FREE VCE Year 11 and HSC Head Start lectures. Save time, save money. Book now! Click here for VCE. Click here for HSC.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 21, 2017, 05:53:13 am

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 2  (Read 3414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1067
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2016, 02:36:54 pm »
+4
Scathingly careful with your tone + verb combinations - how exactly would you 'scathingly seek to form associations?', the North Carolina denizen this is a very 'literary' word - you'd use it in the context of 'a denizen of the valley' or 'a denizen of Medieval Europe' - it can sound a bit odd to use it in slightly more mediocre contexts like 'a denizen of some random suburb' :P seeks to form an association between the billionaire and sinister and reprehensible aspects of the world; including “terrorists, mass murderers [and] drug abuse.” Her enumerations have the effect of overwhelming are intended to overwhelm (some assessors might view what you've got here as being a tad too definitive, so phrasing this in a 'the author attempts to...' or 'this forms part of his intention to...' is a bit safer) the audience of American constituents whose natural inclination would have been to support Trump with just how perilous the world was not sure about your interpretation here(?). By frankly pronouncing word check. This only really works in terms of 'I pronounce my vowels in a certain way' - as in, it's about the articulation of sound rather than the expression of ideas. I can pronounce things in a French accent but I can't 'pronounce' my love of France Trump had “degraded” the political campaign and put it “through a gutter”, the writer thus intimates that to vote the presidential hopeful into the White House would be akin to exacerbating the world’s present situation good. Corrigan-Smith thus forms an association between Trump and unappealing aspects of humanity in order to make the reader less inclined to want to vote him into the position of president because their patriotism precludes them from wanting a man like Trump who purportedly represents such atrocious aspects of life in a position of authority in which he would effectively become the epitome of American civilisation; to this end, they infer that Trump’s presidency would imply America was a place where “mass murders, drug abuse… anger, hatred” and the like were rife v. long sentence, but the content is excellent - this is a great sentence linking the language through to the overall contention :).

I know this is a modified task, but always try to link between your paragraphs and imply a sense of continuity. Corrigan-Smith seeks to vilify president hopeful Donald Trump, positioning the audience to perceive the billionaire as the antithesis of the ideal leader. She juxtaposes what characteristics an ideal leader would purportedly possess with the characteristics displayed by Trump. quotes? Some evidence here would be good. By contrasting the two, the North Carolina resident accentuates the extreme disparity between these two. To this end, great phrase, but it came up at the end of your previous paragraph; don't overuse it. Heaps of synonyms for 'thus'/'ultimately'/'consequently' if you need them she intimates Trump would be a horrible choice for president because he displays no qualities commonly associated with a leader. Establishing he lacked these leadership qualities, the writer thus suggests Trump lacked the substance or credentials that would have given the impression he could be a competent leader of the American public. You've made this point already so you don't really need this sentence. That the writer should seek to depict the presidential hopeful as the antithesis of the ideal leader is supposed to manoeuvre the viewer only use this for images - 'reader'/'readership'/'audience' are preferred, or you can get more specific in cases like this where you might say 'the American public' or 'voters' to opt against voting for him because he purportedly lacks the qualities voters would typically expect in a presidential candidate.

Bit of repetition towards the end there which might stem from the fact that your analytical interpretations aren't strictly based on any particular evidence, meaning you have little to explore other than 'Trump does not have presidential qualities --> Trump would be a bad president' but since you only refer to this in vague terms (ie. 'The author juxtaposes X & Y) w/o quotes as your foundation, it's a little less driven than your first paragraph.

But the process of analysis is solid, and when you do unpack quotes, you do it really well. Just ensure you're always making THE LANGUAGE your starting point - the more specific you are, the better.

Technically there are instances where you could get away with not quoting, but if in doubt, it's better to quote just in case you get one of those snarky assessors (like me!) who prefers that example being given as a foundation before you then build up your discussion.

