Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:47:47 am

Author Topic: Language analysis 2010- Biodiversity + Medea Text response Correction please  (Read 5089 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
Thanks for spending the time to correct it, if possible.
For language analysis, i'm still very lost in how do you produce a good analysis. Is it just simply analyzing more at the word level which gives a higher scores, but obviously deep word analysis.
And for text response, i'm still sorta lost with the structuring of a body paragraph. i know about teel. But for each paragraph, so we need evidence, explanation of this and relation with contention, do we then need different interpretation for each body paragraph or just 1 will suffice. I guess we also need views and values too. Anything else.
Oh and my LA doesn't include an intro, just the body paragraph and conclusion.
Thanks

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Please don't take any of my feedback as an attack, I know it's quite harsh but I'm not saying your writing is hopeless; just trying to help you on the way to making it utterly awesome :D


Throughout the speech, Professor Chris Lee utilizes an informative and sincere tone in an attempt to engage the audience and gain their trust position the audience to be engaged and more trusting of his argument. From the outset of the speech, the writer employs inclusive language such as “vital significance to our world” to promote interest in the audience explain how it does this (promotes interest), and specifically the scientists who have the most important role in decreasing the rate of biodiversity. This is because by saying “our” it makes the audience feel that have an important role. Unless inclusive language is a really big part of the author's argument, avoid it; it sounds like you're just 'identifying techniques', and examiners get sick of it, everyone says it.  And 'this is because' sounds formulaic, instead say 'promote interest in the audience by [doing something] The speaker continues to utilize a series of evidence such as “ United Nations stated…safeguard ...biodiversity” is this exactly 'evidence'? and “lost 35% mangroves and 40% forest”, need a new sentence here, or 'by utilising a series of evidence… the writer' the writers attempts to increase his credibility and reliability don't use two synonyms, stick to one word only, which in turn, predisposes the listeners to adopt his latter assertions. The writer continues to assure ensure that “the leaders in the area of biodiversity” are willing to listen and advocate his stance of teaching the rest of the society to also protection biodiversity, by utilizing a sincere tone through phrases such as “we know this. We are, in truth the most education generation”. how is the tone 'sincere' there?  Also the quote's too long, aim to embed really short quotes, e.g. 'educated generation', as it forces you to do more analysis (look, the examiner knows what's in that article already; they want something NEW, some analysis ;D). The collective effect that this has on the scientist specifically is to ultimately influence Collectively, this encourages them to engage and act in protecting biodiversity since they are both the most educated on this issue, and the people who protect biodiversity as an occupation. If they do not, they are marked to be unethical since they are not doing their job properly. Thus, be presented by the rest of society in a bad light, which evokes guiltiness of the scientist. You have some good analysis here :D but I think you've missed the point; this is talking about the GENERATION as being educated, not the AUDIENCE specifically.  P.S. You're using the word 'scientist' a bit much (and it'd sound a bit better as 'scientists' rather than 'the scientist', mix it up more with 'audience'.

Complementing this approach how does it complement it? maybe say 'building on the audience's sense of guilt' or something, Professor Lee undergoes a change in tone to one of composed sentimentalism and criticism in attempt to make the scientists feel remorseful for how their lack of action has impacted the biodiversity they everyone is part of. This is prevalent wrong word through the rhetorical question “Honestly, how well have we done?” which urges the scientist to contemplate and think deeply about again, repetition of similar words isn't needed what they have done over the past eight years in decreasing the rate of biodiversity. and again avoid just identifying techniques like rhetorical questions, you could put the same thing in every analysis and it doesn't look very deep By emphasizing the idea that the scientists (including himself) are only enjoying the luxury of “glossy brochures, wonderful words”, whilst not considering the impact this has on “rampant illnesses, Deeping poverty”, the speaker appeals to a sense of morality and ethics. The connotations of “glossy brochures” indicates that scientist are not only simply having enjoyment reading brochures since they are regarded as informative information to what interest scientists, but also since its glossy means it’s even better, making the life of scientist feel very good.Interesting points, and it's GREAT that you're analysing at the word level!! :) :) Keep it up! (though actually I don't think they're quite what the speaker's saying.  I would use slightly more impacting quotes here, e.g. 'comfort of an air-conditioned and sumptuously catered conference hall' ('comfort', 'sumptuous' especially).  I think the point with 'glossy' (and 'wonderful', 'inspiring', 'platitudes') is that it sounds empty and superficial – if you think of the word 'gloss', it means kind of an outer shine that makes something look great, when it really isn't.  The author then specifically contrasts these superficial things with real ACTION.)  But this is in grim contrast GOOD to the grim “rampant illnesses” which has the opposite effect of placing something like “illness” which is already negative even worst with rampant illness, because rampant has the connotations of something going out of control and destroying things. Good!  Shorten it ('This contrasts the 'rampant illnesses', with connotations of something destructive and out of control'), but you're analysing how the language actually makes people feel!  Good stuff :) This evokes guilt and remorsefulness in the scientist, so the collective effect of the speaker is to urge them to act in preventing the decrease in rate of biodiversity or they are not being ethical in doing their occupation properly. This is because many other people are struggling to live for the scientist’s wrongdoing. Spend more time on the audience's feelings/thoughts; not ethical/doing job => guilt, sense of failure, shame => encourages them to do better in the future.

