50 in English - Feel free to ask questions.

[Yang Li]

Hi yang_dong,

For me, that quote connotes that the previous Labor government was either grossly negligent or incapable of implementing good policy. It intends to induce anger or disappointment at the previous government for their handling of asylum seekers.

As much as I personally disagree with this writer's take on the issue, it seems she has hit the nail on the head by pointing to the flaws of Labor's dealings on the matter. She appeals to the reader's sense of compassion ("1000 children") and uses shock, sarcasm and hyperbole to achieve her intended effect. By pointing the finger at the previous government, she attempts to remove blame on this issue towards the current government, as well as promote confidence in the reader towards the current governments policy on asylum seekers arriving by sea.

All the best,

Yang

[Bestie]

Hi Yang Li,
can you please help me?
so for hw I have to analyse this quote, its just a sentence: 'sorry, but we don't get to be outrages at this. The fact that a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull doesn't change anything'. the only background knowledge that I'm given is that the writer is trying to contend that detention centres are intentionally made as a place of 'horror', worse than what they fled their country for. the article is here: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-whole-point-of-detention-for-asylum-seekers-is-horror-whether-it-is-acknowledged-or-not-20140220-333yw.html but we just have to analyse how it starts and ends for now. cause apparently the choices made when a writer starts or finishes an article is very important.

So what I've done so far is:
- we inclusive language to get audience feeling involved with the issue. However, the fact that 'we don't get to be outraged at this', gets readers thinking why their freedom is restricting, catching the attention of the reader
- 'doesn't change anything' - even if there 'is a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull', to us doesn't make the situation any worse, portraying society as inhumane and gets readers feeling guilty. Is that right?

What do you think?

and lastly for the ending quote: 'The truth is we've never really come to terms with why it is people get on boats, and why it is that, faced with hopeless inaction once they're detained, they protest. In fact, our public conversation isn't even terribly interested in knowing. That's why, when we do finally discover the facts of Manus, they will mean nothing.
cause we won't act to change anything or improve anyways? does this has the intended effect of shaming readers who oppose him and encourages readers to change their ways?

Thank you Thank you so so much

[Dahello]

Hey yang li
If something is said to have 'philosophical intentions' as in 'the worse it is, the more effective it is destined to be, and the more it fulfills the philosophical intentions of the policy'.

Is there meant to be effect on the reader by calling it a philosophical intention?

I googled philosophical definition and it came up with like calm and composed?

Not sure how that would fit in.

Thanks

Your help is very appreciated

Thanks

[haha_]

hello,
do you happen to have any sample comparative language analysis? I'm having difficulty of how to structure it.

Thanks

[Yang Li]

Hey guys,

Let me tackle one at a time.

Bestie -

You've identified a few techniques and reader reactions which is a good start. I think it will serve you well to also assess the writer's tone. Within the tone is a profound disappointment towards Australia's public vernacular on this issue. The writer intends to bring forth facts that should be relevant to us, and our Australian values of fair play and giving opportunities. He/she lampoons the blatant negligence or acquiescence of the Australian people to hold our politicians accountable on the treatment of asylum seekers.

Good job! Keep at it.

Dahello -

To say something as having "philosophical intention" is not very informative. That is because "philosophy" by nature is the study of knowledge, reality and existence. It is too wide in scope to hold any meaningful value unless used within a very particular context. For example, describing something as having "philosophical intention" may be referring to the tone of the writer. Even then, it is quite limited in its descriptive capabilities.

In the case of your article, it seems to be simply used to point towards the rationale behind an aforementioned policy. The words "philosophical intention" itself is not likely designed to be persuasive.

Good stuff!

haha_,

I don't want to disclose my students' work without their knowledge. For a solid guide with simple examples, download my guide on the first post of this thread. Have a go while you refer to that document and come to me afterwards. I'm sure you'll feel much more confident then.

All the best!

Yang

[asdfqwerty]

Hey Yang Li,

I have to analyse a cartoon and i was just wondering if you give me a deeper insight. It would help me a lot!!!!