+ a couple of odd word choice issues, but nothing major. Just take note of these and try not to stray into literary terminology like 'denizen' and 'rife' for analytical essays. (They're great for Lit, but they can seem a bit superfluous in L.A.) Most of the verbs and adjectives you were using to describe things were excellent though.

What sort of tone does the writer adopt? I'm particularly interesting in shifting tonality; I NEVER see them. "Scathing" and "Blunt" are like my go-to tones when I have no idea what I'm doing. LOL.
Two sub-problems to this, as far as I can see:
- knowing different tones, and
- being able to spot and describe them

With regards to knowing tones, you should definitely brainstorm common ones to help you get better at identifying them. In general you can take an adjective and add '+ly' and you'll end up with a word that describes tone
eg. angry --> angrily
sorrowful --> sorrowfully
sympathetic --> sympathetically
etc.

Or you can discern a tone based on the effect, sometimes. So if an author wants to elicit feelings of inspiration, they'll usually use an inspirational tone.

I know I've got a big chart of tones somewhere... it'll be on the forums somewhere but I cbf finding it right now so I might just reupload it when I get home, but there are heaps of vocabulary lists online that will list a heap of tonal words.

Next, with regards to being able to 'spot' tones, forcing yourself to discuss tone once or twice a paragraph can be sufficient in reminding you to be on the lookout for instances of important tones and tonal shifts. Alternatively, if there's some language that you can tell is persuasive but can't match up with a particular technique, it's likely that there's either a tone or some connotations involved, so that can be another good reminder.

In general though, if you're aware of different tones, you're more likely to see them, so try to widen your vocab base and you should then find it easier to move past 'scathing' and 'blunt' or other really typical/boring words like 'formal' or 'emotional' :P

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Respect: +151
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2016, 09:03:36 pm »
0
So basically invest in a good thesaurus and one of those "tone sheets" every English teacher apparently gives out. And keeping an eye on word usage which continues to be a big problem for me.

How do you think I would best go around resolving my word usage problem? My problem is a lot of the words I do use wrong are words I thought I was using correctly but it turns out I wasn't. Short of starting a list of words to just not use in my essays, what else could I do to fix this problem?

Also: Could you please clarify what you meant by linking between paragraphs?
SELLING: digital copies of my personal notes for Medea, All About Eve, A Doll’s House, My Brilliant Career and Pygmalion for $10 each (they’re really comprehensive!) -- however All About Eve notes, I'm selling for $20 because there's heeaaaaps. Also selling a digital collection of my text response ($10) and language analysis essays ($10). + will mark essays for a small fee.

PM for more info.



HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Respect: +151
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2016, 09:09:23 pm »
0
Side note: Could those two paragraphs have been compressed into one?
SELLING: digital copies of my personal notes for Medea, All About Eve, A Doll’s House, My Brilliant Career and Pygmalion for $10 each (they’re really comprehensive!) -- however All About Eve notes, I'm selling for $20 because there's heeaaaaps. Also selling a digital collection of my text response ($10) and language analysis essays ($10). + will mark essays for a small fee.

PM for more info.



Marmalade

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: 0
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2016, 07:22:55 pm »
0

In response to the approval Donald Trump has gathered from many, Corrigan-Smith endeavours to dissuade the public from voting for him. In a forthright and scathing tone, Corrigan-Smith vilifies the presidential candidate by accentuating his disrespectful behaviour; accusing him of having ‘degraded the campaign’ and ‘dragged [it] through a gutter.’ From this, it can be intimated that Trump has corrupted the significance of the debates as for the people - especially given his ignorance of ‘situations that impact our daily lives’ - but has instead run simply ‘to satisfy his narcissistic personality’, which holds nuances of a selfish ulterior motive and portrays him as unsuitable to be a political leader. Hence, not only does this undermine the authenticity of Trump’s desire to ‘make America great again’ (is this allowed?), but also brings into doubt his motivation for following up appropriately on the responsibilities the role carries, as it seems he aims for presidency for personal reasons instead. Subsequently, these points are only further exaggerated by Corrigan-Smith’s comparison of Trump to other presidential candidates. By describing them as ‘well educated’ and holding ‘an unspoken respect for each other’, she accentuates the perks of the other candidates and thus bolsters the image of these parties in the audience’s perspective, dislodging Trump’s standing as a result. Readers are consequently made more reluctant to vote for him, given this disrespectful, selfish nature that seems uncaring of catering towards the country’s true needs, and are thus more likely to consider other candidates instead.


literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1067
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2016, 08:17:40 am »
+2
So basically invest in a good thesaurus and one of those "tone sheets" every English teacher apparently gives out. And keeping an eye on word usage which continues to be a big problem for me.

How do you think I would best go around resolving my word usage problem? My problem is a lot of the words I do use wrong are words I thought I was using correctly but it turns out I wasn't. Short of starting a list of words to just not use in my essays, what else could I do to fix this problem?

Also: Could you please clarify what you meant by linking between paragraphs?
Yes indeed - the more vocabulary you have at your disposal, the more techniques and language features you're likely to find in the material. Online tonal worksheets should suffice, and I cannot for the life of me find the one I used in Year 12 but I might just type up a replacement if I get the chance.

Word-usage-wise, just keep making mistakes :) You shouldn't view not using these words as the easiest fix because chances are there's only a few minor shifts to your internal grammar that you need to make, and after that, you're totally fine to start using them in the proper context.

Out of curiousity, when these issues of word usage are pointed out to you, can you recognise how and why the word doesn't fit? Like, is it a case of 'oh, yeah, I can tell I'm using this wrong' or more like 'oh, k, my usage is just wrong but I don't know how to distinguish it from the right usage?' Because the former is easier to deal with if you only need to be shown once why a word has certain restrictions placed upon it (eg. you can't use the verb portray followed by 'that' because a phrase like 'the author portrays that eating vegetables is important' is really clunky.) But the latter case would take quite a bit more work, especially if even after reading an explanation or a dictionary.com entry for something, your brain still can't quite grasp it. In that situation, it's work persisting when it comes to important or useful words like 'portray/ indictment/ reductive' that are useful from a VCE perspective, but if it's a relatively obscure word like 'denizen,' then you can afford to just ignore it :P


Regarding linking between paragraphs, aim to have some kind of connection that you establish within the first few words of the start of each B.P. from the 2nd para onwards.

Generic ones like: 'Furthermore, the author also seeks to elicit support for...' are okay, but it's best to find a more specific link if possible. eg. if you were going from one paragraph that looked at how the author depicted politicians as mercenary bastards to the next para that looked at the needs of the community, then you might say: 'This portrayal of the government's greed also aids the author in implying that the general public deserve a better class of state-level representation.'

Side note: Could those two paragraphs have been compressed into one?

Possibly, but I'm not being too stringent with comments about the length of analysis unless it's ridiculously excessive (~1000 words of analysis on 100 words of material) or really underdone (eg. only a couple of sentences and they're noticeably generic.) Idea-wise (/key player-wise) there's enough similarity between these two paragraphs that you could combine them with a bit of work on the linking, but even from an exam standpoint, the assessors won't be too fussed provided each distinct paragraph has a relatively defined focus. It's natural for there to be a bit of overlap since it's all based on the same argument/material anyway :)

