VCE English: Language Analysis.

[Edward21]

As this area of English is the same for each one of us,
Can someone who knows their stuff (40+) tell me EXACTLY what the structure is for an A+ Language Analysis.
I'm confused as to what can, and cannot be the main point of each paragraph; can anyone give me some pointers?
I'm looking to crack the 40+ range, I get good results with context and text response, language analysis is just so broad what are some do and don't points for this section?

[FlorianK]

The LA-Section of the AN-Study guide is amazing. Its telling you exactly what to do.

So I got this book for my yr11 brother today and decided to revisit my VCE English experience in the train by having a flick through this book.

One word: AMAZING.

What turned out to be a simple flick through turned into me questioning/telling-myself-off like "Damn, wish I had done that in my topic sentences" and "So that's how you discuss tone properly (in a LA)!".

This book may be small in size and price, but it's something I seriously wish I had alongside me in my turbulent VCE English journey. Contains tips, samples, techniques, and is clearly written by two authors (shinny and EZ) who know exactly how to achieve high levels of success.

Endorsed to all yr11/12 VCE English students for sure

Also this LA by EZ is amazing as well, learned from it alot.

Spoiler

Sample language analysis on the issue of Bill Henson, utilising two articles and an image:

With the recent controversies surrounding artist Bill Henson and his work, debate has become prominent over the legitimacy of a supposed breach on his behalf of child-protection protocols.  One written response to this, an editorial published in The Age on October 7th, 2008, contends that Henson’s situation is being misunderstood and unfairly condemned.  In contrast, an opinion article written by Miranda Devine for The Sydney Morning Herald argues that Henson’s actions are unjustified, and that the public should be wary of him and his work.  A cartoon published in The Australian supports the latter view, presenting Henson as somewhat untrustworthy and unwanted within modern society.  This issue is set to spark further conflict, primarily due to its relationship with the liberties artists are provided in their work, as well as its link to the safety of children within society.

Throughout their piece, the writer of the editorial attempts to soothe the reader into submission in order to allow them to better empathise with the view presented within the article.  By utilising a calm and rational tone, found in phrases such as “some perspective is necessary to consider the argument”, the writer coerces the reader into a mood of serenity in the hope that they will better agree with his view on the Henson controversy.  This feeling of calmness is then built upon through the writer’s use of colloquial metaphors, such as “at a skewed angle” and “blurred by time”, which position the reader clearly towards feeling as though the issue has been clouded by preconceptions and prejudice; this further allows the writer ample space to enter his own arguments.  Following this with decisive and absolute phrases, declaring that the issue is “not one of consent or of artistic motivation”, the writer attempts to influence his reader to view the issue plainly within the writer’s terms, drawing out an understanding that politicians and the media are completely misunderstanding the reality of the situation.

To complement the rationality of the piece, the writer of the editorial further invites the reader to feel sympathy for Henson through repeated emphatic appeals.  Across the piece’s entirety, the writer utilises reassuring phrases such as “his works reappeared…without fear of reprisal” and “whose parents, approached by the principal on Henson’s behalf, declined” in order to humanise Henson, pressuring the reader into feeling as though he is trustworthy and legitimate.  Contrasting this against the powerful appeal that “Henson continues to be unfairly depicted” then characterises Henson as a victim, allowing the reader to better empathise with the artist’s position and acknowledge the writer’s primary viewpoint that Henson is misunderstood.  Closing with condemnatory phrases such as “they become prejudicial” and “should be more restrained” is then intended to leave the reader with a lasting impression of Henson’s innocence, as though he is being unfairly treated by the society at large.

In contrast to the reasoned approach the editorial takes, Devine’s opinion piece delves heavily into the reader’s psychology by appealing heavily towards their fear for the children of society.  The very title of the piece is infused with derogatory connotations; calling Henson’s escapades “A creepy visit to the playground” provokes the reader towards immediately dismissing Henson through the portraying of him as a stalker-like figure.  By then following up this characterisation with decisively anger-instilled quotes such as “Frankly I think it’s disgusting” and “a betrayal of trust of parents”, Devine is promoting a sense of outrage from her reader, who is encouraged to view Henson’s actions as an alien threat to society’s well-being.  Appealing to the concerns of parents in highlighting the potential dangers of “the sexualisation of childhood”, the “perfectly reasonable fears about paedophilia” and the necessity for “the protection of children” also contributes to this effect, positioning the reader to acknowledge the broader implications of Henson’s artwork itself and to see it as undermining contemporary values which shield children from outward threats. 

