getting them to explain hyper-specifically what the language is doing.
The author then turns his approach to appeal to rationality of the readers, through the mention of economical advantages as opposed to persuasion by conformity.It's good that you've picked up on this 'change'. Well done :) Through the concluding phrase of the eighth paragraph; “everybody benefits”, the author provides the reader a sense of security with the proposition. If everybody wins then there is no sense in opposing the cause, thus influencing readers to accept the author’s proposition.  The leader of Grow Slow Garden furthermore asserts his opinion through providing the reader with consequences of buying vegetables from the stores, claiming that the trips and “hidden price tags” come at a drastic cost to the wellbeing of the environment. This provokes the reader to reflect on rational judgement, concluding that growing your own vegetables will reduce much of the pollution to the environment. The reader then goes on to present a personal anecdote sympathising with the reader. The heartfelt approach provides a sentimental benefit of gardening, claiming “we might remember the satisfaction of the first harvest”. This approach is directed to conjure a sense of acceptance by appealing to the human nature of the reader Good! This is closer to the 'specific' analysis I was talking about. This is getting there in a good way :), wanting a connection or friendship such as that provided by the author.Grouping discussion of economics and rationality was a good choice and does show ability to analyse, but more specificity would really help :). The rest of this essay is going to be more specific, so I'll stop noting it down as much now, but just know that it's something you've got to work on.

The visual provided on page twelve portrays a poster advertised during the war, as mentioned by the author the “dig for victory” campaign. The “dig for victory” phrase is a play on words in reference to the Australian “diggers” Nice insightof the war and also in common knowledge of gardening. The visual is accompanied by the phrase “for their sake, grow your own vegetables”, meant to invoke a sense of responsibility and obligation, as a lack of action will result in those dependent to pay the price Good effort at specificity once more.and also reminds the reader of the “revolution” in earlier times.

The second visual is a statistical representation of the “processed food wastage in just one state”. Firstly the deliberate inclusion of words “just one” informs the reader that the following information is just a proportion of the loss incurred as a result of wastage but what influence will this have on the reader? It will make them more 'impressed' at the statistics, because it's left to their imagination the OVERWHELMING amount of waste created by *gasp* MOOOOORE THAN ONE state!?!!, and secondly serves as a visual representation to back up the claims made by the author in reference to disadvantages of purchasing vegetables from stores. The visual is accompanied by the rhetorical question “what price does planet earth have to pay for your convenience” meant to assert guilt to the reader as a result of their actions being of harm to the environment in excuse for convenience, prompting a sense of change to stop the inflicted damage.

The final paragraph of the newsletter makes a final plea to support the proposition, and furthermore persuading the reader to side with the notion of it being a common goal, and making the impression of a revolution of movement with the slogan “Dig for victory”. The final use of repetition of the inclusive word “our”, reminds the reader that the proposition is in the interest of all the residents and not a sole beneficiary, thus furthermore invoking a sense of acceptance. The author’s appeals to conformity and community spirit are deliberately used to persuade the readers who are the local residents who are overall pushed towards viewing the community garden as a positive approach both for the wellbeing of the community and environment.

Words: 964

Time: 1hr 15mins

Great effort :). Your writing is nice and clear for the overwhelming majority of the essay, save for some small slip ups. This is a great positive for you. Your analysis, as noted, needs to be a bit more specific. That's what's really letting you down at the moment. You're choosing a range of language, analysing the visual as well as the written language, and you're doing this with clear writing; however, the actual CONTENT of your writing needs to go a bit deeper and be a bit more specific for you to get the marks you're capable of. Reading through past essays that have been marked will give you an insight of what specificty is. Some of the essays in the thread I linked above contain some really extensive explanation of specificity, so be sure to go through them.
✌️just do what makes you happy ✌️