In response to the approval Donald Trump has gathered from many, Corrigan-Smith endeavours to dissuade the public from voting for him. In a forthright and scathing tone, Corrigan-Smith vilifies the presidential candidate by accentuating his disrespectful behaviour; no need for a semicolon here accusing him of having ‘degraded the campaign’ and ‘dragged [it] through a gutter.’ From this, it can be intimated that Trump has corrupted the significance of the debates as for the people - especially given his ignorance of ‘situations that impact our daily lives’ - but and has instead run simply ‘to satisfy his narcissistic personality’, which holds nuances expression is a bit odd here of a selfish ulterior motive and portrays him as unsuitable to be a political leader. Hence, not only does this undermine the authenticity of Trump’s desire to ‘make America great again’ (is this allowed?) haha, as much as this is relevant and objectively valid given the context of the situation, you're not really meant to do anything with the context of the situation and just concentrate on the language that's provided. So no, it wouldn't be "allowed" in that you won't earn any marks for it :P but also brings into doubt his motivation for following up appropriately on the responsibilities the role carries, as it seems this is okay, but rather than overusing these kinds of sentence types, try to err on the side of using 'the author' as the focus of your sentences. The whole task has to revolve around how the author uses language to persuade, so if you can reflect that focus in your sentence structure by saying 'the author highlights XYZ' instead of 'the audience may infer XYZ' or 'it would appear that XYZ,' then you'll be in a much better position. Those other types are still totally fine as interchangeable options to vary things up if you're too dependent on 'the author does suchandsuch' but still favour those authorial-intent based ones wherever possible he aims for presidency for personal reasons instead. Subsequently, these points are only further exaggerated by Corrigan-Smith’s comparison of Trump to other presidential candidates. By describing them as ‘well educated’ and holding ‘an unspoken respect for each other’, she accentuates the perks of the other candidates and thus bolsters the image of these parties in the audience’s perspective, dislodging Trump’s standing as a result v.good! Readers are consequently made more reluctant to vote for him, given this disrespectful, selfish nature that seems uncaring of catering towards the country’s true needs, and are thus more likely to consider other candidates instead.

Excellent spelling out of the effect and intention. I think a few more mentions of the author's name (or just 'the author') would help make this conform with what the assessors consider to be a top-band response. It's not that your current analysis is flawed, really, it's just that typically, frequent use of the author's name to describe the process of persuasion is a characteristic of high range responses, whereas not mentioning the author is something that low/mid-range pieces do. Now that doesn't mean this would be a low/mid range piece since the quality of analysis is clearly above that, but the assessors are trained to look for characteristics, so knowing how to 'fake it' by moulding your work such that it showcases the analysis in the best possible way is an obvious recipe for success.

The content you've got here is pretty good, though closer discussion of some of the language might help (eg. "through a gutter" and "unspoken respect," both of which you kind of mention without fully unpacking.) It's not necessary to do for every single quote, but can be an excellent way to show off and do some really unique analysis. Other than that, your metalanguage and vocab is mostly fine give or take a couple of missteps, but on the whole, you're commenting on the material really effectively :)

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Respect: +151
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2016, 08:29:55 am »
0
Yes indeed - the more vocabulary you have at your disposal, the more techniques and language features you're likely to find in the material. Online tonal worksheets should suffice, and I cannot for the life of me find the one I used in Year 12 but I might just type up a replacement if I get the chance.

Word-usage-wise, just keep making mistakes :) You shouldn't view not using these words as the easiest fix because chances are there's only a few minor shifts to your internal grammar that you need to make, and after that, you're totally fine to start using them in the proper context.

Out of curiousity, when these issues of word usage are pointed out to you, can you recognise how and why the word doesn't fit? Like, is it a case of 'oh, yeah, I can tell I'm using this wrong' or more like 'oh, k, my usage is just wrong but I don't know how to distinguish it from the right usage?' Because the former is easier to deal with if you only need to be shown once why a word has certain restrictions placed upon it (eg. you can't use the verb portray followed by 'that' because a phrase like 'the author portrays that eating vegetables is important' is really clunky.) But the latter case would take quite a bit more work, especially if even after reading an explanation or a dictionary.com entry for something, your brain still can't quite grasp it. In that situation, it's work persisting when it comes to important or useful words like 'portray/ indictment/ reductive' that are useful from a VCE perspective, but if it's a relatively obscure word like 'denizen,' then you can afford to just ignore it :P


I think it's a combination. A lot of the time, I'll be like "Oh. Used that word wrong" and then I'll consult with Lord Google and figure out how it's supposed to be used and attempt to file it away for later use (sometimes I forget though cuz some of these words I've consistently used wrong). Once I've googled it, I pick up really quickly how I'm supposed to use it. The only problem is I write it down and then totally forget the correct word usage after like a month and think of the word under SAC conditions and either
a) use it wrong again (because I forgot someone else had previously corrected my use of that word: rare but it happens) OR
b) know that my definition of it is wrong but can't remember the proper definition and am too time poor to look it up so I just use a simpler word.

