How do we plan for language analysis? (especially in exam conditions!)

[liuetenant]

Pretty self- explanatory
have you developed any ways to plan effectively for lang analysis, paritcularly once you've got all your techniques and hints? how do you structure ur paragraphs?
im at a complete loss --"

[Greatness]

I would choose the most significant language techniques you can find and highlight them so you can quote them afterwards.
I usually write my paragraphs in chronological order. The amount of paragraphs doesnt really matter as long as it is sensible.

[eeps]

I generally start chronologically; what technique/device is used first in the piece/article tends to be my first paragraph and so on. Sometimes I group language devices (i.e. more than one) which are similar, into one paragraph. It makes for more of a coherent essay in my opinion.

[24lover]

Pretty self- explanatory
have you developed any ways to plan effectively for lang analysis, paritcularly once you've got all your techniques and hints? how do you structure ur paragraphs?
im at a complete loss --"

planning: lots of annotating and highlighting. I usually highlight the same or similar ideas in the same colour, or I choose to highlight same techniques in the same colour so that when i come to writing my essay, I can visually group things together. It's a lot better putting it all on paper rather than burden your brain

structuring: focus on a main idea or contention for each paragraph - then my sentences will discuss individual language techniques...

i think that's easiest anyway!

[werdna]

Do what the others have told you. In addition to this, try to talk about the combined intended effect when two or three 'persuasive techniques' are used in conjunction or are used in the same paragraph or whatever. Have a look at how these techniques are used collectively, and integrate the effect on the reader from there.

[liuetenant]

planning: lots of annotating and highlighting. I usually highlight the same or similar ideas in the same colour, or I choose to highlight same techniques in the same colour so that when i come to writing my essay, I can visually group things together. It's a lot better putting it all on paper rather than burden your brain

structuring: focus on a main idea or contention for each paragraph - then my sentences will discuss individual language techniques...

i think that's easiest anyway!

ah....see that's where i get stumped.....you collect similar persuasvie techniques, sure, i get that. And that will most likely end up as a paragrah on its own. yep.
But then you also say that each paragraph must focus on a main idea or contention......and then others say chronologically......sometimes an article can have its many points all over the place, so keeping it chronological would be difficult. not to mention that you run the risk of repeating persuasive techniques if it relates to two or more main points.......so how do you know where to stick it?

im sorry if this sounds confusing......let me know and i will defintely be sure i will fail at LA this yr --"

[EvangelionZeta]

I tend to go for a mix of the chronological approach and the "broad techniques" approach.  Basically, identify the main strategies used, and make them the points for each paragraph.  Then just group them in order of where most of your material will appear (eg. save the "broad technique" which is used to end the piece for last), and then just write the essay like that.

[lexitu]

Same.

You can think about it in this vein - the audience is confronted with a text in a chronological order; they are influenced sequentially. Often, subliminal links are made between sections of the piece - things that they have read before and things that they just read - so it's important to look at the overall nature of the piece. The author, while constructing the piece chronologically, considers different aspects of their attempted persuasion. They plan their text and keep in mind how certain techniques will cumulatively affect the audience. They target different aspects of the issue and need to cover certain necessities - orienting the audience, getting the audience on their side, entrenching a message, calling the audience to action if need be, etc. If you choose to look at things more from the view of the author, you can take a thematic approach and discuss the scheme of the piece.

You sort of consider both author and audience in this manner but you can slant your analysis in different ways.

