Improving your Language Analysis

[sabii]

Hi everyone I have been trying very hard to improve my language analysis skills these holidays. I realized that a more sophisticated vocabulary allowed me to write more coherently, however improve can still be made. Can anyone suggest how you can improve your language Analysis (other than practicing). How should it be structured? what are some good words, tones and techniques?

Everyone talks about inclusive language, attack etc. Can someone suggest something more complex that may impress the examiners?

Thank youuuu

[dilks]

Everyone talks about inclusive language, attack etc. Can someone suggest something more complex that may impress the examiners?

I recently uploaded something to do with this. But it hasn't been processed yet, so you'll have to wait :p.

Edit: http://www.atarnotes.com/?p=notes&a=feedback&id=1032

Can anyone suggest how you can improve your language Analysis (other than practicing).

Students sometimes have the misconception that because they are taught to: identify the technique and how it positions the reader, that therefore this is the ultimate end of language analysis. The thing is, a persuasive article is not simply a bunch of persuasive techniques stitched together. Authors don't say 'Alright, what technique can I use next?', or 'Alright in this piece I'm going to use attacks and inclusive language, because I like attacks and inclusive language.' What they say is more along the lines of 'I want to begin by trying to discredit my opponent's argument, which will make my argument look better, and after that I will introduce my argument, and try to convince my audience that it is right. Now how can I do that?' So once you have mastered the art of reductionism (analysing the small bits), you will then need to master the art of holism (analysing the larger picture). You need to show how these devices fit into the larger picture of what the writer is trying to do. In much the same way that a writer doesn't simply have just a contention, but will offer arguments as to why the contention is right.

You should be able to identify when a device is: introducing a point, expanding upon a point, and reinforcing a point;
and whether it caters towards a particular strategy, or has a particular desired effect. You may also choose to group devices that cater towards the same strategy or which are being used to make the same point. The synergistic approach is based around this, but a hybrid (chronological-synergistic) approach does this equally well in my opinion.

[sabii]

Wow, Dilks that was amazing to read! I feel like I improved just by reading your amazing suggestions. Thank you so much.
I'm going to print that out so whenever I am about to write a language analysis, I will read your advice first 

[teacher28]

I recently uploaded something to do with this. But it hasn't been processed yet, so you'll have to wait :p.

An excellent read, Dilks. Thanks.

[jeanweasley]

Students sometimes ...

Just a question, how did you learn this? Congrats on the 49 on English. I hope I can get that too.

[dilks]

Just a question, how did you learn this?

Do you mean how did I learn how to do it, or how did I learn that this was something which should be done?

[jeanweasley]

Do you mean how did I learn how to do it, or how did I learn that this was something which should be done?

How you did it? Like you sound like you're an expert in this field.

[dilks]

How you did it? Like you sound like you're an expert in this field.

Well, the way I did it at first was I'd do what I usually did (identify the device, how it positions the reader, how it ties into the author's argument (if appropriate)) and when I'd done that a few times I'd see if there was a pattern -- like if there were several devices which were trying to do the same thing -- and if I could see one then I figured the author had a strategy and I tried to identify that strategy, and if I couldn't then I kept going until I did.

These days I still pretty much do something like that, except that I might try to guess the strategy early on (for my own benefit), and then see if I can confirm my guess, which is a bit quicker.

[platypus]

yea as dilks said understanding the piece holistically is the key to correctly identifying the author's contention and how they're employing language techniques to substantiate his/her viewpoint.

At the start I used to read the article once before analysing the techniques. However since I was limited by time in the exam towards the end I would practice scanning each paragraph, identifying the technique/s and how it relates to the author's overall contention.

[platypus]

this is my reply to a similar post - somebody was asking about the structure to a language analysis. hope it helps

While there isn't a specific formula or structure that you must follow in lang analysis, there are rough guidelines that can help shape your essay. Most commonly I see two types of structures that students go for, the "chronological" or "synergistic" method with regard to how you arrange your piece.

Chronological method: As the name suggests, you base each individual paragraph on the chronological order of the arguments in the piece you're analysing. With this structure I usually pick the main arguments, then analyse the techniques employed within. I believe this is the more preferred method at most schools (at mine anyway) as it is easier to teach and the chronolgical nature in which the arguments are presented already provides students with a basic outline of their essay.

However the downside to this is that you may end up analysing the same technique in several arguments. Most author/speakers/presenters tend to have a few preferred persuasive techniques that they like to use to substantiate different arguments, so if you may run the risk of repetition which will obviously get you marked down.

Synergistic method: I believe this is the less commonly utilised method as it is not taught a lot in schools and students have a harder time following this structure. Basically your objective is to group all similar or same techniques together in the one paragraph, whilst conveying to the examiner how they have been used in conjunction with each other to achieve the author's overall contention. Students find this hard because most end up listing the techniques and giving an example of there it's used, without referring to the author's contention.

That being said, if a student manages to use this method proficiently - that is, to achieve a "synergy" in the essay through coherently linked paragraphs, it is usually viewed by the examiner in a more favorable light. But do not use this method if you're uncomfortable with it because there is a high chance of producing a poorly constructed piece.

Given that it's only the start of the year, I would experiment with both to see which one suits my writing style or the style of the piece. Sometimes it is very hard to use the synergistic method because the arguments flow chronologically and the techniques aren't repeated. For instance my 2012 lang analysis exam was about a librarian giving her opinion on traditional books vs ebooks. At the time it felt more reasonable to use the chronological method since the paragraphs were divided according to the librarian's arguments and she used very different persuasive techniques in each one.

With intros and conclusions, I always write an intro since it provides all the details of the piece that you're analysing, such as author, title and tone. Tone is especially important because it shows the examiner how well you understand the piece and the techniques employed by the author to persuade the audience. I usually spend about ~2 lines analysing the tone (as well as mentioning the visual if there is one), which is a lot, given that my intros only about 4-5ish lines.

I know some people don't write conclusions because it really adds nothing new to your analysis, but I always include one just to show the examiner that I didn't run out of time and couldn't finish my essay. Although it does not have to be excellently written, a conclusion offers a very brief summary of your main points and it is usually eye-pleasing for examiners to note that the student has followed the standard essay format.

Another thing I should also mention is that you don't have to follow the intro + 3 paragraph + conclusion structure. If you look at past examiner's reports on high-scoring language analysis pieces, a majority of them had 4/5+ short paragraphs. In general examiners like it if you can analyse lots of techniques - even if you go into a moderate but not a lot of depth with them.

The most important thing I'd have to say about language analysis is that you must always always always relate back to the author's contention and reader's reaction. Think of it as the prompt of your text analysis or context - at the end (or somewhere in each paragraph) make sure you clearly state how these techniques have been used to support the arguments and how the audience would be made to feel. Don't simply assume that the reader will feel so and so, but rather, talk about how they are "inclined" or "positioned" to feel blabla. If you state it in a definitive manner you are incoportaing a degree of bias into your analysis in that the author will/will not be able to sway the audience. Examiners like neutrality as it is an analysis and you should remain impartial throughout the piece - except in the conclusion where it's okay to say how effective or ineffective the author's techniques have been.