Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 05:47:29 pm

Author Topic: VCAA 2010 Language Analysis  (Read 1782 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callum@1373

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • National Youth Science Forum Session C 2016!
  • Respect: +26
VCAA 2010 Language Analysis
« on: June 02, 2015, 08:12:08 pm »
0
Any feedback would be tremendous  ;D

As the 2010 International Biodiversity Conference has arrived, the commitment to reducing biodiversity loss has brought about intensive measures of its success. Chris Lee addresses this issue in his presentation, contending with an alarmist tone that a stagnant effort has been made to reducing the loss of biodiversity on a global scale. Lee’s audience would be made up of those stakeholders partly responsible of the commitment to reduce biodiversity loss.

The immediate play on words in the opening slide ‘TAKING STOCK’ both suggests the quantitative measures of the rate of biodiversity loss, but Lee’s underlying contention is revealed to the audience in that ‘stock’ (biodiversity) is being taken (killed). Addressing his audience as ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’, Lee conveys his serious tone and his professional take on the matter, in order to focus his audience to focus on what he has to say. While the environment of the presentation would likely be lively, Lee utilises rhetorical questions ‘Has this, in fact, been a year of action’ to suggest the more confronting sides of his argument. This in turn aims to reveal disappointment to the audience, as he mentions that ‘Sadly’ ‘we have’ not been as productive as Lee would have preferred. The inclusive language ‘we’ indeed adds on to this effect, as his audience members are made to feel responsible for this lack of action. By listing the specific species lost including ‘mangroves’ and ‘forests’ instead of ‘biodiversity’ in general, Lee highlights the specific destructive consequences of a lack of global action in order to compel his audience to feel liable and wretched for the loss of said species. Lee shifts his tone to a more aggressive one as he further compels his audience to see the lack of action they have taken. Using the words ‘Red List’, a colour commonly associated with danger and alert, with ‘threatened’, Lee highlights just how dangerous the lack of conservation of biodiversity is, in order to provoke feelings of shame in his audience.

After attacking the audience and placing them in a negative mindset, Lee moves on to discussing the need for less stagnant action. The notion that ‘reversing this negative trend’ is ‘possible’, Lee hopes to ensure his audience still see that whatever level of inability they have had, there is still possibility of achieving  a more sustained environment. With a satirical tone labelling current efforts as only ‘Wonderful words’ and ‘glossy brochures’, Lee highlights just how lazy and unprofessional the audience has been, as words like ‘wonderful’ and ‘glossy’ are typical to that of a sub-standard, superficial effort. Lee appeals to his audiences’ sense of a weak effort as he shows how it is easy to ‘mouth platitudes’ in an ‘air-conditioned’ conference hall. Labelling these perks, he shows his audience how easy they have it, and what they have accomplished in there relaxed mindset is not significant. This in turn aims to make readers feel guilty, and the need to step up and take action. That the audience and Lee are the most ‘educated generation’ starkly contrasts to that of ‘thoughtless actions’ insinuating that humans have the capacity to take action to preserve biodiversity but the inability to act upon it.

Lee successfully states the need for biodiversity to remind the audience of the need to take action and to promote a re-birth of the campaign. Stating the audience as responsible for the ‘degradation’ and ‘rampant illnesses’, Lee chooses these words with strong negative connotations to appeal to the audiences emotions. That some groups of ‘Poor rural communities’ are ‘directly’ dependant on biodiversity aims to appeal to the audiences’ sense of equality, as it is evident that even if the audience doesn’t receive a direct effect from a lack of biodiversity, others are, and that the audience should ensure an equal society by taking action. As the audience are the ‘economic giants’, Lee suggests that the audience have no excuse for taking ‘real’ action because they have the financial resources to implement plans to save biodiversity. Hence, utilising the cliché of humans as ‘hunters and gatherers’, Lee compares the standard view of an indulged human to one who ‘preserve’ and ‘conserve’ more in order to show the audience who they are and what they should do to see change.

Maintaining the alarmist tone, Lee’s final call to action ‘now’ ‘is the time, Lee aims to inspire his audience to be energised to take action to preserver biodiversity. By compelling his audience to spread his argument to ‘corporate leaders’ and the ‘everyday householder’, Lee demonstrates the ‘global’, holistic approach that is required while ensuring he has a large enough group of people willing to take action. The final image of a model earth cupped in two hands accentuates this said affect, as the hands remain of someone unknown so it is clear that all of ‘those in power’ are responsible. The quote accompanying the image makes note of how biodiversity is a ‘treasure’, a symbol of something with no expiry and extremely important accentuates the need of biodiversity on earth.

Lee’s speech makes use of an alarmist tone with a down to earth attitude in order to spark proper, guided action in his conference audience. He uses two slides that accompany what he is saying to help the audience visualise the need for biodiversity, as it is a concept he makes clear is a necessity for society. In doing so, Lee convinces his audience to take action to make a better attempt to preserving biodiversity on earth.
2015: Business Management [48]
2016: English [43] Specialist Mathematics [43] Methods [46] Chemistry [45] Biology [45]

ATAR: 99.65
NYSF Session C 2016

Recipient of ANU National Scholars Program

http://www.callum-lowe.weebly.com

heids

  • Supreme Stalker
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • *******
  • Posts: 2429
  • Respect: +1632
Re: VCAA 2010 Language Analysis
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2015, 10:38:32 pm »
+7
Any feedback would be tremendous  ;D Well, hoping this helps then!

