Analyzing a Written Text
the novel.
Purpose/Context
What, specifically, is the text about? In other words, what content
does it attempt to cover and/or explain? What "type" of text is it?
That is, under what discipline or field would you categorize it? What
overall purpose does the text serve? For example, is it meant to
answer a question, pose a problem, add to research on a given topic,
introduce a new idea, summarize someone else's ideas, or some other
purpose? How can you tell?
Authors
Who are the authors of the text? Is any biographical information
given about them? What qualifies them to write on this subject? Are
the authors "present" in the text through the use of personal
pronouns ("I" or "we") or self-reference, or are they never referred
to?
Audience
Where does this text appear? What, from the journal or magazine or
from the article itself, can you tell about its anticipated readers? For
example, are they well versed in the topic, novices...? What specific
details lead you to these conclusions about the audience? What
would the reader have to be interested in to read this text? What do
the authors seem to expect their readers to do or think based on the
argument/information presented in this text? Do you feel you are
part of the intended audience of this text? Why or why not?
Topic and Position
Is the authors' opinion clear or is the information presented as
"objective"? Do the authors include and/or critique other viewpoints?
Are other viewpoints presented as critique of the authors' viewpoint,
so that the authors can refute them, or simply presented? How do the
authors position this piece? In other words, does the piece refer to
current events, personal experience, and/or a review of research or
discussions on the topic to show how this piece "fits into the
conversation" about this topic?
Research/Sources
How great a role do previous research and sources play? When
references are used, which ones receive the most discussion? Which
ones the least? Why might some references warrant more discussion
than others? Are authors or studies ever referred to without formal
introductions or explanations? Where? Why do you think the authors
refrain from explaining or introducing these sources?
Proof/Evidence
What type of proof, if any, is used to defend conclusions or main
ideas in the text (e.g., references to other work, interpretations of
other work, original research, personal experience, author's opinions,
critical analysis, etc.)? Try to name every type of proof that is offered.
Is one type of proof used more often than another or to the exclusion
of all others? If so, which one? Why might this type of proof be used
more? What type of analysis is the proof subject to, if any? In other
words, do the authors simply present something as a fact? Do they
argue for a conclusion's validity? Do they analyze a piece of
information in a certain way? Do they ever qualify their argument?
What kind of proof seems to carry the most weight? What proof is the
most authoritative in terms of the audience accepting it without
question? The least?
Organization
Is the text broken up by sub-headings? If so, what are they? If not,
construct a "backwards outline" in which you list the different parts of
the text and what purpose they serve. For example:
First two paragraphs: The authors critique other people's readings of
Paragraph 3: They explains that their own reading is more accurate
because it accounts for the details others leave out.
Why might information be presented in this order? Does it begin with
background information or context, definition of terms, etc.? What
needs of the reader are the authors attempting to meet by presenting
the information in this order? Where (if anywhere) is the authors'
position on the topic made clear? at the beginning? the end? only by
implication? What can you conclude about why the text is organized
as it is? Is the organization driven more by the content (the
information that needs to be presented), by the authors' argument,
by the needs of the audience, or by some combination of the three?
For example, an author may use chronological organization because
the order of events is important or so the reader can follow the steps
of a process when trying to use the process.
Style
Look at the pronouns in the text. If the authors refers to themselves
as "we," why would they choose to do that? Do the authors ever refer
to other readers or include them by using "we"? Why would they
choose (or not choose) to do this? Look at a "chunk" of approximately
ten sentences. What percentage (roughly) of your "chunk" could be
considered technical terminology or jargon? (Technical terminology or
jargon are words or uses of words that are understood in a particular
way by a certain community. For instance, the word "crash" has a
particular meaning for emergency room personnel that is different
from common usage.) If technical terminology is at least fairly
common in the text, make a list that includes up to 10 examples of
technical terms or jargon. Are these technical terms ever explained?
Which ones receive an explanation and which do not? Why would the
authors choose to explain the ones they did? What percentage
(roughly) of your "chunk" could be considered informal or
conversational language? What purpose does this informal tone seem
to serve in the text? In considering the authors' word choice (diction),
are there any phrases or words that are particularly telling of the
authors' values or underlying assumptions? (For example, if the
authors use the term "relationship" without qualifying it as
"monogamous" or "heterosexual," then that shows they assume
relationships are monogamous and heterosexual rather than
including the possibility of other types of relationships.) List and
explain them. Finally, look at other aspects of style such as sentence
structure/complexity, figurative language, rhetorical questions, etc.
Drawing Conclusions
Review your answers to the above questions. Use the results of your
analysis to answer the following questions. As always, use plenty of
specific details to support your answers.
Review not only the content revealed by your analysis but also
the way the piece was written. What seem to be the key values and
assumptions that the authors share with their readers? Are there
areas of conflicts in values and assumptions among the participants in
this conversation (including the authors and readers)? Explain.
How does this text compare and contrast to others on the same or
similar subjects? Identify the text(s) you are comparing/contrasting.
Refer specifically the areas above in explaining the key similarities and
differences in purpose, topic, audience, etc.
If you were trying to write for this publication, what are the most
important or notable conventions that you would have to follow? In
other words, what strategies would you use in order to prove yourself
to be a successful writer in this field?