The associated image on the final slide, portraying a globe being held in hands gently, supports the speech in the view that biodiversity is vital to us and if we do not prevent it from declining we will lose it for certain 'certainly lose it' is more formal, avoid colloquial language. The globe dominating the centre of the image suggests the importance it is its importance to everyone, similar to the speech’s notion that biodiversity is important for the healthy ecosystem and also the living condition of us human evident through the pejorative language of “rampant illnesses” and “Deeping poverty”. got lost in this looooonnnnggg sentence... This evokes within the scientist a sense of liability and responsibility again just use one word to ensuringe that the rate of biodiversity stops declining. This is further supported by the stark contrast between the darkly lit background and the brightly lit globe comma showing its importance yup nice analysis, you should always look for contrast :) - but the next bit of the sentence doesn't feel very relevant?, and that any wrong choice will be known by everyone. This coerces the scientist to pick up their slack don't use colloquial language to properly take care of the biodiversity, or they will be shamed on upon by the rest of society. And remember to analyse the logo at the top - it's one of the speaker's slides This is similarly presented in the speech’s concluding statement that “as leaders in the area of biodiversity… is the time for serious action”, which implies that scientist needs to take actions because it is primarily their responsibility. Good start, but make this analysis deeper so it stands out more; like try analysing just the word 'leaders' => gives them both responsibility and power (because this title makes them feel good/powerful/high-up, they're more likely to take the responsibility too)  This is further supported by the use of an identical quote under the image to the one at the conclusion of the speech, which emphasizes the importance of biodiversity. This sentence doesn't actually add anything, instead it repeats without making any analysis.  Everything you ever say should analyse how it makes the audience feel or think Ultimately, the audience of scientists is meant to feel sorrowful if they continue on with their excuse for inaction in preventing the biodiversity rate from declining.

Both the article and the image accentuate the notion that biodiversity is extremely important to us stay 3rd person, not 'us', 'we' and 'our' – you can do that in Context but not LA, and if must stop our inaction, and protect the biodiversity. Whilst the speech does this through a factual and aggressive where was it aggressive? tone to coaxes the audience into understanding the effect of its wrongdoings has had on biodiversity, the image does so by accentuating the idea that biodiversity is fragile and if we do not take care it would become lost forever.





To improve:
  • expression: if your work reads more smoothly with nice, correct grammar and expression, it'll feel much higher-class.  Practice reading it out loud slowly, to check if everything sounds totally right.  Also, conciseness - try going through one of your essays and seeing how many words you can cut out while still saying exactly the same thing!
  • more analysis of impact on audience - everything you ever say must analyse how it makes the audience feel/think
  • as you said, more word-level, LANGUAGE analysis; like, analysing why certain words are used, what the connotations are, and how certain words or types of words make the audience feel; basically, all the time, language analysis is about thinking WHY the author used certain words, arguments or approaches, and HOW exactly this influences the audience/makes them feel
  • avoid naming techniques (e.g. 'the author utilises...' tone/rhetorical question/inclusive language etc.); instead turn it to a verb, 'the author rhetorically questions...', or use other words for 'tone' like 'approach', 'voice' etc.
  • avoid generic, shallow analysis like 'this makes the audience more likely to agree'; the more specific you are about exactly how a word/technique will influence the reader, the more insightful it looks
  • embed shorter quotes and do less describing of what happens in the article; the examiner knows that, they want analysis of WHY that's there and HOW those details actually impact the audience
  • needs intro! ;) jks

Great already :):
  • good image analysis, analysed the impact of specific things like brightness and contrast, and linked to how it supports the article
  • analysis of the connotations of words like 'glossy' and 'rampant'
  • discussed who the audience was and specifically how it would impact them
  • discussed tone and shifts (though could do more analysis of how this is shown and how it makes the audience feel)
  • understand what a lang analysis is meant to do - show how the presenter aims to impact the audience, and how it makes them feel

