Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

April 26, 2024, 01:15:58 pm

Author Topic: A Crash Course in Language Analysis  (Read 30276 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lynt.br

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
  • Respect: +50
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2010, 09:39:11 pm »
0
I agree with everything you have said - well done on the quality of the notes! But I do beg to differ.. I don't believe in persuasive techniques.. :)

May I ask what your English SS was? 

I tend to use 'persuasive technique' as an umbrella term encompassing everything from specific words and phrases to you 'textbook' examples like rhetorical questions and emotional appeals. What I'm trying to say when you should identify these techniques is to look for the key words and phrases that reveal the writer's contention or line of argument. Terms like 'rhetorical question', 'appeal to hip pocket nerve' etc. are really just terminology. Listing these doesn't get you any more marks than if you were to identify all the nouns and adjectives.

I think it is legitimate to criticise the phrase 'persuasive technique'. Its a term I don't really like as well but I use it because it has a common understood meaning amongst students. I don't think that you should specifically go out of your way to avoid using any of those terms - if you are analysing the way the writer uses rhetorical questions then there is nothing wrong with saying it is a rhetorical question, so long as you realise it is your analysis of the writer's language and not identifying the 'technique' that is getting you the marks.

shinny

  • VN MVP 2010
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Respect: +256
  • School: Melbourne High School
  • School Grad Year: 2008
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2010, 09:50:58 pm »
0
I agree with everything you have said - well done on the quality of the notes! But I do beg to differ.. I don't believe in persuasive techniques.. :)

May I ask what your English SS was?  

I tend to use 'persuasive technique' as an umbrella term encompassing everything from specific words and phrases to you 'textbook' examples like rhetorical questions and emotional appeals. What I'm trying to say when you should identify these techniques is to look for the key words and phrases that reveal the writer's contention or line of argument. Terms like 'rhetorical question', 'appeal to hip pocket nerve' etc. are really just terminology. Listing these doesn't get you any more marks than if you were to identify all the nouns and adjectives.

I think it is legitimate to criticise the phrase 'persuasive technique'. Its a term I don't really like as well but I use it because it has a common understood meaning amongst students. I don't think that you should specifically go out of your way to avoid using any of those terms - if you are analysing the way the writer uses rhetorical questions then there is nothing wrong with saying it is a rhetorical question, so long as you realise it is your analysis of the writer's language and not identifying the 'technique' that is getting you the marks.

I also don't believe that the term 'persuasive technique' is particularly helpful. I've often taught persuasive techniques separate to the analysis of words with connotations just to emphasise the importance of the latter. Given that its going to be prevalent in a fairly pervasive manner throughout any article, it's something that is bound to be there and something that you should be analysing every time really. Having gone through some of my own examples of analysis to others, I find many students struggle to think for themselves about how particular arguments work with regards to how they are written. There's often just simply no thought processes involved from what I see. People are too caught up with thinking only about the typical persuasive techniques that they have learnt in class, and then attempt to match what they see in the article to a pre-defined technique. This then leads to an inability to just simply describe in their own words how a persuasive phrase works, and what they believe its effect will be specifically within the context of the article.

EDIT: Typo.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 09:54:49 pm by shinny »
MBBS (hons) - Monash University

YR11 '07: Biology 49
YR12 '08: Chemistry 47; Spesh 41; Methods 49; Business Management 50; English 43

ENTER: 99.70


flash36

  • Guest
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2010, 07:52:57 am »
0
This is awesome, thanks.

aftech

  • Victorian
  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: 0
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2010, 06:04:38 pm »
0
Thanks a lot for it!! Really helped and I think have made quite the difference in my pieces.. I'm usually guilty of leaving out part c. Thankyou.

mygloriousdays

  • Victorian
  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2010, 04:53:28 pm »
0
That was helpful for my last minute cramming! :)

pi

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 14348
  • Doctor.
  • Respect: +2376
Re: A Crash Course in Language Analysis
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2012, 07:43:44 pm »
+1
For those wanting the attachment to the first post of this wonderful guide too, look no further :D