Text analysis
Look at the following article
a. What type of article is it? Explain your answer
Look at the headline if there is one. Does it summarize a story (who what when where?) Is there
an intro or lead which provides this kind of information? If so it is probably a report
Is there a byline? Can you identify the author? If not, it may be an editorial.
Are there a lot of evaluations in the first paragraph? (it may be a comment article) Does the first
paragraph tell a story (who, what, where , when, it may be a report)
b. Identify and label the linguistic features which are typical of this kind of article
If it is a comment article you should find evaluations, deontic modality, rhetorical questions, use
of first person plural pronouns and adjectives, emotive language, metaphors.
If it is a report you should find past tense narrative with details of actors, actions, attributions,
reactions, background. Most of the information should be at the beginnning
c Who or what is evaluated in the article? Favourably or unfavourably? Give examples to
support your answer
Select evaluative lexical items. Identify them as positive or negative, identify who or what is the
target of the evaluation. Indicate if the evaluation is intensified in any way (focus, force)
d. give examples of figurative language used.
Identify the target(who or what is described by the metaphor), the source (the semantic field
from which the metaphor comes) and the grounds of comparison (the qualities of the source
which form the basis for the comparison). Is it an example of metaphor, simile or metonymy? Is
the evaluation favourable or unfavourable?
e) Summarising comments
These comments should be a summary of the accumulated effects of the features you have
identified. You should be able to identify the main topic and the specific aspects of the topic
through an examination of the main semantic fields. Other features (evaluation, modality,
metaphor) should be gathered into sets and a comment on the set and possible effects ont he
reader made in the summary rather than one by one chronological listing.
sample article
It can be a hard task to strike the right balance between freedom and security, but it is the duty of
our politicians to try. When Britain is opposed by forces that threaten to kill and enslave, the
Government has to ensure that the appropriate laws and tools are there to protect its citizens.
One great challenge of the moment is how to deal with jihadists returning to the UK from conflicts
in the Middle East. It makes perfect sense that the British state should take an interest in the
movements of anyone who has potentially signed up to a patently evil cause. The Islamists in
Iraq and Syria are murderers, dedicated to establishing a Caliphate that is – by its very nature –
at war with the West. Indeed, Britain is currently fighting them in Iraq.
David Cameron has announced new measures to tackle the returnee problem – and, happily,
they appear to be both proportionate and practical. These proposals do not amount to making
people stateless, a prospect that divided opinion and would be hard to effect, and appear to have
broad political support. In which case, it is healthy to see such bipartisan agreement around a
security issue.
Inaction could be a terminal error. The publication of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security
Committee’s report into the death of Drummer Lee Rigby – a soldier murdered by Islamists on
the streets on London – is due soon. It is expected to say that the online activities of one of the
jihadists were not flagged up to the security forces by overseas internet companies. This does
not necessarily mean that his death was preventable, but it could suggest that there is a need for
a conversation about how information is identified and collated.
Certainly, everyone has to be hard-headed about the terrorist threat that we face. The sound
goal of the returnee legislation is to stop terror suspects in their tracks before they even reach
Britain’s shores. For it is better to act sooner than later, when a potential threat could turn into a
murderously immediate one.
Sample answer
It can be a hard task to strike the right balance between freedom and security, but it is the duty of
our politicians to try. When Britain is opposed by forces that threaten to kill and enslave, the
Government has to ensure that the appropriate laws and tools are there to protect its citizens.
One great challenge of the moment is how to deal with jihadists returning to the UK from conflicts
in the Middle East. It makes perfect sense that the British state should take an interest in the
movements of anyone who has potentially signed up to a patently evil cause. The Islamists in
Iraq and Syria are murderers, dedicated to establishing a Caliphate that is – by its very nature –
at war with the West. Indeed, Britain is currently fighting them in Iraq.
David Cameron has announced new measures to tackle the returnee problem – and, happily,
they appear to be both proportionate and practical. These proposals do not amount to making
people stateless, a prospect that divided opinion and would be hard to effect, and appear to have
broad political support. In which case, it is healthy to see such bipartisan agreement around a
security issue.
Inaction could be a terminal error. The publication of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security
Committee’s report into the death of Drummer Lee Rigby – a soldier murdered by Islamists on
the streets on London – is due soon. It is expected to say that the online activities of one of the
jihadists were not flagged up to the security forces by overseas internet companies. This does
not necessarily mean that his death was preventable, but it could suggest that there is a need for
a conversation about how information is identified and collated.
Certainly, everyone has to be hard-headed about the terrorist threat that we face. The sound
goal of the returnee legislation is to stop terror suspects in their tracks before they even reach
Britain’s shores. For it is better to act sooner than later, when a potential threat could turn into a
murderously immediate one.
Negative evaluation
Positive evaluation
Deontic modality
Epistemic modality
metaphor
a. This is a comment article. There is no byline so it appears to be an editorial. There are many
subjective opinons, evaluations and modality and no narrative structure. The aim is to persuade
rather than to recount events.
b. IN this kind of article we expect to find emotive language, evaluations, modality, metaphor,
rhetorical questions and the use of forms related to forming a consensus. We find all except for
rhetorical questions
c.
i)There are a number of negative evaluations relating to Islamic terrorists who return to
Britain after fighting as jihadists abroad (threaten to kill and enslave, patently evil cause,
murderers, returnee problem, terrorist threat, terror suspects, potential threat, murderously
immediate) but the idea of inaction is also negatively evaluated (terminal error).
ii) The fact that a solution is not easy is highlighted by negative evaluations (hard task, great
challenge, problem, hard to effect, terminal error)
iii) but action is seen as positive (appropriate laws, proportionate and practical, happily,
healthy, perfect sense)
Summarising comments:
The main topic is that of legislation to deal with Islamic terrorism and in particular returnee
jihadists. The key semantic field of legislation and security is found throughout the article
(politicians, Government, the British state, new measures, proposals, Parliamentary Intelligence
and Security Committee, security forces) but the fact that it is not an easy task and the
problematic nature is signalled at the beginning with a metaphor from physics about balance
(applied to the abstract concepts of security and freedom).
There are a number of references to Britain and use of the pronominal forms (our, we) to
suggest a desire for national consensus by an insistence on political consensus (broad
political support, bipartisan agreement) and general agreement and a desire not to limit
freedom
There are some metaphors from the source of sport (tackle, flagged up, goal) where the
grounds of comparison are related to a referee (in charge of applying the rules) and
linesmen to monitor the situation and applied to the target of government and laws; there
is one metaphor about attitude (hardheaded) applying a description of a physical attribute
to a mental resilience, a warning that soft solutions are not an answer.
The negative evaluations about jihadis are reinforced by a strong epistemic modality
indicating an authoritative view and intensification (The Islamists in Iraq and Syria are
murderers, a patently evil cause, The sound goal of the returnee legislation is to stop terror
suspects in their tracks) The difficulties in the solutions and uncertainties connected with the
situation, the problematic nature of the dilemma and the idea of potential threat are
expressed by a somewhat hesitant epistemic modality (could be, could suggest, not
necessarily, appear to be, could turn) but that something must be done is signalled by strong
deontic modality concerned with need, duty and desirability (the duty, has to ensure, should,
there is a need for, it is better, has to be).