Hope I've been a bit of help, post any questions you have!  All the best :D
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

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

Work: PCA in residential aged care

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
So would it be better to analyse the overall technique of a section (the article/ speech we are analyzing) and it's effect in positioning the audience, and then zoom in to specific words of that section and analyse it. Or are we meant to be continuously analyzing at the word level, and then stating how this positions the audience.
Also are we required to state why the article is directed at specific audience, like how this speech is directed at scientists mainly, do i have to state where in the article this is suggested by??
Also should we be integrating visual analysis through the body paragraphs, or just in one paragraph.- cause apparently one of the assessors report said to put it into each paragraph.

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
So would it be better to analyse the overall technique of a section (the article/ speech we are analyzing) and it's effect in positioning the audience, and then zoom in to specific words of that section and analyse it. Or are we meant to be continuously analyzing at the word level, and then stating how this positions the audience.

Yes, overall then zoom in.  You've got to see it from the big picture, the overall major ways the author tries to persuade the audience, and then look at the little tiny ways the author does that.  Like, 'tone' is just a big-picture version of word-level analysis – I mean, tone is made up of the types of words the author chooses to use.  Note, don't just analyse at a word level – I just emphasise it because people often miss this bit, the analysis of language specifically.

Some other things to analyse could include:
- 'rhythm' and 'speed' of the writing - e.g. are there short, sharp sentences (which arouse alarm/anger), or are they 'lingering' and descriptive (nostalgic, romantic)
- unusual construction; e.g. is the whole article done Q&A style?
- bullet points
- overall techniques like attacks, undermining the credibility of the opposition, setting up the author as credible, etc.

The most important thing, though, is analysing how things impact the audience.

Quote
Also are we required to state why the article is directed at specific audience, like how this speech is directed at scientists mainly, do I have to state where in the article this is suggested by??
Don't actually know :-[.  Reference the specific audience (though mix up what you call them, e.g. highly educated, experts, professionals in the field etc.) only in places when it's really important, e.g. the way the author of this speech calls them 'leaders' and says they, the audience, are specifically responsible for action.

Quote
Also should we be integrating visual analysis through the body paragraphs, or just in one paragraph.- cause apparently one of the assessors report said to put it into each paragraph.
People always say different things.  You can do either.  Be aware that if you put it in a separate paragraph, you risk not linking it enough with the article; if you put it in with other paragraphs, you risk doing not enough analysis.  It depends on your entire structure, really – I grouped it by 'approaches', like different overall arguments the author used or different overall persuasive methods they used.  Hence, I generally grouped the image(s) with one of these overall arguments/methods; sometimes I'd discuss different bits of one image in two different sections. 
Actually, can you try explaining to me how you structure your LAs (by PM)?

Hope some of this made sense...
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

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

Work: PCA in residential aged care

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
bump text response correction if possible (and can probably ignore last body paragraph, i don't think its as good as the others). and also have you seen my message Bangali-lok.
Thanks.

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Ooh yes sorry, I'll answer that message now :) fell through the cracks
I'll do my best to get to it, got about another 4 to do :)) (plus then other ones)
Anyone else eager to help out with a couple round here?
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

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

Work: PCA in residential aged care

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Hey, finally got round to this!  Disclaimer: I haven't read the text, so I'm pretty ignorant in my feedback.  Hope this helps anyway… and remember I'm honestly not judging you or saying you're hopeless!!!

Is Medea the true victim in the Euripides’ play?

Silhouetted against the backdrops of ancient Greece, is the portrayal of a women Medea who attempts to gain vengeance on the patriarchal society, in Euripides’ play 'Medea'.  The state of despair Medea is placed in after only obeying that of Jason what do you mean?, allows sympathy for her.  You dived in too fast to your three arguments without introducing the overall topic – who is the true victim. Furthermore, despite Medea’s fatal flaws to be unable to control  passion over reason, Medea is still able to acknowledge the wrongdoing of her gruesome machinations. Therefore, despite Medea can truly be shown as a victim of the play due to the unfair gender equity she has to suffer, but the true victim undeniably goes the innocent people who are killed such as?, since Medea is still alive in the end.
OK, I'm going to rewrite this intro with the same content but with wording corrected; your expression and grammar has a few issues.
Silhouetted against the backdrop of ancient Greece's patriarchal society, Euripides' play 'Medea' portrays the attempt of the woman Medea to avenge herself against societal oppression.  Medea's obedience to Jason's will casts her into a state of despair, allowing sympathy for her.  Furthermore, despite her fatal flaw of being unable to control her passion, Medea is still able to acknowledge the wrongdoing of her gruesome machinations.  Thus, although the gender inequity she suffers presents her to some extent as a victim, ultimately, the true victims are the innocent people who are killed, while Medea still remains alive.

