Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 06:11:09 pm

Author Topic: Language Analysis Corrections please  (Read 1745 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mincent7

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Melbourne High School
Language Analysis Corrections please
« on: March 09, 2015, 04:23:18 pm »
0
Gun Laws Language Analysis

The US will weep, it will pray, it will grieve. It's not enough is an editorial published in The Age on December 16th 2012. This editorial contends that stricter resistance to gun laws in the US is entrenched in society, despite the horrific shooting incidents of recent times. The article mocks the insanity of people in the US who seemingly value guns over the safety of their children. This is coupled with Ed Gannon's opinion piece, titled, Local laws on firearm ownership hits the mark, which presents a more balanced viewpoint yet still laughs at the absurdity of the US's gun laws. Gagnon contends that Australia's implementation of gun laws was very effective and that the US must follow suit, primarily to negate the number of fatalities from gun crimes. Further, the visual by cartoonist David Pope, exemplifies both articles contentions yet focuses intensely on the juxtaposition between life and death. It illustrates Americans intent on maintaining the right to bear arms, to the detriment of the counties safety and their children's.

The editorial presented in The Age presents a hard-line stance on the nature of gun crime and culture in the US. The bold and emphatic language choices in the articles title, adds a sense of power and emphasises that showing sympathy to the victims of gun crime is simply "not enough". The article immediately appeals to the emotional nature of the reader, complementing the opening paragraphs which are very high in emotional intensity. The editor uses strong language throughout, calling gun crime "shocking and distressing". This is used to attack society's lack of response to the issue, appealing to common sense. This appeal is re-iterated throughout the entire article as the editor attacks society, labelling Americans as lacking "sanity". This appeal to sanity is illustrated through the editors mocking tone which is used to criticise Americans "sentiment" to maintaining the right to bear arms over the safety of the nations children. The credibility of the editors response is aided by a frugal use of statistics that places this issue into perspective, contrasting the number of Americans shot each year with the MCG on grand final day. The Age's editorial is emphatically concluded by a clever use of forceful repetition, which states that these crimes are "so brutal, so bloody, so shocking". These strong language choices position the reader to feel aggrieved and demand immediate action.

Likewise, Ed Gannon's article is similarly opened by initially labelling the US Constitution's right to bear arms as "absurd". The use of this word positions the reader to be drawn into the article, questioning how Australian's values must be so far "apart from Americans on the gun issue". Gannon adds credibility to his article by appealing to patriotism, referencing Australia's gun laws as a successful scheme to reduce gun crimes. He said that "most gun owners accepted they had to give up their semi-automatic weapons for the greater good." This labels Australians as being responsible and reasonable, opening Gannon's attack on American society. He calls the American Rifle Associations members "nut cases", highlighting the stupidity of their suggestion to place guns in every school to counter school shooting threats. This is coupled with his severe attack on media personality Alex Jones, stating that "(he) wouldn't be surprised if the Oxford Dictionary is upgrading its definition of Loony ... to Mr. Jones". This completely discredits Jones viewpoint through the use of a mocking, almost disbelieving tone which was also evident throughout the editorial in The Age. In many ways, Gannon's and The Age's article share similar beliefs, stating that "Gun access for everyone is a terrible idea." Gannon's however presents a more balanced viewpoint, recognising that guns can be beneficial for some people saying that "It is wrong to think all guns are bad". This article focuses on appealing to the patriotism of Australians by lamenting the US as being irresponsible and incapable of properly dealing with the severity of gun crimes. The article concludes in a somber tone, recognising the need for guns in some occupations yet criticising America's lack of action. It positions the reader to condemn Americans actions and think "why can't they be like Australia?"

Finally, David Pope's cartoon skilfully juxtaposes life with death by comparing Americans need for guns as being as important as the safety of their children. Pope substitutes guns into regular activities undertaken with children to highlight the "absurdity" and "insane" nature of Americans choices. This technique strikingly exposes the lack of rational and common sense amongst American gun lovers. This cartoon aptly supports both The Age's editorial and Gannon's opinion piece however focuses intensely on the question posed in the editorial. The editorials appeal to sanity and human nature is reflected in this visual by laughing at Americans "(sentimentality) about their rights" compared to their "(sentimentality) about their children and the innocence of children". It mocks the stupidity of American policy by criticising the maintenance of the right to bear arms when school shootings are ending the lives of innocent children. Pope suggests that Americans value guns as much as their children and the right to bear arms is entrenched in their society.   

In conclusion, the editorial in The Age as well as Ed Gannon's opinion piece both appeal to common sense, highlighting the lack of sanity and absurd nature of Americas lack of gun laws. Their use of statistics, strong language and severe attacks on the people of the US would likely persuade some on the basis of these arguments alone. However, The Age's tendency to simply reject contrary viewpoints weakens its case when compared to the more balanced opinion piece in The Herald Sun. These articles are astutely aided by David Pope's cartoon which acts to support both articles contentions, emphasising the sad extent to which guns are instilled in American society. It becomes increasingly obvious that these articles target regular Australian's who are ill informed about the issues surrounding gun crime in America, positioning them to question why the US has not taken any dramatic action yet.