Regarding linking between paragraphs, aim to have some kind of connection that you establish within the first few words of the start of each B.P. from the 2nd para onwards.

Generic ones like: 'Furthermore, the author also seeks to elicit support for...' are okay, but it's best to find a more specific link if possible. eg. if you were going from one paragraph that looked at how the author depicted politicians as mercenary bastards to the next para that looked at the needs of the community, then you might say: 'This portrayal of the government's greed also aids the author in implying that the general public deserve a better class of state-level representation.'

Possibly, but I'm not being too stringent with comments about the length of analysis unless it's ridiculously excessive (~1000 words of analysis on 100 words of material) or really underdone (eg. only a couple of sentences and they're noticeably generic.) Idea-wise (/key player-wise) there's enough similarity between these two paragraphs that you could combine them with a bit of work on the linking, but even from an exam standpoint, the assessors won't be too fussed provided each distinct paragraph has a relatively defined focus. It's natural for there to be a bit of overlap since it's all based on the same argument/material anyway :)


Gotcha. Thanks Lauren. That really helped. :D
SELLING: digital copies of my personal notes for Medea, All About Eve, A Doll’s House, My Brilliant Career and Pygmalion for $10 each (they’re really comprehensive!) -- however All About Eve notes, I'm selling for $20 because there's heeaaaaps. Also selling a digital collection of my text response ($10) and language analysis essays ($10). + will mark essays for a small fee.

PM for more info.



literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1067
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2016, 08:43:01 am »
+1
I think it's a combination. A lot of the time, I'll be like "Oh. Used that word wrong" and then I'll consult with Lord Google and figure out how it's supposed to be used and attempt to file it away for later use (sometimes I forget though cuz some of these words I've consistently used wrong). Once I've googled it, I pick up really quickly how I'm supposed to use it. The only problem is I write it down and then totally forget the correct word usage after like a month and think of the word under SAC conditions and either
a) use it wrong again (because I forgot someone else had previously corrected my use of that word: rare but it happens) OR
b) know that my definition of it is wrong but can't remember the proper definition and am too time poor to look it up so I just use a simpler word.

For case a) keep some kind of vocab list in a more accessible place (eg. front page of your English folder, or bluetacked above your desk at home + more tips here) so that you're constantly exposing yourself to the correct usage.
+ for case b) keep track of these words using samples sentences rather than definitions.

'The author vilifies Tony Abbott's foolishness by drawing attention to that time he bit into an onion like a total freak.'

...is easier to remember than...

'vilify: verb. to disparage or harshly condemn'

Plus, if you remember how a word works in context, it'll be much easier to re-apply it in test conditions vs. trusting yourself to recall definitions, which is a less useful and more unnecessarily laborious skill.

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Respect: +151
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2016, 08:53:00 am »
0
I'll try that. Thanks Lauren!
SELLING: digital copies of my personal notes for Medea, All About Eve, A Doll’s House, My Brilliant Career and Pygmalion for $10 each (they’re really comprehensive!) -- however All About Eve notes, I'm selling for $20 because there's heeaaaaps. Also selling a digital collection of my text response ($10) and language analysis essays ($10). + will mark essays for a small fee.

PM for more info.



Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2016, 01:28:37 pm »
0
Sorry for a very very late reply!