To begin with, avoid starting paragraphs like this – it sounds like a 'firstly secondly thirdly' checklist/formula the despair that females must cope with due to the betrayal of Jason, is what invites Medea to be the victim of the play. That despite the help Medea has given to Jason by killing his own brother to help him secure the Golden Fleece, Jason still abandons Medea for Creon’s daughter. This only brings more despair to Medea, prevalent through the continuous cries of “death” from the outset of her part to the play. At this stage of the play, what stage? avoid stating where in the text something is, unless it's important e.g. due to character development over time Medea is portrayed to be a women of no machinations, or even anger, but merely anguished please for death from a “wretched” women. Despite the second burst of cries containing curses against Jason, it is again clearly the cries of a stereotypical emotional women to be pitied, not to be afraid of. Nice insight! This positions the misogynistic audience, even the misogynist audience to feel pity for such a “creature”, that is wishing only of death after having properly submitted to Jason. Thus indicating that Medea must be a victim of a patriarchal society, because even the very own misogynist audience can still feel sorry for her. that last chunk repeated almost exactly what you said the sentence before, try to avoid repetition

Alternatively, Jason can be sympathised because his actions are not exactly incorrect, due to the nature of the patriarchal society in ancient Greece. you didn't mention this in the intro? This is because despite Jason betraying Medea, he would have been praised by the Athenian audience at the time. Since during this time, male characters were allowed to betray their wives for another women, and especially in this case that if Jason was to stay with Medea a foreigner, he would have never been able to bore children with citizenship. This would have been a massive embarrassment to Jason, so for Medea to still react in such an away with her glory machinations check what this word means despite the correct doings of Jason, he can be felt sympathy for. Most people would say that doing something unethical is unethical, despite the society – instead, suggest that while Jason's actions aren't great, it is partly because he is a victim of societal values/culture/expectations  In peculiar particular is how in the end Jason had ended up losing not only his children, but also his wife which would have prevented Jason from boring any children. This was a particular problem, as children was highly valued in males during ancient Greece. Thus this only allows stronger sympathy for Jason, in peculiar from the audience of the play being male Athenians.
Need quotes in this paragraph

Furthermore the ability of Medea to acknowledge her misdeeds, but only falling to the oppression of the patriarchal society that she cannot assume being “weak”, don't understand this sentence? makes her a victim of the play. During Medea’s monologue when she ponders about continuing or not with her gruesome machinations, the true inner feelings can be discovered. This is because Medea herself too does not what to kill her children which she so greatly cares about. But it is only due to the patriarchal oppression that she cannot “weaken her hands” and thus be edged to prove that females are not just weak submissive servants to husbands. It is because of this unfair gender imbalances present at the time, that Medea is unable to tolerate, that drives such horrendous actions. In ways is a challenge of the prominent patriarchal society at the time, suggesting the outcomes of such selfish males- that being the killing of people, if males are to continue to treat females in the same fashion. Good reference to the author's intention and what he's trying to do! :) :) Thus positioning the audience to truly understand the state of mind Medea is in, as well as females in general. This allows her to be placed as a character that can be sympathized for. But the last 2 sentences aren't as good; they're quite general/vague, and repeat what you've already said elsewhere.  Try 'Thus, while Medea's actions are not justifiable, Euripides nonetheless arouses sympathy for her – and all females – by somewhat blaming her behaviour on the oppression she faced.'
Could have merged this paragraph with your earlier one on Medea, or at least put it directly after the earlier one – this is disjointed with 'Medea – Jason – Medea – King Creon'.

