ANALYSING A WRITER’S METHODS
How to analyse language, form and structure analysis - part 2
This is the second of our guides on how to analyse the language, form and structure methods that writers use. As with the previous guide, we will use the term ‘methods’ to refer to all the different methods that writers use, be they language, form or structure methods. This guide will explain where to include this kind of analysis in your paragraph structure, which methods are best to analyse, and how to avoid waffle. It also contains a list of useful methods, with a rough guide to the sort of effect each method might have.
This guide is part of the Analysing a writer’s methods series:
Contents of this guide
The third and final part of this guide will take you through the final thing needed to master this skill - avoiding waffle. It will also provide some general effects that different methods have.
Previously on how to analyse language, form and structure methods…
In the previous guide, we saw that there are two different ways you can think about a literary text like a novel or play:
[1] what happens in the text;
[2] the language that is used to express what happens.
This is an important distinction, and if you’ve not read that guide you should look at it now before you read this one.
From [1] you make inferences. From [2] you analyse methods. That’s the crucial difference, and we will return to it at several points in this guide.
Where to put methods analysis in a PEA paragraph
As with so much in English, there are no hard and fast rules for where to put the methods analysis. However, you need to bear in mind what the analysis bit of your paragraph is for: it is to explain why your evidence proves your point. (This idea is discussed in detail in the guide to writing analysis, so if you’re unsure about this, you should check that guide.)
As a result, your analysis of methods will play one of two roles, which will roughly determine its position. These are the two possibilities:
The main reason your evidence proves your point is based on what happens in the text; however, the effect of the method helps to make your argument clearer.
The main reason your evidence proves your point is because of the effect of the method.
You should be able to see that this too comes down to that [1] vs. [2] distinction we keep coming back to. Does your evidence prove your point because of [1] or because of [2]?
In the first case, the analysis of methods should come after you have explained the reasoning for your inference.
In the second case, the analysis of methods will be the initial focus for your analysis, and so it should come straight after the evidence.
You don’t need to stick to this rigidly – sometimes it feels right to put it somewhere else, like the middle of your reasoning, and that’s perfectly fine. But it’s a good rule of thumb.
Four examples of methods analysis
In the previous guide, we said that you need to: [A] introduce your method in context, and [B] explain what the effect on the meaning is, as well as why the method has that effect. To help you understand this, there are several examples included below. Read through them to get a sense of what the analysis of methods should sound like.
Key:
[A] Introducing the method in context
[B] Analysing what the effect is and why it has that effect (the ‘why’ part is underlined in each example)
Analysis of a short sentence
[A] The writer uses the short sentence “It was over” to describe Peter’s understanding of the breakup. [B] This makes it seem more definitive, more certain. It literally ends with a full-stop – it is the end of the story, no other words are required. It implies that there is no argument, at least as far as Peter is concerned. The relationship is over.
Analysis of an adverb/personification
[A] The writer uses the adverb “brutally” to describe the boat’s becoming submerged in the ocean. [B] This creates the impression that the ocean itself intended to submerge the ship, as if the ocean has been personified. It makes it seem like the ocean itself is being brutal, attacking the boat, wishing it harm, rather than just nature taking its course in a violent storm. It adds to the general impression of man versus nature that the writer is creating in this part of the text: the sea wants to harm the ship and its sailors.
Analysis of a list
[A] The writer uses a long list to describe all the things that are happening at the festival. [B] This suggests that the festival is incredibly busy and packed with things to do because the items in a list come rapidly for the reader, like they are all happening in quick succession, one after the other after the other, just like the things at the festival.
Analysis of a verb
[A] The writer uses the verb “flee” to describe the way the narrator’s little sister and her friend leave his failed birthday party. [B] It is as if they can’t wait to get away, as if they are escaping the party, rather than simply leaving it. This is an event so terrible, the verb implies, that it requires not exit but escape.
What methods to analyse and what methods to avoid
Deciding what methods to analyse is not always easy. You have to look for language choices that are interesting or surprising – language choices that feel deliberate. Once again, there are no hard and fast rules for this, but you’ll get better at it with practice. It’s all about that crucial thing of being sensitive to the nuance of language.
Let’s do a quick practice now. Consider this very short example, taken from Lauren Wolk’s Wolf Hollow. As you read it, see if any of the language choices stick out to you; see if any of them seem to add some subtle meaning.
