Hey, guys. You can see that I am holding a stylus, which means we're doing something different today.
Today's the first time that I'm going to be analyzing an article. Because I know that a
lot of you are actually studying analyzing argument or basically language analysis,
where you get an article, usually it's called material, and you have to analyze what persuasive
techniques the author is using. Now, this is actually my favorite part of the English
course. So I don't know why it took me so long to do this, but I'm actually really excited to
start this sort of segment. If you do enjoy what you've watched at the end of this video then give
me that like. Because I'll really appreciate it because I'll know if you guys actually do like
it or not, and I'll make more of these if so. Basically, the way I'm doing this is very much
like how I teach my students inside my tutoring sessions with them. I'm going to be going through
the article with you and highlighting language techniques we see and then interpreting them. So,
trying to understand why it's persuasive or trying to understand why authors try to use
these persuasive techniques to persuade people to agree with their argument. Now, obviously,
it's not going to be exactly like a tutoring session because I didn't want this video to
be too long. So, I'm going to go through it a little bit of haste, but hopefully still with
enough detail for you to be able to take away and be able to do more of it on your own.
I'm going to be looking down because I have a stylus on me,
which I borrowed from my lovely nephew, Alex. Thank you, Alex. And actually uses this computer
for school. Lols. I have attached the PDF to this article in the description box below.
Now, this is a very old article from VCAA, back in the year 2000. Now, the reason why I chose such an
old article was because: one, it's still really relevant despite its age. The things that we're
doing today, in today's study design, is still very much so similar to what they did back in the
day. The second thing was, I didn't want to do an article that I felt a lot of you had already done.
I wanted to be able to offer you something new and bring something new to the table, basically.
So before we get started, what I want you to do is download this article in the description
box below. Make sure you have a read of the article, and then try to analyze it on your
own before we actually get started. This way you can compare the things that you've found
versus the things that I found, and I think you might be very surprised to see that we'll
probably have different interpretations. The focus of today's video is really just to
identify language techniques and to try to understand why they've been used. There are
other elements of the criteria that need to be covered and they will be in due time. But
that's just something that I wanted to focus on first because I want to make sure that you
guys have got the fundamentals down pat. As always, reading background information is
critical for your understanding of the issue. As you can see here, we've got a report of Ms.
Smith, principal of Anyton Secondary College, to the annual general meeting of the school
council. So it's clear from her report that she is very concerned this year at the rising
level of absenteeism among the middle school students. Also, it says, "How can students
learn if they're not in class?" In the end, she writes: "So I urge the school council to devise
a policy that will enable us to put an end to this epidemic of truancy. We need to take a firm line
to ensure all our students are in school." Okay. So now that we've read the background
information and we understand the context of the situation, let's now move into the first article.
So the first article has been written by a parent, Tom Frost. So automatically, we can see that he is
a parent, which goes to show that there are some credentials there. So credentials, basically,
is what's the title of the person who's writing the article. The fact that he is a parent goes to
show that he is someone who is actually invested in the education of students, so we as readers
may be more inclined to believe him or trust him because he obviously has a child at that school,
and so he wants the best for that child. So, let's hear what he has to say. "I'd like to speak
against the proposal of the principal, Ms. Smith, to come down on truancy like a ton of bricks."
Okay. So, automatically, we can see that he has labeled truancy and Ms. Smith's proposal like a
ton of bricks. Now, if we think about a ton of bricks, to me, a ton of bricks is an idiom. An
idiom is like a saying. So it's related to the idea that something is a burden,
and so he's making truancy seem like a burden, so something that's not a good thing. So,
from the get-go, he makes Ms. Smith's proposal of a policy on truancy something that has negative
connotations. Next, he says, "Let's not get too carried away with this truancy issue." The fact
that he uses let's is inclusive language. This should be quite easy for you guys to
pick up. Whoops. If only I knew how to spell language. Okay, fine. I'll spell it properly.
So, why do we actually use inclusive language? Inclusive language usually involves words like
let's, we, our. And these create the sense that there is a collective responsibility that we
hold. So, potentially as readers, we could even be parents ourselves who feel like we need to get
involved in the issue in order to actually have an impact on what's happening here. The fact that
he doesn't just say, "Ah, I'm not going to get carried away with this truancy issue," and he
says, "Let's not get carried away," automatically includes you on his team and so may make you more
inclined to support his idea. To add onto the sense that there is quite a bit of credibility,
he says, "I've got three kids here." So, I believe that that compounds his credentials;
his authority in this matter. So, as a parent, he should know what's good and what's not so
good for his children, unlike the principal who is just an authoritative figure.
He then goes on to say, "I'm not sure they need to be chained to their desks all day." This is
a great one. This is a metaphor. This metaphor of the children being chained to their desks all day,
it doesn't sound great, does it? To be chained to something implies that you've been imprisoned or
that maybe it's even likened to slavery. So if we're thinking of kids as being imprisoned and
enslaved, obviously, this is something that we definitely don't want, and so he really pushes
us from supporting Ms. Smith's policy and feeling sympathetic to these students.
Seven days a week itself also compounds on this metaphor. I would say that by saying it's seven
days a week, he really leaves no room for there to be argument. To me, this is exaggeration.