As the 2010 International Biodiversity Conference has arrived, the commitment to reducing biodiversity loss has brought about intensive measures of its success. Chris Lee addresses this issue in his presentation, contending Chris Lee's presentation contends with an alarmist tone that a stagnant effort has been made to reducing the loss of biodiversity on a global scale. and, he's trying to stimulate them to action Lee’s audience would be made up of those stakeholders partly responsible of the commitment to reduce biodiversity loss. I'd rejig this a bit to make it more concise and less checklist-y – 'Targeting experts involved in biodiversity preservation…'
Then, I'd add to your intro something about the major ways Lee tries to argue, or his major approaches/persuasive methods.  It's normally easy to just state the overall, obvious contention, e.g. 'we need to reduce biodiversity loss', or 'we need high speed trains'; anyone could state that plain obvious fact. 
So, you've got to go deeper by being more specific about the ways the author argues.

e.g. if an author was arguing for high-speed trains.  They could do this in a number of different ways:
- highly emotional stories about someone who couldn't get to say their daughter's funeral because the trains were too slow
- listing terrible issues of the current system, building up fear/concern/annoyance
- ridiculing some major figure who is against high speed trains, attacking/undermining the person's credibility and thus by implication their views; trying to build anger by suggesting this person is doing stuff for their own benefits
- listing the brilliant benefits of high-speed trains
- rebutting arguments against it

You see that for each article made up of 1-3 of these approaches, you could say exactly the same overall contention.  But, their overall major approaches and the ways they try to get across that contention is totally different.  A low-level essay will just deal with the overall contention, 'we need high-speed trains', but a higher-level essay will notice the 2-3 major ways that the author gets their point across.  (Normally, there's not just one approach – it's normally a mixture of a couple of different major approaches.  Actually I've only just realised how much my method is like Lauren's key player approach, which I'd never heard of until very recently anyway.)

OK! That was looonnnngggg!  I really learnt a lot out of explaining that – I honestly feel like just then I had an epiphany about the whole point of LA!  Let me know if it totally doesn't make sense, I'm feeling excited (:P) and haven't ever explained this concept before.


The immediate play on words in the opening slide ‘TAKING STOCK’ both suggests the quantitative measures of the rate of biodiversity loss, but Lee’s underlying contention is revealed to the audience in that ‘stock’ (biodiversity) is being taken (killed). Nice (I'd never noticed that), but remember to link it to what that actually does! How does it impact the audience and make them feel/think? Addressing his audience as ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’, Lee conveys his serious tone and his professional take on the matter, in order to *focus* his audience to *focus* on what he has to say. While the environment of the presentation would likely be lively I like that thought just because it shows that you're really thinking about the audience and atmosphere! (deep and insightful), but it's not clear what you mean and you should avoid making doubtful judgments about the audience or context, Lee utilises rhetorical questions ‘Has this, in fact, been a year of action’ to suggest the more confronting sides of his argument. This in turn aims to reveal disappointment to the audience, as he mentions that ‘Sadly’ ‘we have’ not been as productive as Lee would have preferred. Nice! Draw it further of how this word 'sadly' and related disappointed words will make the audience feel.  The inclusive language ‘we’ indeed adds on to this effect, as his audience members are made to feel responsible for this lack of action. By listing the specific species lost including ‘mangroves’ and ‘forests’ instead of ‘biodiversity’ in general, Lee highlights the specific destructive consequences of a lack of global action in order to compel his audience to feel liable and wretched for the loss of said species. Lee shifts his tone to a more aggressive one nothing wrong here, but it could sound a bit smoother and less 'checklisty' if you say 'Lee's tone/voice becomes more aggressive' as he further compels his audience to see the lack of action they have taken e.g.?.  Using the words ‘Red List’, a colour commonly associated with danger and alert, with ‘threatened’, Lee highlights just how dangerous the lack of conservation of biodiversity is, in order to provoke feelings of shame in his audience. Bro some of this this is awesome stuff!!!  I'm getting excited here :)  Keep up this emphasis on analysing specific words and how they impact the audience, and you'll be awesome when you get to year 12!