But inevitably the true victim of the play goes to is King Creon, because despite the good he does, he still ends up dying. King Creon highly values family, which was of great importance to the ancient Athenians, presenting him as a good character to the audience. Try words that are more specific than 'good' – in what way is he good? This is prevalent in the conversation where Medea argues to King Creon for stay in his city, but King Creon simply denies because of the “fear that she may cause harm to his daughter”. This obviously demonstrates that he cares highly of his daughter, making the audience being positioned to feel pleased about him again: in what way are they pleased? Why are they pleased?  Specifically, how does it make them feel about him?. However, he is still one easily manipulative manipulated character which offers Medea the stay into his city for a day where she was able to “lust revenge”. These fatal flaws of King Creon, only builds up the sympathy the audience feels for him as he is a character with good deeds, but a tragic flaw. The lasting effects on King Creon being portrayed as a true victim of the play, is his high values of his family. That is upon the death of Galuces (the daughter of Creon), Creon to decides to die together with her. This demonstrates the nature of King Creon, a person with the utmost care of others and especially his family that he too will die if someone else close dies too. Thus, King Creon is undeniably the true victim of the play. make that last sentence a little more specific/less just copying the prompt's words:... undeniably the true victim of the play, because his [generosity/strong family values/idk what as I haven't read the text] demonstrates that he is not deserving of his tragic fate.

Therefore, despite the life Medea has to suffer in Euripides play Medea, making her a victim, but inevitably she is alive, and the ones that are dead for doing no harm can only be sympathised by the audience more, thus making them the true victim. This is because Jason betrays Medea for another women leaving Medea in great state of despair that positions the audience to feel sympathy for her. In addition, her machinations are only due to her passion of owning up to the unfair male dominance society, because otherwise she still acknowledges her wrongdoings.  However, the innocent people at the end of Medea’s “lust revenge” are the true victims, as they are inevitably dead. note the word 'ultimately' is a good one to stop repetition of inevitably :)
Conclusion just sums up what you said in the intro/paragraphs, and focuses too much on Medea.





To improve
> MOST IMPORTANT: expression, vocab and correct grammar.  A number of your sentences just don't quite flow right.  If you focus on this (e.g. go over your essays and read them aloud to see where they feel a bit wrong, asking someone to point out the issues in short pieces of your work), examiners will be much happier when they read your work.  Your point will get across better and you'll get better marks.

> need more quotes (I highlighted them blue to emphasise that there aren't quite enough; and while it's good to do some 1-word quotes (well done on your embedding btw), you need a couple of slightly longer ones).

> mention Euripides a bit more – Euripides is the one intentionally shaping this play, intentionally presenting the characters and values the way he does.  So mention him occasionally, he is the one trying to arouse sympathy or disdain the audience.

> be careful not to contradict yourself: don't state 'Medea's the victim… no she isn't, actually Jason is… well no it was Medea… well, actually King Creon really is… yeah well, it's Medea… ? Idk ?'.  Think about what your overall contention is – something like, while the audience can feel some sympathy for Medea due to the oppression she faces in the patriarchal Greek society, ultimately King Creon manages to be both good and oppressed, and is thus the ultimate victim.

> I'm concerned with the argument that Medea isn't the true victim because she stays alive (though I don't know the story) – people who stay alive can still be victims!  It's a bit simplistic to say 'you're alive, so you're not a victim - you're dead so you are.'  Try instead evidence about her evil/nastiness, and contrast this with the innocence of people like King Creon.

Good already :)
> follows TEEL nicely

> some good ideas and insights – sees the different sides of Medea, for instance

> some good vocab

> understanding of the historical context

My 300th post! :))
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

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

Work: PCA in residential aged care

Coffee

  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Respect: +322
Bangali_lok's already done a good job of correcting your essay so I'm just going to add a few points onto this.

You mention Euripides in the intro but not the translator. John Davie's definitely had some shaping in the way we perceive the play so make sure you mention this. You also mention how it is perceived among the Ancient Athenians, but what about modern audiences? How does it differ? To incorporate this in your into, something like 'Modern audiences can learn from both the characters and themes as demonstrated in John Davie's translation. This explores...' would be suffice.

Quote
Medea has given to Jason by killing his own brother
Medea kills her brother and betrays her family. Proofread your work. It might seem nit-picky but make sure the knowledge you're demonstrating is in fact correct. :)

Quote
if Jason was to stay with Medea a foreigner, he would have never been able to bore children with citizenship.
Are you sure about this? Jason and Medea do have children.

Quote
This was a particular problem, as children was highly valued in males during ancient Greece. Thus this only allows stronger sympathy for Jason, in peculiar from the audience of the play being male Athenians.
Good. But when do we begin to feel sympathy for Jason and not for Medea? Everyone will have a different point in which they change views but I think for the majority it is when Medea announces her plan of revenge/murders her children, leaving Jason with nothing. Talk about this.

Quote
Medea argues to King Creon for stay in his city, but King Creon simply denies because of the “fear that she may cause harm to his daughter”
Remember that Creon does in fact grant Medea one more day and this is ultimately what leads to his death.

You also haven't mentioned the chorus - try to touch on them a bit too.