Analytical Commentary Structure

[odeaa]

How do you guys go about structuring your commentaries? I just can't help but want to adhere by a trusty format that I can use (obviously different for spoken/written)

All year I've pretty much done it by subsystem, but all the high scoring/sample commentaries seem to just have clumps of random discussion; sometimes about a stage of the text, sometimes about a certain type of language (e.g. archaic lexicon/metaphors)

Its easy in hindsight but when planning (or in reading time) how do you choose what to make its own paragraph and what to embed in a general subsystem paragraph?

This isnt very coherent and probs doesnt make any sense, but if anyone can share how they go about it please feel free

cheers

[MrsNicoleB]

Stick to your trusty format at this time of the year.

I normally recommend discussing the contextual factors (function, field, mode, setting, relationship between participants - from Study Design) and the register - possibly this is how some of the previous ACs have been structured?  The criteria has guided my suggestions...

Look at the criteria - the key words and things that they are looking for are purpose, discourse, context, register, metalanguage, analysis, tight structure.  No matter what format you choose (there is no proscribed 'right' structure, as noted in previous assessor reports), ensure that you comment on these topics in detail.

Criteria can be found here: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/documents/exams/englishlanguage/eng-lang-criteria.pdf

[kiddoes]

Just putting in my two cents; it's important to remember that sample commentaries generally are not written under exam conditions (from what I can tell/have heard). Sample commentaries (like the ones in the Green Book, for example!) are written to cover everything the author can find in the text, so that a commentary written under a more limited time is guaranteed to either find their features and points in the sample answer, or to know that they were wrong in their assumptions.

What you choose to make its own paragraph should depend on how much you have to say about the feature.
If you can write a whole paragraph on one feature (firstly, kudos to you, because that's crazy!), go for it.
If you'd rather write a general 'lexis' paragraph and name a bunch of features as they link back in similar ways to the contextual factors, go for it. Plan for what you can find, rather than what you think you should write according to a stiff structure.

Generally, though, it's a really good idea to do all the contextual features as your first paragraph, because then you have something to link back all your subsystems to. You don't have to, but I find it really useful.