The debate on marriage equality for homosexual citizens have divided citizens globally and has recently been reinvigorated following Ireland's legalisation for same-sex marriage.
Nice start! 
In an article from the Herald Sun, titled "We need same-sex marriage - now!" and dated May 24, 2015, Wendy Tuohy
could make it briefer (nothing wrong, just intros are nicer when they’re snappier) – Wendy Tuohy’s article, ‘We need same-sex marriage – now!’ (Herald Sun, May 24 2015), urgently contends that... weights in on the issue, urgently contending that same-sex marriage should be legalised as it reflects the attitudes of the majority of society. In stark contrast to this, *in* a piece from the Catholic Bulletin, dated May 26 2015, Mary Pell contends *in* "Thank God for Mr. Abbott" *in* a congratulatory tone that Tony Abbott is right in protecting the sanctity of marriage as part of the Catholic faith.
Good, solid intro; nicely worded, ticks boxes. But it needs to be longer. I think you need a sentence or two on the overall contrast between the articles, between their overall approach/audience/tone/styles of arguing or whatever. If this were a one-article analysis, you'd have to go into more detail about the contention; a brief one sentence is generally too shallow, you need to discuss the author's major approaches or arguments.The use of the word "now!" in the title of Tuohy's article emphasises the urgency of the situation as she suggests to the reader that same-sex marriage should be implemented to reflect the ideals of modern society. Tuohy targets the readers' fears of being a backwards society in
the phrase "you call yourself a fair and true democracy", which prompts those who are more liberal in their political ideals to feel ashamed that their own government does not truly act according to the needs of their people. Tuohy continually evokes these feelings of shame and guilt in a comparison to Ireland, "A country so notoriously conservative:, which reinforces the notion that Australia is lagging behind politically.
so, the audience feels/thinks? Thohy cites that "64 percent" of Australians are in support of marriage equality as readers are positioned to acknowledge the fact that the majority of citizens are in support of something so "intuitive". Tuohy's urgency turns into dismay
good! (but how? in what way? show how the tone changes through changes in the language) after stating this fact as possible supports of derailing marriage equality are denigrated for denying others the right "to have their love be recognised".
unclear sentence Andrew Dyson's illustration supports Tuohy's contention as it illustrates the old adage of sweeping issues under the rug. Dyson, through the prominence of the homosexual symbol, illustrates the futility of not addressing an issue relevant to society.
which then makes audience feel...? also since it’s a separate piece, you should probably devote a whole paragraph to it (and contrast it with BOTH articles). You need more analysis of it, e.g. Abbott’s unhappy face; he appears totally unstable /unbalanced; the whole image is dark, dull and bleak with greys, navy and blacks, except the rainbow which appears bright, cheerful and positive in contrast; etc. You need more! In a comparative, I tended to do about 2 paragraphs for each article, followed by 1-2 comparison paragraphs. Sure, it’s got to be briefer than full analysis on one article, but if you don’t go deep enough, it sounds superficial. Also you MUST analyse the images attached to the article, not just the separate image.In Article 2, Mary Pell Contrastingly, Pell’s piece (you NEED a linking word, and you can label pieces by the author’s name/title rather than by positions same-sex marriage as a threat to the sanctity of marriage. "Marriage" is deemed as an "institution", suggesting to the reader that the history and meaning behind such an act could be compromised by same-sex marriage in the name of upholding tradition and history. The move for support of same-sex marriage is positioned as a farce, a way for individuals to "concede to popular sentiment", instilling in the reader that the support has no authenticity and that those who do not [b‘concede’[/b] are morally superior for not "succumbing to unreliable media polls" or "securing their own popularity". Tony Abbott is portrayed as a man deserving of "support and admiration" as readers are positioned to favour the opinions of a man who has shown fortitude and integrity in the notoriously disingenuous "political arena".
here would be the perfect place to contrast with the image –like in this article, he’s portrayed as worthy of support and admiration due to integrity, whereas in that image he’s portrayed as unbalanced, and dark, and with a long face, etc. The audience of the two are meant to get a totally different view of Abbott – one light, the other dark.Both articles make use of the push for same-sex marriage to shape the arguments made in their piece.don’t need this, it’s obvious In Article 1, Tuohy portrays same-sex marriage as common sense, readers are led to believe that their government are "out-of-touch traditionalists" as the harsh "pretty inconceivable" instils guilt in the reader and prompts action to right the wrong. Conversely, Article 2 positions support for same-sex marriage as a knee-jerk reaction for disingenuous purposes. Bell's use of "jumped on the bandwagon" reinforces this notion, implying that readers should not support a movement that is portrayed as reactionary and without consideration.
