HELP! How do language features shape a text? (1 Viewer)

[Line|z0r]

Our english teacher has been pushing language features, as they are apparently what we have to write about in almost every essay.

How has the author used language features in their text?

Ok, so the language features for a poem are: FAT STIF PRRR

Figurative language
Alliteration
Tone

Structure
Theme
Imagery
Form

Punctuation
Rhythm
Rhyme
Repetition

I know how to identify these techniques (duh), but how do you explain how each is used by the author to shape a text etc ?

Some examples would be really nice

 

[ur_inner_child]

Think about what affect these techniques have, ie: repetition shapes for example, perhaps the tension of the piece etc. Same goes with all of them. The structure - is the story non-linear? Then perhaps it's shaping the text to be more suspensful, more mysterious, or perhaps to emphasize a questioning of the notion of authorship....

I was actually thinking of bias too to shape the text. That way, the enforce a particular way of thinking, or enforce a dominant discourse, whatever.

Like say if the title of an Article had "Australians and the Aborigines." It already shapes the text.

 

[silvermoon]

alliteration and assonance can help shape tone: for example, use of soft 's' and 'p' sounds generates a sense of sincerity. rhythm and rhyme can help reinforce the message of the piece: eg. might mimic walking or cutting etc. (these can also then be used to explain a concept about journeys etc.) A lack of punctuation and enjambment can create a sense of hurrying - the lack of punctuation can also indicate possibilities etc. Shouldn't you have learned this before now dude?

 

[gordo]

shaping the text is basically manipulating discourse to relay an intended agenda or draw on specific notions in the responder's mind.

heres one example of shaping text

look at this word and see what you feel























HAPPY












now look at this word and see what you feel
































































SAD

 

[Line|z0r]

Um, ok...sort of get it...

What are the main things you guys are going to bring up in your essays (regardless of modules or specific module..)

I'm going to discuss:
-language features
-themes
-text and context
-answer the question

 

[gordo]

if u want to aim for band 6, i would also reccomend bringing up theorists

 

[silvermoon]

that pretty much covers it - though remember that there are many techniques that need to be discussed that don't necessarily fall under the heading of 'language features'.

 

[ur_inner_child]

shaping the text is basically manipulating discourse to relay an intended agenda or draw on specific notions in the responder's mind.

And you also said bringing up theorists for band six... umm... I'm assuming you do ENglish Extension 1 and you're loving the fact that it helps Advanced... I love it too..

I'm not doing theorists, except for the Critical Study bit - Turcotte, Gamlin and Jannetta... actually theyre more critics rather than theorists.

What, there are theorists for journeys or something?

 

[Line|z0r]

that pretty much covers it - though remember that there are many techniques that need to be discussed that don't necessarily fall under the heading of 'language features'.

well, go on...what are they ?

 

[gordo]

well i am using the post modernist angle for journeys, becuase really, look at our current context, only post- / modernism leads u to analyse texts the way we do now.

I am basically just drawing on Derrida's deconstruction of linguistics (who died a couple days ago)
also focault
u don;t need too much theory for adv, cause its not what they are looking for. Rather use 1 or 2 main theories and show how they apply in your texts

 

[ur_inner_child]

I think I already and naturally refer to particular theories but never name them. Forget that. I'm not going to put names to theories. In the postmodernism elective for english extension, you don't necessarily need to either.

Cool idea though.

 

[ur_inner_child]

well, go on...what are they ?

Honey, you should be able to see these techniques rather than have them in your head and searching for them later. Look at your texts and what do you feel; find out why.

My head would explode if I made a checklist. If that makes sense...

 

[Sophie777]

if u want to aim for band 6, i would also reccomend bringing up theorists

Theorists??? In english advanced???

I don't think so.

 

[gordo]

I think I already and naturally refer to particular theories but never name them. Forget that. I'm not going to put names to theories. In the postmodernism elective for english extension, you don't necessarily need to either.

Cool idea though.

i do the spec fiction elective for english extn and we were taught to bring up heaps of theorists

and our teacher is the head of the english teachers association, so i dunno, i'm gonna go with wat he says


and in terms of eng adv, it just shows u have a better understanding of the elective if u are using theorists rather than regurgitating, for example, 'what your teacher taught you an imaginative journey was'

 

[ur_inner_child]

i do the spec fiction elective for english extn and we were taught to bring up heaps of theorists

and our teacher is the head of the english teachers association, so i dunno, i'm gonna go with wat he says


and in terms of eng adv, it just shows u have a better understanding of the elective if u are using theorists rather than regurgitating, for example, 'what your teacher taught you an imaginative journey was'

Bit too extreme there. Should I regurgitate what theorists taught me then? It all comes down to links, evidence and a sustained arguement. You know that. Many exemplars don't mention theorists, and if so, a brief brush over it. This is extension I'm talking about.

In advanced, the exemplars I've read never mention any theorists. But go ahead. You'll probably end up getting a better mark. It's like sugar on top.

 

[gordo]

oh i dunno then, i have never read a top band repsonse exemplar thing
if u are going to regurgitate a theory as if you wouldn't mention the theorist though? its like quoting someone and not saying who quoted it. don't regurgitate what they taught u, rahter show how the theories apply within your texts

 

[ur_inner_child]

oh i dunno then, i have never read a top band repsonse exemplar thing
if u are going to regurgitate a theory as if you wouldn't mention the theorist though? its like quoting someone and not saying who quoted it. don't regurgitate what they taught u, rahter show how the theories apply within your texts

unfortunately... that's what the hsc seems to be all about. To be parrots. And being a parrot as I am, my english teachers have told me that.

don't regurgitate what they taught u, rahter show how the theories apply within your texts

It goes without saying that I should show how theories apply with my texts. I wouldn't put it in without linking it. A bit ridiculous and was slightly condescending... But then again, who can tell over the internet...

If I said "this text is writerly" I don't HAVE to say Barthes. I wouldn't exactly get marked down for it...

 

[silvermoon]

you aren't required to use critical theorists in english advanced as you are in ext 1 - however, it does make a better impression, shows you've done extra research and, with a small percentage of the mark being based on impression, could make the difference between a 19 and a 20.

 

[silvermoon]

oh i dunno then, i have never read a top band repsonse exemplar thing
if u are going to regurgitate a theory as if you wouldn't mention the theorist though? its like quoting someone and not saying who quoted it. don't regurgitate what they taught u, rahter show how the theories apply within your texts

no, you wouldn't necessarily say the theorists name. if it is a controversial or veyr new and different theory, than yes, you would name the critic. however, the accepted critical analyse of text don't have to have a specific critic attached - they are accepted as being part of a 'pool' of critical theory that is all very alike.

 

[Sophie777]

It seems that if you don't put a name to a theory, then you are almost presenting them as if they are your own.