Deshouka

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • お互いに頑張ろう!
  • Respect: 0
Re: Language Analysis Corrections please
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2015, 05:58:04 pm »
0
"skilfully juxtaposes"
"weakens its case"
Careful not to add opinions- try to be objective as you can.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2015, 06:04:56 pm by Deshouka »
Willing to help out with anything Japanese! :)

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Re: Language Analysis Corrections please
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2015, 09:22:54 pm »
+4
I'm not great (actually pretty terrible :P) at marking - can see problems but don't know how to explain how to fix things... wish someone else would mark rather than me :-[ hope this still helps :)

The US will weep, it will pray, it will grieve. It's not enough is an editorial published in The Age on December 16th 2012. This editorial contends that stricter resistance to gun laws in the US is entrenched in society, despite the horrific shooting incidents of recent times. The article mocks the insanity of people in the US who seemingly value guns over the safety of their children. The Age’s editorial (Dec 16, 2012) ‘The US will weep, it will pray, it will grieve – it’s not enough’ contends that…   This is more concise, more grammatically correct, and clearer – you need to put the title in quotes, This is coupled with Ed Gannon's opinion piece, titled, Local laws on firearm ownership hits the mark, which presents a more balanced viewpoint yet still laughs at the absurdity of the US's gun laws. Contrastingly, Ed Gannon’s opinion piece ‘Local laws on firearm ownership hits the mark’ presents a more balanced viewpoint while still ridiculing the absurdity of US gun laws.  More concise and formal.Gagnon contends that Australia's implementation of gun laws was very effective and that the US must follow suit, primarily to negate the number of fatalities from gun crimes. Further, the visual by cartoonist David Pope, exemplifies both articles contentions yet focuses intensely on the juxtaposition between life and death. It illustrates Americans intent on maintaining the right to bear arms, to the detriment of the counties safety and their children's.

Some intro suggestions:
 - perhaps put in a 'context' sentence at the beginning to make it sound less formulaic/boring
- try to make it more concise
 - try discussing the overall thrusts of each article - by this I mean tone, their major method of persuasion etc.  I don't mean pick out techniques, but their way of arguing - are they very condemnatory/insulting/harsh, or more balanced, or emotional?  This helps you draw a strong contrast between articles – even if they have very similar contention, they can argue it in different ways.  You’re trying to show how they get a different response out of the reader.
 - try to encapsulate the contention of each article more concisely and impact-ful-ly – avoid general, vague statements
 - you didn’t show the cartoon’s contention


The editorial presented in The Age The Age’s editorial - keeping it active helps conciseness presents a hard-line stance on the nature of gun crime and culture in the US. The bold and emphatic language choices in the articles title, adds a sense of power and emphasises that showing sympathy to the victims of gun crime is simply "not enough". The article immediately appeals to the emotional nature of the reader, complementing the opening paragraphs which are very high in emotional intensity. This sentence had no evidence to back it up – a very broad, general statement that won’t get marks.  The editor uses strong language throughout, calling gun crime "shocking and distressing". This is used to attack society's lack of response to the issue, appealing to common sense. This isn’t to do with common sense, but shocks/alarms/arouses dread in the reader. This appeal is re-iterated throughout the entire article as the editor attacks society, labelling Americans as lacking "sanity". This appeal to sanity is illustrated through the editors grammar – editor’s (lack of apostrophe occurs a number of times – not vital but better to be careful) mocking tone which is used to criticise Americans "sentiment" to maintaining the right to bear arms over the safety of the nations children. This sentence isn’t very clear – needs revising to make sense.  Also, if you claim that someone uses a mocking tone, you must use words/examples to show the mocking. The credibility of the editors response is aided by a frugal use of statistics that places this issue into perspective, contrasting the number of Americans shot each year with the MCG on grand final day. This isn’t clear what you mean, and you don’t show how it would impact the audience at all – hence this sentence is useless. The Age's editorial is emphatically concluded by a clever subjective – avoid judging whether an author is clever, skilled etc. use of forceful repetition, which states that these crimes are "so brutal, so bloody, so shocking". These strong language choices position the reader to feel aggrieved and demand immediate action. Until the last sentence, you didn’t link nearly enough to how it makes the audience feel, think or act.  You need to focus much more strongly on the impact on the audience – ideally after every example you use.