Corrigan-Smith attempts to dissuade her readers from voting for Trump by asserting that he is incapable of leading a nation. From the outset, Corrigan-Smith paints a bleak picture of the world in order to hyperbolise the need for an effective leader. Loaded language such as "terrorists" and "drug abuse" attempts to instil feaer within her readers as "terrorists' carries heavy connotations of danger, destruction and death while "drug abuse" allude to unproductivity and hopelessness. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith's excessive use of commas within "anger, hatred, destruction..." attempts to overwhelm her readers of our troubling society as the use of semiotics create the effect of problems piling up out of control. This is likely to encourage her readers to recognise the importance of a capable president. The bleak tone shifts into a more firm, authoritative tone by "Don't vote for him", which invites her readers tackle the situation at hand logically rather than to lament. The sharp, pithy sentence acts to inform her readers of a clear solution. This is furthered by the sentence standing alone as a single paragraph which when viewed through the audience's eyes physically stands out with clarity. Not only this, reducing  Trump's actions as "adolescent pettiness" Corrigan- Smith attempts to underline Trump's political ineptitude, as "adolescent" carries connotation of immaturity, unreliability and thoughtlessness. Ultimately, Corrigan-Smith guides her readers to lose faith in Trump as a strong leader, framing him as someone incapable of dealing with social issues at hand. Thus, readers may be encouraged to bote for other more promising candidates.

Would love it if someone could give me feedback!!

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1067
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2016, 11:56:47 am »
+1
Corrigan-Smith attempts to dissuade her readers from voting for Trump by asserting that he is incapable of leading a nation. From the outset, Corrigan-Smith paints a bleak picture of the world in order to hyperbolise 'exaggerate' would be the more accepted version of this the need for an effective leader. Loaded language such as "terrorists" and "drug abuse" attempts to instil fear within her readers as "terrorists' carries heavy connotations of danger, destruction and death while "drug abuse" allude to unproductivity and hopelessness. Furthermore, Corrigan-Smith's excessive use of commas within "anger, hatred, destruction..." attempts to overwhelm her readers of our avoid first person pronouns in L.A. essays troubling society as the use of semiotics you'd have to explain this more to get credit for the metalanguage here, but semiotics might be a bit too convoluted to bring up in an analysis succinctly - maybe comment on the overwhelming/cumulative effect of listing here instead create the effect of problems piling up out of control. This is likely to encourage her readers to recognise the importance of a capable president. The bleak tone shifts into a more firm, authoritative tone by "Don't vote for him", which invites her readers tackle the situation at hand logically rather than to lament to lament what exactly? Where in the language does this come from? The sharp, pithy sentence acts to inform her readers of a clear solution. ironically, this sentence is a bit short and jarring; consider linking this with what's on either side of it, or some more evidence from the material? This is furthered by the sentence standing alone as a single paragraph which when viewed through the audience's eyes physically stands out with clarity true, though perhaps not the strongest point to make. Not only this aim for a linking word like 'Furthermore' or 'Likewise;' this one comes across as a bit colloquial, reducing  Trump's actions as "adolescent pettiness" Corrigan-Smith attempts to underline Trump's political ineptitude, as "adolescent" carries connotation of immaturity, unreliability and thoughtlessness <-- sentence structure gets a bit confusing here. Ultimately, Corrigan-Smith guides her readers to lose faith in Trump as a strong leader, framing him as someone incapable of dealing with social issues at hand. Thus, readers may be encouraged to vote for other more promising candidates. Your understanding of the material is excellent, and the bits of the article you've chosen to analyse are spot on! Pretty much everything I haven't mentioned here is really good, so just keep an eye on your phrasing and the connections between your analysis, and you should be fine :)

Gogo14

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • When the teacher bout to ask for your assignment
  • Respect: +2
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2016, 09:49:14 pm »
0
hopefully somebody can still be bothered correcting my essay.lol

