First language analysis for the year

[NoticeMeSenpai]

Thanks

[NoticeMeSenpai]

bump

[brenden]

-Will get here.

[NoticeMeSenpai]

ok. Thanks. I'll wait.

[brenden]

With global temperatures up by almost 4 degrees, the two-tiered school system and the on-going asylum seekers fuss, the lack of action or concern from the Australian society ignites a sense of anger-instilled condemnation that fuels the stance on the ‘Australian Identity’. This sentence evokes a little bit of "what the fuck is going on?". It's good that you've got a contextualising sentence  there... but I'm still not sure on the context or on the relevance of what you've said. I'm assuming the issue is something to do with Aussie Identity. The description is a little weird, too "anger-instilled condemnation"? where/what/who is it igniting? That sentence needs to be clearer and less helter-skelter.   Published in the Saturday Age (26 January 2013) Nahhhh! Put the publication in the brackets (The Age, 26/01/13)... Work it in like.. "In '[title]', ([publication] [date]), [author] [contention]" is just one way to give you a basic example..with an accompanying photograph No need to work this into the sentence, work it into the last line of your introduction. (the image), social researcher Hugh Mackay’s colloquial informative the two adjectives seem odd, these two especially incongruent. I'd change it to "informative, colloquial piece" piece ‘They were a weird mob, the Australians of 2013’ heavily criticises and attacks the insensitivity and recklessness of Australians’ approach to major issues prevalent in today in today's society? in today =  no while simultaneously highlighting their blatant self-interest. Good stuffHugh Mackay utilises a righteous and disappointed tone,Very nitpicky but I find it strange to say 'utilises a tone' as if it were an object sort of thing. I did do this throughout year 12 but now, I think it's better to say "the piece is written in an x tone" or just talking about the tone pertaining to the piece, instead of the tone pertaining to the deliberate use of the author. Not even a big thing, just my 2c. I'd also work 'usually righteous..." in there to give you room to discuss tonal shifts laced with satire, to contend that while things have improved from past generations, Australians need to realise that there is still room for improvement. Mackey begins the piece by bringing the reader along on a journey with him to the future and, with the assistance of inclusive language such as “you’ll find this one hard to believe” peppered throughout I don't like quoting in the introduction. Mentioning a PLT like inclusive language in the intro... I'd also avoid. Unless you wanted to mention the overarching appeal that seems to be in every piece (like the theme of the article),, seeks to show that he is representing the views of the audience, thus strengthening his opinion when looking back together to the past (the current present time, 2013). A) never use brackets in your essays. B) current present is a tautology, don't use it.

Mackay wastes no time to jump straight to the Seems quite informal. appeals to humanity, morality and social injusticeis he appealing to social justice or social injustice? by immediately bombarding the reader with an abundance of information on the current state of affairs.    ‘...Fathers banned from labour wards. Women obliged to resign from permanent public service positions when they married. Aboriginal children stolen from loving parents in an attempt to wipe out indigenous culture...’ all of this listed out in short and powerful sentences, creating a strong impact on the reader as they are forced to learn and swallow it all.This quote could be integrated better. "all of this" is also quite informal. Bit of grammar haggles... "All of this" then "creating"... should be "All of this"..."creates"... "Forced to learn and swallow it all" is also pretty informal and seems like a cop-out on the emotive effect. I'd also like to congratulate you; this is the first essay I've seen that has managed to put "forced to" and "swallow it all" in the same sentence. Kudos. This language use is designed to elicit the reader’s moralitysense of morality I think would be more appropriate. "Elicit morality" sounds almost like morality could fall out of your pocket. Or like "damnit i need to leave, where's my morality?!", as if it were more of a thing and less of a concept. and hence feel a need to do something about it. In building upon this anger felt by readers, Mackay then brings up the issue of asylum seekers.This sentence is backwards. It should be something like "In bringing up the issue of asylum seekers, Mackay aims to build upon..." do you see why that difference is important? The string of words ‘huge fuss’ used in conjunction with ‘over a trickle’ are designed to position the reader to feel as if the past Australians (current Australians of 2013) no brackets were being overly trivial and petty as they are making a huge issue out of just a few asylum seekers, with the understatement of the word ‘trickle’ to play down the actual numbers. great! Mackey then moves onSentence starters like this encourage you beign a commentator for the article instead of an analyser. to point out the harshness and inhumane ways the asylum seekers were treated.Getting formulaic here. He points out that people must have known what was happening, but ‘apparently they didn’t care’, suggesting that Australians’ own self-interest takes the dominant priority, with his argument invigorated by saying that ‘there was plenty of media coverage’, leaving no excuses if anyone dared to feign ignorance. This appeal ofappeal of or appeal to? humanity pushes the reader to feel shame and guilt, and imbued with a strong sense of moral responsibility to condemn the immoral actions of the Australian politicians for letting this happenGood. In addition, Mackay takes advantage of the reader’s feelings to further criticise the two-tiered school system. He accuses the Australian society for retreating from egalitarianism, provoked by the government for investing too much in non-government schools while government schools got the scraps, if any at all. The figurative ‘being poured’ used before the words ‘already wealthy’ infers that the government is showering loaded schools ''loaded'' - informal with money that they don’t need, littering it. In contrast, Mackay uses emotive words with pejorative connotations such as ‘pleading’ when talking about the public education’s request for funding; attempting to make the reader feel that it is unfair for students to suffer this way, raising the tone for protest. You had some really nice analysis at the end of this! I think you'd benefit a lot from reading your own essays aloud. I think you have an overuse of commas and you could better articulate what was in your head onto the paper but you're sort of trying to mush it all into the sentences.. and this is where the comma usage comes in (although it isn't absolutely terrible, i just think your flow would be better with less commas around because it would force you to better articulate.