Devine’s piece further attempts to inspire an antagonistic attitude towards Henson and his supporters throughout its entirety. The sarcastic tone utilised in the piece’s opening, coupled with the black humour in the imaginary letter detailing how “Bill Henson…would like you to consider having your child pose naked for him” promotes a flippant attitude from the reader, who is encouraged to view the Henson and his actions as something akin to the absurd.  Providing description of shocking imagery in Henson’s previous work of “spreadeagled naked girls with dead eyes, budding breasts and blood smeared on their thighs” further adds extra power to the reader’s established hostile attitude against both Henson and Henson’s art.  Rebuttal of Henson’s supporter’s statements in the decisively antagonistic rhetorical question “Who said anything about child abuse” also evokes rejection on the reader’s behalf of the views of those who sympathise with Henson, adding further weight to Devine’s side of the argument.  Compounding this is Devine’s unifying call for “Ostracism” in the piece’s closing, which is designed to leave the reader rejecting Henson and all which he stands for.

Like Devine’s opinion piece, the cartoon published in The Australian vilifies Henson, portraying an almost absurd scene of a grotesque Henson infiltrating a serene schoolyard.  The cartoon features a glum-looking Henson, characterised by a comically oversized head with exaggerated features in order to make him appear filthy and disgusting, or possibly as a being abhorred by society.  This is designed to inspire the viewer towards antagonism against Henson and his supposedly socially unacceptable ways.  Juxtaposition of Henson with frightened looking children drawn in an innocent art style further accentuates this effect, highlighting the ones Henson is possibly threatening in order to draw out feelings of disgust towards Henson and concern for the children.  The comic text of the cartoon “Maybe he’s one of those arts bandits” is also a deliberate pun on “ass-bandit”; in reducing Henson to the absurd in this manner, the viewer is positioned to distance themselves from the absurdity of Henson’s art, similar to the sarcasm Devine utilises.  All in all, the image seems to support Devine’s argument, acting to defame Henson and purporting him as outrageous and unwanted within society.

Both articles and the image work to characterise Henson for the benefit of their viewpoint, encouraging the reader to feel antagonistic towards the opposite of the writer/cartoonists’ stance.  The editorial from The Age focuses primarily on soothing the reader whilst simultaneously inspiring them to feel sympathetic towards Henson’s side; in contrast, Devine’s opinion piece acts to inspire fear and concern from the reader amidst creating disdain for Henson’s work and persona.  The approach of the latter is also taken up by the image, which works to create anti-Henson sentiments within the viewer through vilification and reducing Henson to the absurd.  As shown by the diversity in these arguments, the issue of Henson’s actions is likely to provoke further debate over where art’s boundaries lie and how far society should prioritise the safety of its children.

[brenden]

Could you be more specific so I can better answer your question? As for what you can base your body paragraphs around. Well, literally, anything. They don't sit back and go "ah, a pity he decided to structure it this way, otherwise it would have been a ten." The 'main point' of each paragraph could be an individual technique, and argument, something devoted to the tone. It's really just take your pick. Personally I grouped my body paragraphs into analysing the different arguments, and within that the persuasive techniques (and how they worked in conjunction with each other) used for that particular argument.

[Edward21]

Could you be more specific so I can better answer your question? As for what you can base your body paragraphs around. Well, literally, anything. They don't sit back and go "ah, a pity he decided to structure it this way, otherwise it would have been a ten." The 'main point' of each paragraph could be an individual technique, and argument, something devoted to the tone. It's really just take your pick. Personally I grouped my body paragraphs into analysing the different arguments, and within that the persuasive techniques (and how they worked in conjunction with each other) used for that particular argument.

Yeah, what I'm asking is. What type of paragraphs appeals the most to the VCAA assessors for English. As in what's fresh and interesting that will capture their attention and stand out above the rest, because they read so many and I don't want to fade into the background.

[brenden]

Yeah, what I'm asking is. What type of paragraphs appeals the most to the VCAA assessors for English. As in what's fresh and interesting that will capture their attention and stand out above the rest, because they read so many and I don't want to fade into the background.

In that case it's going to be your quality of writing that makes you stand out. As above, you could do it with any structure. Personally  I would recommend identifying the individual arguments that formulate the contention and then structuring your body paragraphs as analyses of the individual arguments and the  techniques that lie therein. This opened the door for discussing the way in which individual and seemingly separate persuasive techniques worked in conjunction with each other to position the audience further towards that particular audience, and then the contention.