With the forthcoming* United States Presidential election, Eileen Corrigan-Smith exerts her disapproval of the Republican Candidate Donald Trump by disparaging upon the capacity of his leadership and political mobility in the article “Trouble with Trump”. From the initial sentence, common ground is established with the readers by attesting herself to be “similar to many citizens”. This serves to tune the tone of the article to display enmity whilst on a conversational level. As such, and with the inclusion of common jargon like “dragged.. through a gutter”, Corrigan appeals to the audience on friendly, mutual terms. This exploits the readers to adopt similar stances to her as Corrigan portrays herself to be an incorporative component of the citizens who she is beseeching to.
Saturated and connotative language is used as a vital component of Corrigan’s rhetoric to paint imagery of a dystopic USA “burning with terrorists, mass murders” and the “destruction of society”. With such copious exaggeration, the nation is portrayed to be desolate, and desperate for “a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead”. The imagery appeals on a visual basis and the flaws of Donald Trump is highlighted when Corrigan condescends his character with loaded words of “narcissist personality” and “adolescent pettiness”. Consequently, Trump’s credibility and capacity as a candidate is diminished, exposing to the audience that he does not epitomise the important characteristics to lead the nation, thus invalidating him as a commendable candidate.
Furthermore, the short sentence “don’t vote for him” has a stark effect where the sudden conciseness and simplicity of the sentence conveys not only and imperative command but also accentuates the importance of not electing Trump. This positions readers to profoundly revisit their perspectives on Trump, being inclined not to vote him. Also, inclusive language of “our” and “we” creates a sense of mutual responsibility, as Corrigan implies that the responsibility to not elect Trump is burdened by “the public” as well, therefore swaying readers to actively disapprove Trump rather than dwindle in passive ignorance.
Through Corrigan’s rhetoric, the readers are appealed to on a friendly ground which creates a climate of mutual understanding and acceptance of her arguments. In addition, loaded language is used to create imagery which allows the contrast of Trump being a disproportionate candidate. Finally the sudden short sentence and the inclusive language sheds persuasion for readers to be actively detest Donald Trump.
*pretending I’m in the past

HopefulLawStudent

  • Moderator
  • Forum Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Respect: +151
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2017, 08:25:26 pm »
+3
hopefully somebody can still be bothered correcting my essay.lol

With the forthcoming* United States Presidential election, Eileen Corrigan-Smith exerts her disapproval of the Republican Candidate Donald Trump by disparaging upon word usage - you dont disparage upon someth much like how you dont shout upon someth the capacity of his leadership and political mobility in the article “Trouble with Trumpnot entirely sure what you mean here -- sounds impressive but lacking in clarity. From the initial sentence, common groundthis common ground stuff is too subjective. You neednto be aiming to be more objective. is established generally rule of thumb is to always use present tensewith the readers by attesting herself to be “similar to many citizens”. This serves to tune the tone of the article to display enmity whilst on a conversational level. As such, and with the inclusion of common jargon oxymoron - common jargon; do you mean cliche?like “dragged.. through a gutter”, Corrigan appeals to the audience on friendly, mutual terms. This exploits not very objectivethe readers to adopt similar stances to her try to avoid saying stuff like this as its quite similar to saying that she does it to encourage her readers to agree with her contention which is unnecessary as Corrigan portrays herself to be an incorporativecheck word usage? component of the citizens are you saying the audience targetted is the american public? (Hint: your audience is never the public)who she is beseeching to evidence to support your statement that she's beseeching?.
Saturated what do you mean by this?and connotative language is used as a vital component of Corrigan’s rhetoric to paint imagery of a dystopic USA “burning with terrorists, mass murders” and the “destruction of society”. With such copious be objective! exaggeration, the nation is portrayed to be desolatecheck word usage, and desperate for “a president prepared to meet the challenges ahead”. The imagery appeals on a visual basisoh? How so? and the flaws of Donald Trump is highlighted when Corrigan condescends his character with loaded words of “narcissist personality” and “adolescent pettiness”. Consequently, Trump’s credibility and capacity as a candidate is diminished, exposingbe objective to the audience that he does not epitomise the important characteristics needed to lead the nation, thus invalidating him as a commendable candidate.
Furthermore, the short sentence “don’t vote for him” has a stark effect where the sudden conciseness and simplicity of the sentence conveys not only and imperative command but also accentuates the importance of not electing Trump. This positions readers to profoundly revisit their perspectives on Trump, being inclined not to vote him. Also, inclusive language of “our” and “we” creates a sense of mutual responsibility, as Corrigan implies that the responsibility to not elect Trump is burdened by misused burdened; try using it like author burdens reader with the responsibility or reader is burdened with the responsibility of -- works better“the public” as well, therefore swaying readers to actively disapprove Trump rather than dwindle in passive ignorance.
Through Corrigan’s rhetoric, the readers are appealed to on a friendly ground be objectivewhich creates a climate of mutual understanding and acceptance of her arguments. In addition, loaded language beware phrases like loaded language. Teachers dont tend to like it cos they are often quite vague; instead try to specify how they are loaded.is used to create imagery which allows the contrast of Trump being a disproportionate candidate. Finally the sudden short sentence and the inclusive language sheds persuasion for readers to be actively detest Donald Trump.
*pretending I’m in the past