[24lover]

planning: lots of annotating and highlighting. I usually highlight the same or similar ideas in the same colour, or I choose to highlight same techniques in the same colour so that when i come to writing my essay, I can visually group things together. It's a lot better putting it all on paper rather than burden your brain

structuring: focus on a main idea or contention for each paragraph - then my sentences will discuss individual language techniques...

i think that's easiest anyway!

ah....see that's where i get stumped.....you collect similar persuasvie techniques, sure, i get that. And that will most likely end up as a paragrah on its own. yep.
But then you also say that each paragraph must focus on a main idea or contention......and then others say chronologically......sometimes an article can have its many points all over the place, so keeping it chronological would be difficult. not to mention that you run the risk of repeating persuasive techniques if it relates to two or more main points.......so how do you know where to stick it?

im sorry if this sounds confusing......let me know and i will defintely be sure i will fail at LA this yr --"

what the others have said is pretty good.

i can see how it can be confusing since most articles are all over the place with their techniques and ideas. Choose the most prominent points, or the ones that you have the most to write about. Then, choose techniques that link to each point. If you have a repetition of the same language technique - say for example the writer keeps using rhetorical questions, when you write a plan, just use rhetorical questions for ONE of your points.

For the next point, even if they use rhetorical questions, I going to try to avoid using that same technique.My reasoning is that I've already proved to the examiner once that I know all about rhetorical questions, why should I waste my time again proving the same point? Instead, I'll try and identify other techniques the writer uses for that second point.

I think planning is a vital component of language analysis because it's where you can outline which techniques you want to talk about. You can see if you're going to repeat yourself or not. Basically I try to find unique persuasive techniques for each point i'm going to make, that why there is no chance of overlap.

That's what I do anyway, and it works really well. I hope that makes sense for you?

[liuetenant]

what the others have said is pretty good.

i can see how it can be confusing since most articles are all over the place with their techniques and ideas. Choose the most prominent points, or the ones that you have the most to write about. Then, choose techniques that link to each point. If you have a repetition of the same language technique - say for example the writer keeps using rhetorical questions, when you write a plan, just use rhetorical questions for ONE of your points.

For the next point, even if they use rhetorical questions, I going to try to avoid using that same technique.My reasoning is that I've already proved to the examiner once that I know all about rhetorical questions, why should I waste my time again proving the same point? Instead, I'll try and identify other techniques the writer uses for that second point.

I think planning is a vital component of language analysis because it's where you can outline which techniques you want to talk about. You can see if you're going to repeat yourself or not. Basically I try to find unique persuasive techniques for each point i'm going to make, that why there is no chance of overlap.

That's what I do anyway, and it works really well. I hope that makes sense for you?

thanks heaps, that makes sense i can sometimes be worried about not including a certain technique in my analysis.......is it alright even if a really good technique and an analysis of it was left out simply coz it doesnt exactly relate to my points?

[24lover]

what the others have said is pretty good.

i can see how it can be confusing since most articles are all over the place with their techniques and ideas. Choose the most prominent points, or the ones that you have the most to write about. Then, choose techniques that link to each point. If you have a repetition of the same language technique - say for example the writer keeps using rhetorical questions, when you write a plan, just use rhetorical questions for ONE of your points.

For the next point, even if they use rhetorical questions, I going to try to avoid using that same technique.My reasoning is that I've already proved to the examiner once that I know all about rhetorical questions, why should I waste my time again proving the same point? Instead, I'll try and identify other techniques the writer uses for that second point.

I think planning is a vital component of language analysis because it's where you can outline which techniques you want to talk about. You can see if you're going to repeat yourself or not. Basically I try to find unique persuasive techniques for each point i'm going to make, that why there is no chance of overlap.

That's what I do anyway, and it works really well. I hope that makes sense for you?

thanks heaps, that makes sense i can sometimes be worried about not including a certain technique in my analysis.......is it alright even if a really good technique and an analysis of it was left out simply coz it doesnt exactly relate to my points?

hmm....well you have two options: either develop a suitable point to discuss that will use the technique or just forget about it. You don't want to try to 'make it work' by adding it in somewhere it doesn't belong because even if it is a great technique to talk about, if it's irrelevant than you're not going to encourage the examiner to give you extra marks.

so really you just have to toss up whether or not it is a good enough technique to discuss remember that every sentence counts and everything you write is something valuable for the examiner to read