Hi Lauren,
Do we receive extra marks for only analysing esoteric techniques in language analysis? For example, is it okay to omit techniques like inclusive language, adjectives and alliteration for less common ones like hendidays, juxtapositions, polysendeton and hyperbole?Are examiners generally more impressed by rare techniques?
Technically you don't recieve any marks for simply mentioning techniques. I did start looking into some of the more 'esoteric' techniques, but I found the VCAA past papers didn't really lend themselves to any in particular. (Prolepsis and hyperphora were the only ones I ever found, though I'd say juxtapositioning and hyperbole are pretty common, depending on the issue/delivery.)
But let's take polysyndeton for example: could you actually say anything about that in context?
eg. '
We cannot let the government take away our privacy, and our lives, and our freedom.' Sure, you might notice the word 'and' is there, but what is it actually doing? It's rarely sufficient to give a definition or just say it emphasises the contention. Looking at how readers/audiences are affected, and why the author might do this is where the real marks are. Very little is devoted to simply identifying techniques. Though the assessors might get sick of reading all the low-scoring analyses to the tune of 'there is rhetorical questions, inclusive language, emotive language, and loaded language,' that's only because they're not analysing. If you get an article (like the 2010 or 2013 paper) in which inclusivity is a major component of their argument, then no, you shouldn't ignore that for the sake of finding something left-of-field. But it is okay not to point out every single rhetorical question
Also, as Zezima rightly said, there are some grumpy assessors who will resent having to google the words you're using. This shouldn't be a deterrent to developing a sophisticated vocabulary, but try to avoid making the vocab the focus; it's perfectly possible to score well in English without needing those sorts of words.
I would add: try to mention at least two technique per body paragraph, rather than just one or two overall. This was my arbitrary goal, but if you've got longer/shorter paras then by all means change it to suit you. I had a bad habit last year of just ignoring the techniques altogether and jumping straight into the analysis, which I got away with sometimes, but some assessors like to see obvious instances of where they can give you credit.
Hi Lauren and anyone else who is willing to assist,
Do you recommend following the English Exam in chronological order (Text Response, Context, L. Analysis)?
I haven't really sorted out my preferences, so I am willing to listen to suggestions. At the moment, I am slightly favouring the chronological procedure.
Hell no. I do not understand why anyone would recommend L.A. last. English is not meant to be done in order.
Here's how reading time will go: You'll open to the T.R. prompts, flick through and find your text (they're alphabetical, and in the same position as the VATE/Insight practice papers, so it should be easy to find.) You'll read over both
carefully, chose one if there's an obviously more suitable one for, otherwise just let them churn over in your head and make a decision later. =Max 1 minute.
Then you'll go to the Context prompts, for which you won't have a choice. Read yours, think about how you'll make your ideas fit (expository) how you can adapt a situation (imaginative) or just focus on a clear, definitive contention (persuasive) = Max 1 minute, and that's assuming you spend quite a bit of time here; for most people in my exam hall it was about 20 seconds.
Then you'll turn to the Language Analysis. Read the heading, look at the visuals, read the first few lines and see if you can get a sense of where the contention is going. Then go back and read the background information in the little box on the previous page. Pay close attention to where the piece appeared/was spoken, and who the author & audience are. Then you'll spend the remaining 12-13 minutes reading and rereading the article. I'd recommend once for clarity and identifying arguments and tone, then once more closely looking for opportunities for connotative analysis and language-based discussion.
Frustratingly, you won't be able to write anything down, so the ideas that you're having in the first 10 minutes might not come back to you until a week later
Try to quickly retrace your thinking if you can, but otherwise just move along and see how much you can get done. Having spent the bulk of reading time on the L.A. pieces, it seems counter-intuitive to leave that for last (ie. after 2 hours) when your mind would be so ready for it first up. For the people who find L.A. easy, great, get it our of the way and maybe give yourself a few extra minutes for Sections A and B. For those who find it hard, it's not going to get any easier 2 hours later, so get it out of the way, then you'll know how much time you have to cut out of Sections A or B if you need it. I can't think of any reason for leaving L.A. till later, but if anyone has any, let me know, I'm curious
As to which comes next, I'd always planned to do the CAB order since T.R. is more of a formal essay and usually requires a proper structure for a high score, whilst Context can be shorter and summed up quicker, so if I ran out of time I figured I could re-jig Section B and just end on a high note, even if it meant compromising the content. However, for anyone who's looked at the 2013 exam, you'll know the Conflict prompt was a little bit... weird. It could be broken into something more manageable, but it freaked me out when I saw it, so I ended up tackling that one first because it was more of a chore. About two paragraphs in I realised how simple the core of the prompt was, and from then on it became a fairly easy write, so I spent a lot of that time on autopilot whilst brainstorming for my T.R. essay.
Moral of the story: be flexible. It's good to go into the exam with a plan, but be prepared to rework it when you're in there. The point of unseen content is to test how you'll think on your feet, so a response that has made the effort to engage with the prompt will always score better than someone who's stuck to a rigid format and pre-learned content.
The practice exams you complete / your school makes you do will be a good time to work out which order and approach suits you best.