I started editing this but exhaustion's started to kick in despite the fact that Ive been resting all afternoon so I'm going to quit here for now; might go back and add more feedback later if I'm feeling up to it. :)
SELLING: digital copies of my personal notes for Medea, All About Eve, A Doll’s House, My Brilliant Career and Pygmalion for $10 each (they’re really comprehensive!) -- however All About Eve notes, I'm selling for $20 because there's heeaaaaps. Also selling a digital collection of my text response ($10) and language analysis essays ($10). + will mark essays for a small fee.

PM for more info.



Gogo14

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • When the teacher bout to ask for your assignment
  • Respect: +2
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2017, 05:53:15 pm »
0
I started editing this but exhaustion's started to kick in despite the fact that Ive been resting all afternoon so I'm going to quit here for now; might go back and add more feedback later if I'm feeling up to it. :)
Thanks, I'm just not really sure what you mean by "be objective". Thanks

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2017, 10:04:45 pm »
+2
Thanks, I'm just not really sure what you mean by "be objective". Thanks

Not HLS, but I think she's talking about focusing on analyzing rather than giving your opinion on the writing.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 2
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2017, 11:05:21 pm »
+2
Not HLS, but I think she's talking about focusing on analyzing rather than giving your opinion on the writing.

Just to add onto what's being said: try looking at the language more closely; the imagery certain words evoke and what it may relay to the greater message the author is trying to have the reader accept; how she layers meaning to arrive to an opinion. ie. stop and pause at the words "adolescent" and "narcissist"; they conjure the image of an ill-tempered child. He is depicted as irresponsible, throwing tantrums -- you could go on about this and how the author parallels this reality with the expectations of a president: how she goes on about how in the past the candidacy was reserved for "educated" and respected members of the community. Furthering this, she makes a clear distinction between Trump's self-interests and that of the reader in the lines "Instead (the word Instead being really important as it emphasises that he would not deliver as a leader should) of discussing political situations, laws, finance and domestic/foreign situations that impact our daily lives, he only offers ridicule and insults" (don't quote the whole thing, use the bits you need, but of course you already know that ;)); you could then go on about him being depicted as a schoolyard bully, someone who incites action through fear (in play with the earlier imagery of US dystopia devastated by massacre, immorality -- all that bad stuff). Perhaps, you could even suggest that the dichotomy that the author creates by banishing Trump from the 'adult' world to the realm of childhood and teenage angst, as further suggestion of his incapability to make an informed decision; the author is trying to position us to see him more or less as some kind of unformed alien thing (now that I read it and think about it).

There's a great deal of ways you could analyse this and THEN conclude that 'Corrigan-Smith thus establishes his character as unsuited for presidency, coercing her readers to reject him' etc.

But it's the manner you're going about it that's a little shaky, as HLS has pointed out. What I'd suggest you do is to perhaps make a little plan before you write and find connections from between the words (what recurring imageries am I seeing? How do they influence the way I view certain key-players? Lastly, how does the author ultimately tie it together to heighten their chances of persuading us?). I'm no expert, but I'd be looking into this sort of thing. I hated language analysis, so I'm not much good at it, so take what I say for a grain of salt. Hope it helped!