When doing Language analysis, I sometimes have trouble explaining 'HOW'/'WHY' an author uses a particular phrase/technique to persuade the reader even though I have a faint idea in my head, it's like I'm unable to express this idea in words though I know what it's trying to do. How do I fix this?
I also have trouble elaborating on my 'HOW' and 'WHY' sentences without them becoming too repetitive
I sometimes have this exact same problem 
All you've gotta do is ask yourself the right questions at the right moment.
The what-how-why thing (explanation
here for those who don't know what I'm talking about) is a strategy that's designed around being one step ahead of the assessors. Basically, if you fail to mention these areas in your analysis, then the assessors are going to be asking questions like 'but WHAT language is being used??' 'HOW are readers made to feel this way??' 'WHY is the author doing this??' ~So, the aim is to address these questions before they can even be asked.
You might find it helpful to flesh out each area a bit so that rather than sitting there thinking 'what do I put in the HOW section?' you can develop a formula that prevents you from getting lost or stuck. Each of the three components has a variety of sub-components, which I'll list below, but keep in mind that not all of them have to be mentioned every single time. Good paragraphs will focus primarily on the WHAT, a fair bit on the HOW, and then just a little of the WHY at the end of major points.
1.
'WHAT'- What is the author trying to do?
- What devices or techniques are being employed? (note: this won't always be applicable; sometimes you're just talking about language more generally, ,which is fine)
- What language is there that provides evidence for this? (ie,
quote here)
- What is the significance of this? What sense or idea is being created?
- What is the intended effect (note: this links into the HOW section to make things smoother)
2.
'HOW'- How are the readers likely to think/feel?
- How are these thoughts/feelings/beliefs created through the language? (
<<--IMPORTANT!!)
- How are certain audience members targeted? (note: only do this when the audience is given to you by the Background Information paragraph)
- How does the author want readers to view something as a result (eg. if the author is eliciting sadness through an anecdote, what is this connecting to? Where is that sadness directed? What key player is being manipulated in readers' minds?)
- How does this help the author argue their contention? (note: links to WHY)
3.
'WHY'- Why does the author want audiences to think/feel/believe this?
- Why are the readers inclined to think/feel/believe this?
- Why does the author draw attention to certain aspects of a key player, or emphasise certain ideas?
- Why does the author's use of language create this effect? (
<<--IMPORTANT!!)
Often, the lines will blur between each category, and it's entirely possible that you'll have sentences in your analysis that do a bit of both WHAT and HOW or HOW and WHY etc.
Now, in terms of specificity, you always want to
focus on the language! Analysis like:
The author's use of inclusive language is designed to incorporate readers in his views, and thus compels them to agree with his contention is waaaaay to superficial. WHAT language is being used? HOW does this language affect readers? And WHY is this language effective from the author's point of view?
A revised version might be something like:
The author's use of inclusive language in the phrase "we must act now" is designed to elicit a sense of collective responsibility and instill the notion that readers have a duty to do something to prevent the exacerbation of climate change. The fact that the author shifts this onus onto the collective "we" also engenders unity amongst the readership and even aligns the author himself alongside the audience, so his call to action creates a communal, unified sense of obligation, encouraging readers to do their part. This also allows the author to create a guilt-inducing scenario whereby those who do not act are inferred to be letting down the community; hence, the inclusivity establishes a greater amount of accountability with regards to climate action.Yes, it's way longer, and you wouldn't have to do this every time, but that's the level of detail you can go to with just a few words to analyse. This gets easier when you have a whole article to deal with, and you can actually link the language together and comment on the overall effect (eg. with the above excerpt, I'd probably connect this to an instance where the author is outlining what actions can be taken, or where the author explicates the reasons why this is necessary.) Good analysis will tie together in logical places, and this is a characteristic of high-range essays because too many mid-range ones just run points of analysis together like:
'The author uses inclusive language which compels readers to act. Furthermore, the imperative language like "have to" and "should" makes readers more likely to take responsibility. The author also uses an aggressive tone. Moreover, there is a rhetorical question. Likewise, the dichotomy that is created here...' etc. etc.
Ignoring the fact that the analysis is really brief, you can see that the linking words like 'furthermore' and 'also' are doing nothing to unite the discussion. It reads like the student has just compiled a dot point list of things to analyse, and then stuck them in a random order in the paragraph, which you'd obviously want to avoid.
With regards to being more specific, don't use cop-outs like '...making them agree with the author.' or '....which reinforces the author's contention.' Try to clarify which part of the author's argument readers are being made to agree with, otherwise you'll end up zooming out too far, too quickly. Angle yourself towards sub-arguments instead; making connections from a quote to the overall contention isn't really efficient, and you'll likely descend into repetition quity quickly, so instead, link the language to a key player/sub-argument, and then at the end of the paragraph, link that sub-argument to the contention.
Once your theoretical approach is a little more steady, you just need to practise executing it until it becomes more automatic. Rather than doing whole/timed essays, maybe just focus on little sections for awhile until you get the hang of it. bangali_lok's
weekly Letter to the Editor initiative is a great place to start
For those of you guys who have done english, how many practice exams did you do? And how many practice essays (as in practice exam essays not prep for SACs or anything)? It's just so much harder to do with it being 3 hours and all..
I realise I'm probably in a minority here, but I wouldn't have even made double digits with my practice essays in the last stretch of the year. I probably wrote three for Sec.A, three and a half for Sec.B and one for Sec.C - BUT they were the most efficient learning-tool essays I ever wrote. Churning wasn't how I learnt, so I'd write one piece, but then wring everything I could from it: getting feedback from my teacher or other sources, evaluating my own performance, editing anything I was unhappy with, considering any weak points or areas that I wasn't confident about, comparing it to other essays in terms of what was done better/worse, etc. In terms of full three hour sessions, don't force yourself into these unless you want to practice timing. You don't want to be doing huge three hour study sessions only to find you need to work on tiny things like quote integration or topic sentences. It's easy to be intimidated by the concept of writing for three hours straight, but for now, I think it'd be more helpful if you just think about it as 3 x 1 hour sessions rather than 1 x 3 hour one, so break it down first, and then you can concern yourself with getting through the whole 180 minutes once you've tidied up all the smaller stuff.
Also, appleandbee's point about gradually acclimatising yourself to the three hours is a great idea; enforcing full exam conditions out of the blue is unlikely to yield the desired results, so take it slow and try to maintain your quality of writing. That way, cutting down on time will feel easier and more gradual, as opposed to some insurmountable hurdle that holds you back
Home
Help
Search
Login