Likewise, Ed Gannon's article is similarly opened by initially labelling the US Constitution's right to bear arms as "absurd". The use of this word positions the reader to be drawn into the article, questioning how Australian's values must be so far "apart from Americans on the gun issue". Again, not very clear – how does the word ‘absurd’ draw the reader in?  How the second part of the sentence relevant?  And if it were relevant, how would it influence the reader? Gannon adds credibility to his article by appealing to patriotism, referencing Australia's gun laws as a successful scheme to reduce gun crimes. He said that "most gun owners accepted they had to give up their semi-automatic weapons for the greater good." Never have a sentence that is just a quote; never use ‘he said’.  Try to take a phrase or two from the quote, and weave it in to your previous sentence.  This labels Australians as being responsible and reasonable, opening Gannon's attack on American society. He calls the American Rifle Associations members "nut cases", highlighting the stupidity of their suggestion to place guns in every school to counter school shooting threats. This is to do with the appeal to patriotism – the author creating a ‘them and us’ mindset, flattering the reader by saying that ‘we’ – the author and reader – are good, wise Australians, whereas ‘those’ Americans are idiotic.  Being Australians, the audience is likely to be patriotic and believe this, so they’re positioned to see the author’s ‘Australian’ mindset as far more logical than Americans. This is coupled with his severe attack on media personality Alex Jones, stating that "(he) wouldn't be surprised if the Oxford Dictionary is upgrading its definition of Loony ... to Mr. Jones". This completely discredits Jones viewpoint through the use of a mocking, almost disbelieving tone which was also evident throughout the editorial in The Age.  Good.  Here, now, you need to show what this does to the reader – the reader is therefore positioned to totally discredit Jones’ ideas, because he appears ridiculous. In many ways, Gannon's and The Age's article share similar beliefs, stating that "Gun access for everyone is a terrible idea." Gannon's however presents a more balanced viewpoint, recognising that guns can be beneficial for some people saying that "It is wrong to think all guns are bad". More concise: While Gannon’s piece and the Age’s editorial both contend that ‘gun access for everyone is a terrible idea’, Gannon’s viewpoint is more balanced…  This way you also avoid sentences that end in ‘stating that [quote from piece]’, which you should always avoid.This article focuses on appealing to the patriotism of Australians by lamenting the US as being irresponsible and incapable of properly dealing with the severity of gun crimes. The article concludes in a somber tone, recognising the need for guns in some occupations yet criticising America's lack of action. It positions the reader to condemn Americans actions and think "why can't they be like Australia?"

Finally, David Pope's cartoon skilfully juxtaposes life with death by comparing Americans need for guns as being as important as the safety of their children. Pope substitutes guns into regular activities undertaken with children to highlight the "absurdity" and "insane" nature of Americans choices. This technique strikingly exposes the lack of rational and common sense amongst American gun lovers. This cartoon aptly supports both The Age's editorial and Gannon's opinion piece however focuses intensely on the question posed in the editorial. The editorials appeal to sanity and human nature is reflected in this visual by laughing at Americans "(sentimentality) about their rights" compared to their "(sentimentality) about their children and the innocence of children". It mocks the stupidity of American policy by criticising the maintenance of the right to bear arms when school shootings are ending the lives of innocent children. Pope suggests that Americans value guns as much as their children and the right to bear arms is entrenched in their society. Can you describe any of the visual aspects of this? Briefly what it looks like, or any visual techniques used?  You need to be more specific, explaining how certain aspects of it impact the audience.  It’s good though that you connected it with the articles – important.

In conclusion, the editorial in The Age as well as Ed Gannon's opinion piece both both The Age’s editorial and Ed Gannon’s opinion piece appeal to common sense, highlighting the lack of sanity and absurd nature of Americas lack of gun laws. Their use of statistics, strong language and severe attacks on the people of the US would likely persuade some on the basis of these arguments alone. However, The Age's tendency to simply reject contrary viewpoints weakens its case when compared to the more balanced opinion piece in The Herald Sun.  Your conclusion doesn’t aim to make judgements on the effectiveness of the articles; rather you’re contrasting the ways they argue.  So definitely state that The Age’s editorial is far more one-sided/forceful while the other is more balanced, but don’t judge which would be more effective in persuading. These articles are astutely aided by David Pope's cartoon which acts to support both articles contentions, emphasising the sad extent to which guns are instilled in American society. It becomes increasingly obvious that these articles target regular Australian's who are ill informed about the issues surrounding gun crime in America, positioning them to question why the US has not taken any dramatic action yet.
This conclusion needs quite a bit of work.  Don’t:
 - repeat yourself
 - make judgements about the effectiveness of the articles
 - make vague, broad statements, e.g. Pope’s cartoon acts to support both articles’ contentions.  You need to be more specific, showing how it supports the contentions.

In summary, you need to focus much more on linking, always, always, always, to the impact on the audience – what it makes them feel, think or do.  There are basically three steps: 1 – show the technique; 2 – explain what that does (e.g. mock, add credibility to the author), and 3 – how that makes the audience feel/respond.

Given that it’s a comparative, this should be longer – you only get a very little analysis of each one, so it ends up more summary than analysis and impact on audience.  You also need to spend more time comparing their approaches, tones, and the different ways they impact/position the reader.  There wasn’t enough comparison except for a few statements – perhaps it would help to devote a whole body paragraph to contrasting them? 

Really good effort though and good luck, hope I haven’t torn you to pieces :-\
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

Uni (2021-24): Bachelor of Nursing @ Monash Clayton

Work: PCA in residential aged care