After attacking the audience and placing them in a negative mindset rather, making them feel guilty and like they've failed, Lee moves on to discussing the need for less stagnant greater action. The notion that ‘reversing this negative trend’ is ‘possible’, Lee hopes to ensure his audience still see that whatever level of inability they have had, there is still possibility of achieving  a more sustained environment. Again, draw it further – reassures them that there are solutions, and the contrast between negatives and positives inspires them to work.  Or something.  With a satirical tone Satirically labelling current efforts as only ‘Wonderful words’ and ‘glossy brochures’, Lee highlights just how lazy and unprofessional the audience has been, as words like ‘wonderful’ and ‘glossy’ are typical to that of a sub-standard, superficial effort. Yes!!! Lee appeals to his audiences’ sense of a weak effort as he shows how it is easy to ‘mouth platitudes’ in an ‘air-conditioned’ conference hall. Labelling these perks ?, he shows his audience how easy they have it, and what they have accomplished in there their relaxed mindset is not significant. This in turn aims to make readers feel guilty, and the need to step up and take action. That the audience and Lee are the most ‘educated generation’ starkly contrasts to that of ‘thoughtless actions’ insinuating that humans have the capacity to take action to preserve biodiversity but the inability to act upon it he's emphasising the fact that they DO have the ability, they just haven't done so so far – this arouses guilt and a sense of not living up to their abilities/role; like through the words 'educated generation' and 'leaders', he's kinda buttering them up by saying that they are the leading guys in charge, which then makes them willing to take on the sense of responsibility those words entail.

Lee successfully never judge if it's successful or not states the need for biodiversity to remind the audience of the need to take action and to promote a re-birth of the campaign. Stating the audience as responsible for the ‘degradation’ and ‘rampant illnesses’, Lee chooses these words with strong negative connotations to appeal to the audiences emotions. to take it to a higher level, explain exactly what those connotations and emotions are – try to avoid saying anything vague and generic as they don't add anything to your analysis That some groups of ‘Poor rural communities’ are ‘directly’ dependant on biodiversity aims to appeal to the audiences’ sense of equality, as it is evident that even if the audience doesn’t receive a direct effect from a lack of biodiversity, others are, and that the audience should ensure an equal society by taking action this didn't add much, cut out anything that just adds a lot of words without saying much. As the audience are the ‘economic giants’, Lee suggests that the audience have no excuse for taking ‘real’ action because they have the financial resources to implement plans to save biodiversity. Hence, utilising the cliché of humans as ‘hunters and gatherers’, Lee compares the standard view of an indulged human to one who ‘preserve’ and ‘conserve’ more in order to show the audience who they are and what they should do to see change.

Maintaining the alarmist tone, Lee’s final call to action ‘now’ ‘is the time, Lee aims to inspire his audience to be energised to take action to preserver biodiversity. clear up that sentence By compelling his audience to spread his argument to ‘corporate leaders’ and the ‘everyday householder’, Lee demonstrates the ‘global’, holistic approach that is required while ensuring he has a large enough group of people willing to take action. The final image of a model earth cupped in two hands accentuates this said affect sounds formulaic/clunky, as the hands remain of someone unknown so it is clear that all of ‘those in power’ are responsible. The quote accompanying the image makes note of how biodiversity is a ‘treasure’, a symbol of something with no expiry and extremely important accentuates the need of biodiversity on earth. Longer and deeper analysis on the image (plus the logo at the top) needed – could discuss light/darkness, the idea that it's totally in our control since it's a human holding it, and the fact that it's being gently cupped makes it look precious.  But especially you could draw more about how it makes the audience feel.

Lee’s speech makes use of an alarmist tone with a down to earth attitude avoid colloquial language in order to spark proper, guided action in his conference audience. He uses two slides that accompany what he is saying to His accompanying slides help the audience visualise the need for biodiversity, as it is a concept he makes clear is a necessity for society. In doing so, Lee convinces his audience to take action to make a better attempt to preserving biodiversity on earth.

To improve:

- too much use of the word 'tone' – alternate 'approach', 'voice' etc. and say things like 'he satirically states' rather than 'using a satirical tone he states'

- maybe rethink how you structure an analysis – you're doing it chronologically, but you could think about Lauren's 'key players' approach, or grouping it based on overall approach/tone/method of arguing/argument (how I did it, quite flexible and actually often ends up quite like the key players approach I think)

- just draw stuff that step further – you're doing excellently for year 11 in referencing how it makes the audience feel/think/agree with the author, but there's always room for improvement in more focus on impact on audience, and taking it to a slightly higher level by being even more specific!

- take out any sentences that don't give insight in how specifically the language used impacts the audience

- conclusion - could be made more impacting/less formulaic

Goods:

- you totally get the task: to analyse how the author's use of language persuades the audience and changes how they feel

- using quotes well, they're well embedded, not too long, but not too rare!

- nice vocab and way of expressing things
Plus much more.

For a year 11, to me this is an excellent essay and I think you are totally totally on the right track.  Good job. :))
VCE (2014): HHD, Bio, English, T&T, Methods

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

Work: PCA in residential aged care

Callum@1373

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • National Youth Science Forum Session C 2016!
  • Respect: +26
Re: VCAA 2010 Language Analysis
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2015, 06:14:11 pm »
0
That was really helpful, bangali_lok! Really insightful feedback, I will definitely use it forthcoming!  :D :D :D

Thankyou!!!
2015: Business Management [48]
2016: English [43] Specialist Mathematics [43] Methods [46] Chemistry [45] Biology [45]

ATAR: 99.65
NYSF Session C 2016

Recipient of ANU National Scholars Program

http://www.callum-lowe.weebly.com