For maximum benefit, please purchase Become an Expert to access our free Online Exercise Study Program
Give three examples of the editor’s formal style. Explain their purpose and tone.
i. The editor uses jargon to show their expertise relating to the legal issues surrounding swearing. They cite the Summary Offences Act (Section 17) which “incurs 10 penalty units or imprisonment…”. Such language gives the editor an air of authority and shows that they are well informed in a bid to build trust among their readership. The use of jargon therefore legitimises the editor’s views.
ii. The editor uses correct grammar and punctuation and uses sophisticated and proper expression.
iii. The editor also uses a variety of sentence structures including many compound and complex sentences.
iv. The editor refers to their newspaper The Daily to give the impression that their views are important and representative of an authoritative institution or group that defends public standards and the common good.
v. The editor adopts an assertive, sensible and moralistic tone to appear knowledgeable and once again commend the government’s initiative to decent people.
2. What is the purpose of the comparison with other countries? What conclusions do they draw?
The editor suggests that the problem is widespread and that there are effective models and solutions in other countries. Cities such as London and Boston have introduced regulations that restrict the intrusive nature of mobile phones. The editor draws upon the comparison as well as the politician’s quote to show that there is a good case to introduce the restrictions in Australian cities and that it would have widespread support. The comparison with other states encourages commuters to be receptive to initiatives that protect their peace. This also impresses upon governments the need to take action.
(Explain the purpose of the editor’s principled stance)
The editor appeals to people’s moral standards and believes that it is important for people to show a sense of propriety. Accordingly they should behave decently and respectfully in public spaces.
The editor shames and excludes people who are indecent. They use evocative and dramatic language such as “potty mouthed” and depicts perpetrators as “coarse” and “vulgar” to show that they do not show respect for others and undermine civic duties.
Paragraph Plan:
View: Adopting the high moral ground, the editor draws attention to /censures the increasing prevalence of uncouth and impolite standards of behaviour.
(censures impropriety in public places)
Problem : The editor suggests that there is a need for fines for swearing and a need for quiet carriages on trains precisely because citizens are often offensive in public places.
Solution: He suggests that we need to implement more rules/regulation to counteract the increasingly uncouth behaviour witnessed in public places
(deep dive into text with statements about purpose.)
Reasoning strategies: The editor sets up comparisons throughout his argument to show the need for solutions so that citizens can enjoy peace, privacy and a morally safe environment. He compares the self-policing peak hour policy in Boston with the proposed quiet carriage system to suggest that the latter is preferable and provides the ideal for solution for those who wish to enjoy their own quiet space, free from intrusions. As such he directs our sympathy towards those who would bear the brunt of the worst consequences of such behaviour. Accordingly, the editor seeks to isolate and marginalise such opprobrious behaviour.
Other techniques: Uses legal jargon and facts to increase his authoritative stature to marginalise/isolate those individuals who display uncouth behaviour and to campaign for greater propriety in public places. (Opprobrium – the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered shameful; opprobrious – conveying or expressing opprobrium)
- Lesson 1: views, tone and style (Ex. 1 – 13)
- Return to Green Online Exercise Program