OK, here’s where you need the most work. This essay barely contrasts the two articles. It’s got to be longer, and it’s got to be more contrasting. Try writing sentences that include both articles/authors; e.g. ‘While Tuohy..., Bell...’. ‘Bell’s XYZ... whereas Tuohy’s XYZ’. ‘Through doing XYZ, Tuohy... yet Bell contrastingly...’. And so on. This forces you to directly contrast specific aspects of the two articles.
Like, for example, one of the articles portrays it as good to go with the flow, keeps on focusing on the importance on the MAJORITY thinking something (bandwagon approach); whereas the other portrays going against the flow as good, focusing on standing up for what’s right and integrity despite opposition. You see how they present the same thing in different lights – one presents majority as good, the other as bad?
(not that I’ve read them both, so I don’t actually know 
)
Try comparing:
• tone – their overall language usage
• their arguments/reasoning/logic/views
• their different styles of arguing – often people arguing opposite sides will have a totally different approach, e.g. one side will focus strongly on emotion, nostalgia, tradition – and their tone will probably reflect this, as they’re aiming to arouse really emotional feelings – while the other side may focus on cold, hard logic and reason; they’ll probably have a more facts-based style and informative tone. Or yet another article could mock people with a ridiculing, sarcastic approach, or appear utterly outraged, frustrated and angry.
• their audience – are they pitching it at different readers? What’s the evidence? Do they write differently because of this?
• what emotions or feelings they aim to evoke (different authors may try to target different types of feelings or thoughts)
• their different effects on the readers (this is a BIG one that springs from all the rest; since the point of language analysis is the impact on the audience, the point of comparative language is the contrast between the impact on the audience from the two articles).With regards to the issue of support same-sex marriage legally, both writers employ the use of linking it to social ideals and political institutions, with loaded language that either portrays same-sex marriage as beneficial or detrimental.
Needs to COMPARE/contrast the two articles, overall. e.g. the overall difference in their tone/type of argumentation/audience.
Good already:
• neat, concise style; you don’t waffle
• understanding of the articles, what they’re saying, and how the authors attempt to impact the audience
• good language usage and expression
•
To improve:
• longer analysis (2 paragraphs/article, + one for the separate image I think) – just analyse more and in greater depth so you cover the entire article (albeit briefly)
• more about the impact on the audience; not that you’re totally missing this, it’s just that you could always take it further and go deeper into how every single thing, how the author’s language especially, makes the audience feel or think
• MORE COMPARISON/contrast!!! In the intro, comparison paragraph, AND conclusion. (note that you could in fact put comparison in every single paragraph, may be a better method)
• reference audience; they clearly had specific enough audiences (catholics/Christians in general due to stuff like 'thank God for TA', vs. wider general public, but especially youth and ensuring it covers Christians through its references to Catholic church, etc.)
You may want to look at
this topic and
this post for some advice on comparatives; if you’ve got any specific questions about how to do it, ask in the Q&A thread (or here).
I'm not too sure about the final paragraph - what exactly do you analyse in the comparative paragraph without feeling like you're repeat yourself?
I've explained a bit above. Actually one of the best ways not to repeat yourself in English is to be very specific, never making wide generalisations (e.g. 'this persuades the audience to agree with the author's contention'). If you analyse how specific things, e.g. tone and types of language used, are different, then you're less likely to sound repetitive. A good vocab also helps.
Also, what are some particular ways to improve my ability to use varied phrases to describe the "positioning" of the reader?
Compile a word/phrase/sentence bank over the year with a variety of sentence structures, words or phrases. Firstly you need different words - 'moving', 'swaying', 'manipulating', 'urging' etc., but move on to different phrases or sentence structures; e.g.
You can begin making this bank by just trying to say the same sentence in as many different ways as possible (trying to switch up the structure and phrases). Then grab the thesaurus to come up with different synonyms. Then, add to it through the year by pinching good structure/phrase ideas from essays you read. (Never just read essays without actively trying to find some good stuff to lift and/or some bad stuff to avoid).
Once you've got this bank, you can sometimes use it like a cheat-sheet as you write, to get you familiar with the different phrases. Then, you can write some essays without it and go through afterwards, inserting different ways you could have said some of the things you said in your essay.
OK, sorry if stuff in this is incoherent, I haven't eaten for ages.
Hope it's helped a bit, all the best and please post any questions you might have!
Home
Help
Search
Login