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/national/cartoons-for-tuesday-25th-march-2014-20140324-35dll.html

of the 8 avaliable cartoons - its the fourth one

portrays Australia as a bad country

contention: Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Abbott are trying to hide publicising their association with the deaths at manus island - portraying them as guilty - their faces look angry (so publicity is not want they want)

'no one would ever want to come to australia' - implying that Australia as a whole is just as bad as Morrison and Abbott's refugee policies - ridicule Australia into guilt and acting otherwise

the set up looks something like an interview - Morrison and Abbott each have a pile of notes in front of them compared to the guy talking - and they all have their eyes on him. - don't think the interview set up has any impact though.

they are all wearing blue ties - symbolising all from liberal party - dont think that has any implications either....

is that the contention?

thanks

[tiff_tiff]

hello,
language analysis help:
not sure what the contention of this short piece is. At first i thought the contention is that the violence in detention centres is due to the certain asylum seekers themselves 'evident in the last sentences: 'They are not going to blame the government for what happened off the coast of PNG. They will hold the ringleaders of the Manus Island violence responsible and argue that there are plenty of other people who are, or have been, in detention, and never rioted in such a way.'

but then i feel like i'm ignoring the abbott and labor bit in the middle, 'One of the reasons support for Prime Minister Tony Abbott has stabilised is that asylum seeker boats have stopped. Whether you voted for Tony Abbott or not, that was his number one election promise; that he would stop the boats. The promise included offshore processing to make sure that people who arrive here unlawfully can’t beat the system.' - this 'Austraia's shame day' is what we elected and that if their is anyone to blame it should be us? which sorta of contradicts what i said in the first paragraph...

plz help me....

[Bestie]

Hi Yang Li,
Thank thank you thank you so much, your advice is like gold...

just wondering: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-whole-point-of-detention-for-asylum-seekers-is-horror-whether-it-is-acknowledged-or-not-20140220-333yw.html  what was the contention i didn't really get it?

what do you think?

Thankyou

[Dahello]

HEY yang li,

i'm doing the same article as bestie:

With the title of the article: 'the whole point of detention for asylum seekers is horror, whether it is acknowledged or not' i'm trying to analyse that.
The only thing ive come up with so far is: Even on the outset, the writer's use of 'horror' attempts to shock readers of the conditions in detention centres. By entering the discussion with details, 'a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull' alerts readers of the situation.
I'll add later in the body paragraph about the 'doesn't change anything' cause it links with the ending and other part of the article ' they will mean nothing' about how we know about it, but we don't act - i'll talk about that idea in the 2nd apragraph. The first is about the idea of unjust treatment towards asylum seekers and that there is obviously something wrong for them to riot, drawing on sympathy...

As you can tell the only thing i got from the heading is 'horror' nothing else... it feels like there is some effect from 'whole point' - its like horror is the only thing we focus on, not their actual wellbeing??? but thats not really explicit in the article
and the 'whether its acknowledged or not' seems like there is a purpose to why the writer would have added that in cause otherwise the title is ok without it. its talking about how its reality, we can't change it and so readers are positioned to feel challenged to change it??? i dunno i guessed???

and the opening 'sorry we don't get to be outraged at this' is this like directly talking to the audience in order to get them involved in the issue - invites readers attention

What do you think about the heading? and the two sentence beginning?

English is so hard

but thank you so much... you make it alot more do-able

[Yang Li]

Hey guys,

I just got back from overseas.

asdfqwerty,

I think the main thing to take away from the visual is, as you rightly identified, the speech bubble. The most potent effect is the irony in the adviser's remark. By comparing the incident with the persecution that the asylum seekers are escaping from, it intends to shame, or induce outrage, in Australian audiences.

Also look at:
- expressions
- uniformity of clothing
- frame (who is where and their relationship)

tiff_tiff,

Sometimes an article can contain more than one contention. The best way to find the main contention is to first ask yourself what the issue is. The contention has to fall on one side of the issue or another. For example, "wearing school uniforms" might be the issue; and "students must wear school uniforms" is a contention. "Students should wear school uniform most of the time" is another contention that falls on the same side of the issue, but is slightly different. At some stage in the piece, the writer may have said "principles are responsible for the collective spirit of the school"; which is another contention, but not the main contention.

Bestie & Dahello,

I personally really like Waleed's writing. I do not always agree with his contentions, but his writing is eloquent and a good mixture of fact, logic and emotive appeals. Without going into the whole article, Aly intends to illuminate the mechanisms upon which our detention centres operate. He contends that it is designed to be a punishment to deter future arrivals, not as a legitimate point of processing.

He challenges the reader with what they do not have exposure to. He often induces shame, guilt or doubt in the Australian reader's mind. I suggest that you follow the steps listed in the guide posted at the beginning of this thread and see if that makes the whole process easier.

All the best to you all,

Yang

[haha_]

Hi Yang Li,

 if you are something that be a failure but we consider it to be working.. how would that impact readers?
eg. this tragedy is not any kind of evidence of policy failure, this is what it looks like when the policy works

The context of the issue is that the government is purposely making the detention centres a horrible place to live... with living conditions worse the countries they fled from.. is in what many may see as a failure that we aren't offering these people a safer place to live, it is actually what the government wants and thus to them the policy works.. cause it is stopping the boats from coming.

Thank you