I didn’t say anything as Betty leaned the stick against a tree and continued up the path away from me. “And don’t tell nobody about it or I’ll use a rock on the little one.” James. She meant James. The little one.
Did anything stick out for you? Did any of the language feel deliberate? Let’s see if you noticed what I noticed when I read this.
The language here is fairly conventional most of the way through, but then, at the end, we get three very short sentences, and two bits of repetition (“the little one” and “James”).
Did those final sentences stick out to you too? If I was analysing this passage, that’s the bit I would choose to analyse for methods because it feels deliberate, and it adds subtle meaning to the text.
The analysis might look like this, with the crucial ‘why’ part of the analysis underlined.
[A] Here, the writer uses the phrase “the little one” twice in quick succession: first in Betty’s speech and then in Annabelle’s narration. [B] This repetition creates the impression that Annabel is repeating Betty’s words in her own mind after they’ve been spoken, as if she is being haunted by them. It also helps to emphasise the significance of these words: we are forced to read them twice, just in case we haven’t fully absorbed what has just happened. Betty’s is going to hurt, maybe even kill, a small child – “the little one.” It makes her words seem even more chilling.
Recognising language like this is a crucial part of mastering this skill. You don’t need to worry too much if you’re not sure what method is being used – terminology is less important than explaining the effect of the language – but make sure you are analysing type [2] from above (the effect of the language) and not type [1] (what happens in the text).
Otherwise, you just dress up an inference as language analysis, which is one of the common mistakes that people make when trying to do this skill. Here’s an example of this mistake, based on the extract from part 1 of this guide:
Extract from Wolf Hollow by Lauren Wolk
I stopped when I was still ten feet away from her. “Hey, Betty,” I said.
“What kind of a name is Annabelle?” She had a deep voice, almost boyish. She looked at me steadily, her head down like a dog’s when he’s thinking about whether or not to bite. She was half smiling, her arms limp at her sides. She cocked her head to one side.
Poor methods analysis example - an inference dressed up as methods analysis
The writer uses the adverb “steadily” to describe the way Betty stares at Annabelle. This makes her seem unnervingly self-confident and even a bit threatening.
This might seem like analysis of language, but it isn’t really. It treats an inference – based on the fact Betty stares at Annabelle steadily – as if it’s analysis of language.
It’s not the adverb ‘steadily’ that creates this effect; it’s what’s actually happening in the text (the fact Betty is staring steadily at Annabelle). There’s nothing special about the word ‘steadily’ that is creating this meaning, which means it’s not really analysis of language. It’s just some analysis of the events in the story.
It’s not always easy to avoid this kind of mix-up, but if you can keep the central idea which was recapped at the start of this guide in your head – [1] vs [2] – it will help.
If you do analyse individual words in this way, though, you need to ensure you analyse the implied meaning of the word, or, better still, its connotations.
Often, analysis of individual words just becomes a statement about what the word means, like this example:
Poor analysis of a single word
The writer uses the adverb “tentatively” to describe the way Peter walks into the room. This suggests he is nervous about going inside.
This analysis just tells us what ‘tentatively’ means. It’s not some added meaning (implied or connotational) created by that word choice. It’s just a paraphrase of the definition of the word. This is why it’s best to avoid analysing adjectives and adverbs. If you want to analyse individual words - and you should definitely do this from time to time - then verbs and nouns are generally more interesting to zoom into, though from time to time there is something to say about other word classes too.
Fundamentally, though, some methods are easier to analyse than others. The lists below should give you a rough idea about what methods to look for and what methods to avoid.
Methods that are generally easier to analyse
Metaphors and similes
Personification
Symbolism
Repetition
Juxtaposition
Patterns of imagery
Short sentences / paragraphs
Connotations of words, especially nouns and verbs
Characters being used to represent ideas (closely linked to symbolism)
Methods that are generally harder to analyse
Any sound technique (alliteration, onomatopoeia, sibilance, etc) – these are very easy to spot, but it’s hard to say how they affect the meaning of the text since they’re all sound-based. It’s possible, especially with sibilance (see below), but it’s generally tricky.
Sentence structure / long sentences – these are hard to analyse in terms of how they change the meaning, and very often the analysis turns out to be nonsense.
Individual adjectives / adverbs – it is possible to analyse these by discussing their connotations, but usually the analysis becomes a statement about what the word means (see examples above), which you should try to avoid.
There is no quiz for this guide. The quiz at the end of part 3 will cover all 3 parts at the same time.