A Few Quick Questions on Analytical Commentaries

[AngelWings]

Whenever I write an analytical commentary, I find as if my body paragraphs are just listing techniques, what they're doing to the text (e.g. "This technique is used to reiterate the purpose and register by...") and an example or two. I'm not sure what to use to link the, say, stylistic techniques together to make it "flow well" (i.e. cohere better).

Could I have some suggestions please?

Thanks in advance.

[Reus]

I tend to feel the same way...
Just make sure you talk about the same subsystem in each paragraph in order to cohere.

[AngelWings]

Hm... I've been doing that, but it's not exactly getting me anywhere far. (Although, I find it easier to write about the most obvious ones in each paragraph, however that would depend on the individual's preferred structure.) Some people write so eloquently for such a small period of allotted time! 

[AngelWings]

New Question:
    I wrote a marked analytical commentary the other day. In summary, I discussed:

• syntax in depth
• gleamed over discourse, with social purpose included
• prosodics in a reasonable amount of depth (The text was spoken.)
• coherence and
• cohesive ties (the last two were reasonable)

I'm worried it doesn't fulfil the requirement of at least two subsystems in enough depth.

 Should I be worried? Or does prosodics count as part of phonology? (Note: I just wrote "prosodics".)

[JHardwickVCE]

You should be alright

I tend to find myself doing the same thing, there's a lot of features I want to talk about but the structure could get repetitive. What I sometimes do is I would talk about one feature, explain what it shows, then say, 'and this is also achieved through ...' This way I can link two features together and show some syntactic variation.

[AngelWings]

Thanks for the reply, JHardwick.

[MrsNicoleB]

There are many different acceptable ways to write an analysis.  Examination markers are told not to penalize or reward any particular style - you should keep in mind your teacher's preferences though, as they give you marks throughout the year!

I don't like writing paragraphs around the subsystems; it often sounds quite disjointed. 
The main question to answer in an analysis is 'how does context influence the language used in the text'.  You would be better off planning your essay around context: Function (and social purpose), Field, Mode & Discourse Form, Setting (public / private) and Relationship between participants (FFMSR - all these terms are from the Study Design).  You also need to discuss register - this is not part of context - context influences the register.

[ealam2]

Since part of the instruction is to include at least two subsystems in the discussion, do I need to explicitly state the subsystems 'morphology and lexicology', 'syntax', 'discourse', 'phonology' and 'semantics' when I am using examples?

(Sorry if the question doesn't make sense. Don't know how to word it.)

[AngelWings]

Since part of the instruction is to include at least two subsystems in the discussion, do I need to explicitly state the subsystems 'morphology and lexicology', 'syntax', 'discourse', 'phonology' and 'semantics' when I am using examples?

(Sorry if the question doesn't make sense. Don't know how to word it.)

It is generally better to be explicit than imply it, I think.

[ealam2]

It is generally better to be explicit than imply it, I think.

Okay sure, thanks!