Why? Because students are only at school five times a week, so to say seven days is already
an exaggeration. But he does this in order to really stress this idea that this policy
is definitely a no-go. None of us would want our children... We're not parents, but let's just say,
if we're in the position of a parent reading this article, none of us would want our children to be
chained to desks seven days a week, would we? He goes on to say, "Is it so bad to wag school?"
Here we have a rhetorical question. Sorry. I switched from a thicker pen with exaggeration
back to the normal one because I think it's a little bit too thick. Rhetorical questions are
generally put there in order to get you thinking. And rhetorical questions tend to have an obvious
answer that you should be agreeing to. So, when he says, "Is it so bad to wag school?" it's not the
same as openly asking, "What do you think about wagging school?" where you're then open to the
opportunity to support it or not to support it. Whereas, the way that he phrases it, "Is it so bad
to wag school?" is already urging you to say, "Ah, of course not." So, at the same time, he belittles
this issue. He dismisses the issue of wagging school and turns it into something that is just to
be thrown away; something that shouldn't really be a concern of parents. So, at the same time there,
I'm going to say that there's belittling there. He then goes on to say, "After all,
most of us have wagged school without coming to grief or causing trouble,
haven't we?" That's generalization, right there. Whoops. Why can't I write on this
side? Generalization is done when we want to make it sound like something is super common. By saying
"Most of us," he collectively involves everyone to make it seem as though everyone has wagged
school before, so really, what's the issue? Next, he says, "In our house." Okay. This,
I believe, really draws upon family values. By now including his home, he is saying that
this is an issue that just goes beyond just kids wagging school or kids not being at school. It's
a family value. "The fact that they don't go to school is something that they call mental health
days." He puts a positive spin on the negatively connotated truancy, and because a lot of people
are advocates for mindfulness, meditation, and looking after ourselves, this is something that
may encourage readers to agree with the author. Okay, continuing on. "Seems to me there are good
reasons why kids play truant." Play is a really interesting word choice. By using the word play,
it definitely dumbs down the issue and makes it seem something super lighthearted. Because
when kids play, of course, it's just fun. It's joyful. And so, he's making this issue of truancy,
basically, a game. So again, it's like it's not a serious issue and
it underplays the principal's point of view. If we skip ahead a little bit, he even says, "I
can see from your nods." So here, again, it's like the collective response. He's already indicating,
through his speech, that everyone pretty much agrees with him and so should you. Then there's
rubbish. Rubbish has negative connotations. You get reminded of words like waste, garbage,
and nonsense, which undermines the idea of independent and flexible learning,
as though it's something that actually isn't really that helpful. He then continues to say,
"Kids decide to find out about life firsthand." What he's saying here is that kids actually
need to experience things themselves. Let's move into our final paragraph. He says now,
that "School started out as places to educate kids and then became kind of a childcare for big kids."
The imagery there... I would say imagery, you don't have to use imagery. You could say negative
connotations. You could say metaphor. You could label it whatever you want. For me, I get this
picture of a childcare with really old kids that are like teenagers running around in the cradles,
kids in cots, playing with little games, and it's just nonsensical. In addition to this,
by saying that school is like a childcare, he suggests that school isn't really a place
that has children's best interests at heart; now they're part of the remand system.
Remand is legal jargon. I actually didn't even know what this word meant, so I had to look it
up. But if you use jargon, you're using words from a certain field that most people won't be familiar
with. So lawyers, obviously, will be really familiar with terms like being on being on bail,
custody, defense, prosecution. Words like that, that say, for me, as an everyday person who might
only know a little bit about the law, because I've watched quite a few legal dramas on TV, that's
when it becomes jargon; when it's vocabulary that's beyond just the everyday person. So,
here you could say that it's legal jargon and that he is now creating the picture of a school,
not as a place for education, but a place where people are in custody. So, they're in custody of
the school, which sounds terrible, doesn't it? He goes on to keep using inclusive language. So,
that is some repetition that is used throughout his piece. To sum up, he says, "You hear all
these things about drop-in centers, buddies, big sister programs, peer support, and other schemes.
Why can't we try some of these than hounding students endlessly?" Rhetorical question. It's
interesting that he has now offered alternative solutions. This is something that may encourage
other people to agree with him because he's not just slamming down the principal's suggestion,
but he's offering his own solution to the problem. Which implies that he has carefully thought this
through, and he has thought about other ways they can improve on absenteeism. Moreover,
you could even say that maybe the principal hasn't been doing her job because if she had
been trying drop-in centers, buddies, big sister program, maybe she wouldn't be at this point where
she's trying to enforce the truancy policy. That's just where I'm going to leave it today.
I didn't want this video to stretch out too long for you guys, so I didn't go into as much detail
as I could have. But that's to say that there are plenty more language techniques for you
guys to pick up. It's your job now to have a read of it again and see if you guys can find
anything else. I'm going to respond to every single one of you who has analyzed something
and left it in the comment section below. I also wanted you guys to know that I have an
online course called How to Achieve A+ in Language Analysis. If you're somebody who struggles with
language analysis and you've found this video helpful, or you've liked my teaching style,
then I encourage you to check it out. I've just updated some of the videos for 2018 so
that it's up to date, and I share with you all the secrets that I discovered when I achieved
A+ in my own language analysis SACs and in the exam when I was in year 12. I'll put it down
in the description box just down below. And next week, we're going into part two of this article,
where we're going to analyze Rosemary Collins' letter, so I'll see you guys then. Bye.