[jazza97]

Intro
  -one sentence to outline context e.g 'the regulation of plain packaging of cigarettes has been highly contentious and fought by various sides over the past year'
  -introduce the piece-type, date, publication, author
  -outline the arguments that the article is making---this is the author's CONTENTION-this is vital that you emphasize this
  -say something quick about how the image supports the contention or changes meaning

Body
   -My method was a little different to a lot of others.  I would group the main themes or ideas of the taskpiece and then talk about how the author uses various techniques and methods to MAKE THE READER agree with his viewpoint.
   -I would incorporate the image through all my paragraphs which allows for comparison and contrast and you get a much deeper analysis.
   -compare and contrast all the time-this is the big fall down of doing it chronologically.  It is much easier to compare and contrast by doing point 1, especially if you are given 2 articles because you have grouped and therefore drawing on both pieces simultaneously.

Conclusion
   -doesn't need to be long, something like 'Younger readers are more likely to have an affinity with Jones because they relate with the struggles and stress of VCE and adolescence...whereas older readers might still see the actions of these young students as inappropriate as they have been brought up on more traditional values and morals.

However, as long as you compare and contrast and show how the author influences the reader, any structure is fine and will work.

[watto_22]

Can someone who knows their stuff (40+) tell me EXACTLY what the structure is for an A+ Language Analysis.

There is no exact structure.
Sorry to disappoint

[AllAboutTheLGs]

watto_22 is right, there is no structure for an A+ Language Analysis. As long as you discuss all the techniques deployed in the piece using elegant language, as well as addressing the author's intentions, effect on readers and all that jazz, you should get an A+.

Most importantly, make sure your piece flows well though with clarity and precision. What I mean is you should, at all costs avoid sounding like a broken record of some sort by using the formula in the same way over and over again. If your use of the formula is obvious in the analysis, you will be marked down. Pretty much just try and mix things up a bit, don't make your analysis boring!

Additionally the art of BS-ing will get you far in LA as you can write about random things in the piece as long as you justify it with evidence.

I'm an ESL student and intro + conclusion were not necessary in our analyses, but I'm fairly certain the points I mentioned above would apply to mainstream English as well.

[platypus]

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.

Ummm I can't think of anymore points at the moment but I hope this helps!

[EvangelionZeta]

^to add to what platypus said, if you are aiming for a higher mark I would almost definitely aim for a Synergistic method.  Chronological analysis is less sophisticated and leads to (as platypus suggested) repetitive or even disorganised analysis.

My own recommendation is to find main "approaches" or "strategies" utilised by the author, and to frame your paragraph around them.  So for instance, the author might aim throughout their article to portray the opposition to their argument as misguided - you should make this one of your topic sentences, and then find three or so techniques which help the author to achieve this aim, and then discuss/analyse them.

Also, don't feel like you have to restrict yourself to two or even three body paragraphs.  I often teach a six body paragraph essay structure (four on the article, two on the image) - if you can have breadth to your analysis, then it shows more awareness for nuance.

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 personally actually would avoid mentioning tone in the introduction - I find it works much better as the very first technique you analyse in a paragraph.  This is because tone is often not universal throughout a whole piece, so if you can attach specific tones to specific approaches (which as mentioned previously are the bases for my paragraphs) then again, it shows more awareness for the nuance of the piece's approach to persuasion.

[dilks]

You can still address the approaches and strategies of the author using a chronological approach to language analysis. Often the author will use a different strategy for each section, such as having an initial strategy of trying to discredit their opponents argument, where the vast majority of the persuasive devices used by the author in this initial section will be catered towards this strategy. In the exam, however, the pieces are often structured in such a way that multiple strategies are being used throughout the piece, with development of ideas introduced earlier, and back-referencing, and it is here that chronological analysis can be, I agree, somewhat cumbersome; in such situations it may be necessary to resort to a hybrid approach if your preferred method is chronological.

[charmanderp]

My language analysis on the exam was a bit of a free for all, where I just picked out parts of the text at random and wrote an analysis on them, whilst contrasting them to other features. Also wove my analysis of the visual image into two of my body paragraphs. It wasn't very well structured but I still got a high mark for it, so I reckon more than anything else the examiners are looking for the quality of your analysis more than anything else. Like Brenden said, they probably won't drag you down just because your structure is poor.

I'm another one for noting the tone of the piece in the introduction. And like platypus said, for me the most important thing was constantly elucidating how the author's contention was prevalent in each part of the text that I used in my essay.

And I'll vouch again for having several shorter but no less well developed paragraphs, as opposed to just a few.

Constant repetition of technique > intention > effect is the only formula or structure that should be used for LA, IMO. And then capturing the interconnectedness of the text.