Lesson 3: Aim for depth
Unpacking/analysing key words and phrases: See pp. 15-17.
In order to gain marks for “depth” of analysis, you will need to be as precise as possible with regards to the author’s implications and innuendoes. What is the subtext? Read between the lines.
(See the diagram on p. 16. Also think about the words that have connotations or emotive implications; See pp. 17-18.)
Exercise 11:”No” to sales to India and Honey Sweet. pp. 30-31
PLAN: Dr Caldwell’s “No” to Sales to India”, p. 62: Step by step progression:
What are author’s key critical tactics?
What is the motivation for the author’s views? How and why does the author depict the Indian Government? Explain the connection to this author’s views. (The author refers to the recent … to reinforce the dangers of … ).
Dr Caldwell refers to historical evidence to place the war in a context; the author uses these examples to appeal to fear; scare-mongering tactics. (See “sentence patterns”, fear, p. 62) The author stimulates fear in order to predispose or encourage us to see the necessity of the uranium ban.
Can you analyse specific phrases: what do they reveal about the author’s attitude? What type of language is it? What is their purpose?
- “Let’s not kid ourselves” – colloquial references that suggest the government is misleading the public with regards to its motives…
- “stoking the nuclear fires” — emotive and metaphorical use of language to highlight the extreme volatility (unpredictability) of the region. Readers would infer that the government is irresponsible, and possibly more interested in commercial interests. i.e. it is jeopardising Australia’s international status.
Write your paragraph: here is a start
Associated with the depiction of the Indian government as bellicose (warmongering) readers are encouraged to recognise aggressive motives. Drawing upon her expertise and her position in the Committee for Disarmament, Dr Caldwell seeks to impress upon readers that there is a real threat that the uranium could be used for military purposes. As a result, she would appear to expect that concerned members of the public would respond by pressuring the Federal Government to abstain from selling uranium to India. The reference to “stoking the fires” is bound to alarm many who fear an increase in danger.
Exercise 13: Queuing for restaurants, p. 35
Introduction: explain Mr Aitken’s motivation for writing: Mr Aitken is motivated to voice his opinion because of the erosion of profitability of many restaurant owners. ..
Paragraph 1:
Comment on the authorial voice and Mr Aitken’s degree of bias. Although he is a consultant, how does he try to appear fair? Remember to think about the questions on p. 9. Also note: explain how he tries to win the public’s support despite his obvious bias.). Explain the implications of key words and phrases:
- “partisan on behalf of the restaurant industry”: readers are likely to react with scepticism; however, the fact that he has first-hand professional knowledge of the industry suggests a reasonable defence
- “I don’t like queuing to go to a restaurant”: his sensitivities towards patrons’ frustration predisposes readers to respond more favourably than they would if he were to conceal his motives. By removing this barrier readers are more likely to overlook his tendency to justify the restaurateurs’ policies.
Paragraph 2:
In the second paragraph include more specific details relating to the author’s reasoning strategies.
- Discuss the implications of his depiction of owners; ie. The author seeks to command respect and sympathy by showing that they are disadvantaged. Quote key phrases.
- What is the purpose of the statistics and the comparative and relatable example of the cup of coffee?
Compare and contrast paragraph : Mr Aitken and Ms Tritorn (See p. 21.)
(Start with some linking comments or cross-references with regards to the viewpoints.) In contrast to Mr Aitken who uses his professional status as a consultant, Ms Tritorn (“Let’s focus on service”) relies on her personal experience to explain her frustration at the no-bookings policy which she believes leads to indifferent treatment of patrons. Also, if Mr Aitken presents a sympathetic depiction of owners, Ms Tritorn counters this with the shameful treatment of her friend who was “relegated to the footpaths”. (Note: zoom in on specific references and the implications of her word choices.) Specifically, Ms Tritorn uses her experience to sharpen her attack on the owners who she believes are treating patrons shamelessly and who disregard the hospitality ethos. She expects patrons to share her outrage and blacklist offending restaurant owners who fail to show the respect patrons deserve.
Refer to Exercise 14: Respect in the community (p. 36)