Language Analysis Planning Sheet

The following sheet can be used to plan a Language Analysis Essay

Introduction

Context and the Issue

T-Text Details

C-Contention

A-Audience

T-Tone and its effect on the intended reader

Due to an increase (outline what has sparked the issue) the issue of whether or not (outline issue) has been raised in the media lately. In (author)’s article (article title) written in the (publication title) on (publication date) it is contended that (outline contention). (author’s surname) employs a (describe tone) tone to encourage (intended reader) to (outline effect of the tone on the reader)

Body Paragraph 1

Sentence 1: Outline the first argument employed by the author to support their contention

Sentence 2-4: Analyse a how the author opens their piece.

1. What device do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 5-7: Analyse a persuasive technique the author employs

1. What technique do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 8-10: Analyse persuasive language the author employs

1. What type of language do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Body Paragraph 2

Sentence 1: Outline the second argument employed by the author to support their contention

Sentence 2-4: Analyse how the tone changes within the piece

1. How does the tone shift?
2. Quote an example
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 5-7: Analyse a persuasive technique the author employs

1. What technique do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 8-10: Analyse a persuasive technique the author employs

1. What technique do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Body Paragraph 3

Sentence 1: Outline the third argument employed by the author to support their contention

Sentence 2-4: Analyse a persuasive technique the author employs

1. What technique do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 5-7: Analyse a persuasive technique the author employs

1. What technique do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Sentence 8-10: Analyse a how the author closes their piece.

1. What device do they use?
2. Quote how it is used
3. What is the effect on the reader?

Conclusion

1. Restate the author’s contention
2. Outline the author’s intention
3. Suggest how the reader could be left feeling.

Sample Body Paragraph #1: Hijacked for Sport

Munners argues that profiting from ANZAC day cheapens its legacy. By sarcastically referring to match day calling of players as 'modern day warriors' Munners emphasizes the ridiculousness of associating footballers with real life soldiers. By comparing the on field exploits of footballers, to the real 'bloody battlefield' sacrifices of Anzac soldiers Munners illustrates how the comparison cheapens the image of the Anzac soldier. This positions readers to see how the Anzac legend is damaged by profiteering corporations. Munners also uses emotive language when suggesting that 'a little part of me dies.' By using these emotive terms Munners is attempting to play on the readers morality, faith in Australia and emotional connection to the Anzacs. Munners encourages Australian's to feel guilty for the Anzac's legacy being damaged, encouraging readers to take action to prevent further destruction of the Anzac spirit.

Article 5: Hijacked by sport

Hijacked by sport

Since when did Anzac Day become an Anzac weekend starting on April 23? Answer: when one of Australia's biggest businesses decided to hijack it for its own profitable gain. Shame AFL, shame.

When broadcasters refer to the players as ‘modern day warriors,’ comparing them to soldiers sacrificing them themselves on bloody battlefields a little part of me dies.

Anzac Day should be ceremonially, honourably and respectfully celebrated on one day. A day of remembrances, of honour and of tributes to the young lives that made our country great.

The memory and deaths of these young loves should stand alone. They should not be profited from. Should not be monopolised. Should not be exploited.

Extending it for your own capitalist reasons, in the name of sport, is unethical, un-Australian, and an utter disgrace.

Teddy Munners, Blackburn North

Article #4: Gorging The Innocent

Gorging the Innocent, Herald Sun, 16/4/14

To the editor,

I was a McDonalds Manager for 8 years. Once a little girl, and by little I mean youthful, got stuck in the Mc Happy land slide. I spent 30 mins trying to pull her backwards up the slide while her parents sat eating fries down below. How have we let our youth get to this stage? How have the waist lines of our future grown so large? As a society we need to be protecting the health and future of our children by sending them healthy eating messages that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.

 The health and wellbeing of our children are being put at risk by society’s addiction to junk food, when they see us gorging ourselves to death they say, ‘me too.’ Parents need to be vigilant; cheeseburgers, coke and chips do not constitute balance, we need to instil healthy and sustainable eating habits in our children.  If we don’t we are condemning our future to a lifetime of obesity: no six year old should get stuck in a Macca’s slide.

Sam Coleridge, Devonshire

Article #3: School Life Just Became More Fruitful

Article #2: Why I won't be travelling to Indonesia

Why I won't be travelling to Indonesia

OPINION: This morning Australia woke to the news Indonesia had killed two men. An artist and a minister. A brother and a son. Friends, lovers, a husband, drug smugglers. 
Today, the country is in shock and many people don’t know what to feel. Some are angry, some are sad. Some are calling for a boycott and some believe they got what they deserve.
All I know is that I won’t be going to Indonesia.
As many people held vigils and made videos in the days leading up to their execution, I felt frustration at the outpouring of emotion that ultimately didn’t prevent their deaths.
I wanted to do something, anything, that would hit Indonesia where it hurts and make President Widodo realise the death penalty is not OK

Today as the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced they wouldrecall Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia, social media is filled with calls to boycott the country and cut the $650 million aid budget — something Ms Bishop said would be left to May to decide.
For me, it’s not about cutting aid. I don’t want people in need to suffer or those who rely on tourism to be forced to close their doors. But I do want people in Australia and Indonesia to realise their actions can force governments to change.
Overnight, Filipina woman Mary Jane Veloso, 30, was spared the death penalty. The single mother of two had been convicted of drug smuggling but maintained her innocence — claiming she was exploited by traffickers en route to a job as a maid in a case that captured the hearts of the Indonesian public.
While her 11th hour reprieve was due to someone coming forward in her case, — which her lawyers argue is a case of human trafficking rather than drug trafficking — who knows how much of an impact the publicity had in encouraging them to speak out?

There’s no doubt governments respond to public pressure. We’ve seen it in Peter Dutton’s indication he would review the Tyrone Sevilla case after a petition with thousands of signatures asking for him to be granted a visa to stay in Australia. We’ve seen it in the US where legislatorswere forced to change a law after a backlash from major companies and celebrities over fears it could mean businesses would deny service to homosexuals on religious grounds.
In this case, President Widodo has remained deaf to calls from leaders from Australia and other nations. Pleas from family members and an unprecedented call from Ban Ki Moon, the secretary-general of the UN, couldn’t move him. Perhaps next time, he might listen.
Some say Sukumaran and Chan broke the law, knew the penalty and deserve their fate. That drugs hurt families and there’s no doubt they do. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
Killing on top of killing doesn’t mean salvation. It ignores their obvious rehabilitation, the complex elements that make up a person and means they’re forever defined by something they once did.
It’s not something that should happen to anyone. It’s not worth being put to death. And it’s certainly not worth a cheap ticket to Bali.
Rest in peace.

Article #1: Policy Shames Us All