To further heighten the incredulity of the selfishness of Australians This is what I mean by articulating what's in your head. What you're trying to say is "...the incredulity of the audience in regards to Australians' selfishness"... But incredulity of the selfishness.. just doesn't work. Mackay complains about how no one is taking initiative to develop clean and renewable energy sources. With global temperatures up by almost 4 degrees, Mackey contends that as members of society, Australians should play their part and fulfil their duty. is that the contention or an argument? He compares Australia to other countries, pointing out that while other countries have immediately started taking initiative, Australians were still taking their time. “...but there was no sense of urgency in Australia” and “And yet, in 2013, Australia was still extending its coal mining and fracking operations” implies that Mackay expresses the view that Australians don’t take the environment seriously at all as they are all too absorbed in economics and making a profit. This language contributes to the reader’s disappointment and anger, causing further dissatisfaction as it makes them feel like the Australians are mocking or ignoring scientists’ predictions. As a consequence, it brings the audiences’ tone of protest already established previously almost to a revolutionary one to maintain and protect the environment. This type of stuff is what you want your whole essay to me like.
Also, work on embedding quotes more seamlessly into your essay.

Moving on to the latter commentary v analysis againpart of the piece, Mackay’s satirical tone goes from subtle to clearly distinctexcellent you're analysing this shfit but it could be so much clearer. Like. "Mackay shifts front a subtly satirical tone to one that is more distinct" is much clearer than the current sentence. as he openly ridicules and almost taunts them (Australians)nooo. “Did they really not get it?” used in conjunction right after Mackay had informed the reader about Australia’s coal expansion was done in third person as if to alienate “they” from the writer and the reader, allowing the writer to gain camaraderie while the rhetorical question itself was a device used to stimulate the reader to agree with him that yes, “they” really do not get it, and thus makes the reader see them as too self absorbed to care. You're good with potential effect =]On top of this, the visual is a photograph of the Australian flag up in the sky with the clouds reinforces this way of thinking. The flag is high above on its own, with no other buildings, birds or any other objects in sight. The flag symbolises the Australian society, and the position of it suggests that the Australians are standing tall and mighty yet completely disregarding everything else that is out of their perceptions. The flag is by itself because it suggests that Australians can only see themselves in modern society, or that they put themselves above everything else, attributing to Mackay’s opinion. Image analysis is great!! Keep doing it how you're doing it. But more more more! Also see if you can pick written language that the visual language helps reinforce.

Finally,don't say that Mackay finishes his piece with a very satirical “Still, top marks to them for being able to sing “our home is girt by sea” with a straight face” to have a last blow at the Australians, mocking them for their patriotism in spite of their indifference towards the conditions of their country. don't analyse more in your conclusionThis correlates to Mackay’s main contention of the article, which is that many Australians are egocentric. He uses third person to refer to those Australians and inclusive language for himself and the readers, and doing so positions the readers to distance themselves from the other Australians and hence gives them the place to judge and chastise their actions. After reading the article, this technique can either be successful in making the audience open their eyes and see that what they’re doing is detrimental to Australia, or it can alienate the audience who believe that there is nothing morally wrong with their actions feel victimised.
I think you need to articulate better, reading your essays aloud will help you. Quoting could be more seamless. What you're saying about the effect it has on the reader is good, it just needs to be said better. Good effort

[NoticeMeSenpai]

Thank you so much for your help!

[brenden]

You're welcome