Structuring a Language Analysis Response

PLANNING:

Read any contextual information provided

Identify the contention(s)
Who are the key players in the issue?
Annotate the techniques in the texts (try to develop a shorthand throughout the year)
Start making links between pieces (for multiple texts) either by contention, treatment of
players, or technique.

INTRODUCTION:

Contextualise the issue in your own words, dont rely on the information given. Briefly
summarise when and why the issue arose, and note the main contentions or players.
If given many texts (eg. comments on a blog post) it can be unrealistic to deal with every title,
author and contention, so mentioning the general stances is sufficient.
Some schools require you to mention the publisher and publication date, but this is not a
VCAA requirement. In fact VCAA texts are more often in the form of public speeches and
dont need a statement like published in the Herald Sun on 7/12/2012.
What sort of reaction has there been from different sides? (eg. disapproval, condemnation,
overwhelming support on both sides, or evenly divided reactions?)
Keep your introduction short and sweet, its a structural requirement but the marks come from
actual analysis instead of the setup. Three or four sentences should be enough, dont
compromise time analysing to try to deal with every text/ contention.

BODY PARAGRAPHS:
Ordering by article/text is not recommended. If you get one text that is a page long, then two smaller
texts of half that length; then your response should spend more time on the core article, not equal time
for all three. Rather than having imbalanced paragraph lengths, body paragraphs can be structured by:
different appeals and techniques,
positioning of different players,
chronological shifts in arguments.
As a general rule, use the TEE format, that is, Technique, Example, and Effect. Notice identifying
techniques is only the first step, and is actually worth the least marks. It is still a necessity for your
essay, but simply stating that the author employs rhetorical questions or sarcasm is worth little on its
own. Try to be as specific as possible when discussing the effect on the audience. If youre ever in
doubt, ask yourself how the author wants us to think or feel about the key players.
Note any shifts in tone throughout the article, and the significance of this shift in terms of the authors
approach and their intended audiences.
When transitioning between texts, use a comparative linking phrase, possibly commenting on tone.
Try not to compare at the expense of analysing; the occasional sentence is all you need. If there is
more than one text, it wont matter which ones you compare, so long as you have a point of
comparison for each of them.
CONCLUSION:
Again, this is a structural requirement, but it can be a good place to impress assessors before the mark
is decided. Here youll get credit for what you can say about how language is used overall. Listing
techniques or repeating contentions will not earn you anything. A strong conclusion will summarise
the different strategies and how/why they are effective given a certain audience or context. You could
also comment on who is likely to be persuaded (or not) by this overall approach.