AQA English Language Pape 1 Question 3 is an 8 mark question,
analysing the writer’s use of structure. A02: Explain, comment on and analyse how
writers use language and structure to achieve effects and influence readers, using relevant
subject terminology to support their view. But just as question 2 focused only on the
language element of this assessment objective, question 3 focuses only on the structure element.
So what does it actually mean to analyse structure in an extract?
Put simply, structure is about how the text is organised: the order things take place
in. Structure analysis is less about what’s happening in a source, and more about where
it’s happening and why. There’s a subtle difference between the what and the where,
but it is absolutely essential that you get your head around it. One of the most common
mistakes I see is that students end up writing answers to question 3 that are pretty much the
same as the answers they are writing to question 2. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen for you.
Let’s look at a sample question, based on the extract you can
download linked in the description. 03 You now need to think about the whole of the
Source. This text is from the middle of a novel. How has the writer structured the text to
interest you as a reader? You could write about:
• what the writer focuses your attention on at the beginning of the source
• how and why the writer changes this focus as the source develops
• any other structural features that interest you. [8 marks]
Now I just want to pause here and make a really important point on this often
overlooked start to the question: ‘You now need to think about the
whole of the Source.’ That word in bold: ‘whole’ is what I want to talk about.
The November 2022 exam report explained that some students only wrote about one part of the extract,
and this limited the mark they could achieve because you have to write about
the shifts across the text and how ideas or characters are developed by the end.
And this is a point that’s been made as far back as June 2018, where the exam report said
that the question instructs students to think about the whole of the source, and this is
essential in order to explore the development of character or events and achieve level 3 or above.’
So let’s imagine in your exam the extract starts with an amazing narrative hook in the opening
sentence. And you just write about that, nothing else. Well then you’re in trouble, because you’ve
failed to address the whole of the source. And it’s actually a pretty easy mistake to make,
because once again this is an eight mark question, which you should only spend around ten minutes on,
but you must write about the use of structure across the whole of the source.
Let’s have a quick overview of some of the most common structural features:
Flashbacks and flashforwards - where we go back in time or forward in time
from the current moment in the story Shifts in focus and perspective - where
the focus changes perhaps from outside to it, or from setting to character, from action to dialogue
Zooming in and out - where the description moves like with a camera zooming in close
to one detail and then zooming out to a broader, bigger description
Repetitions - where something appears throughout the text,
for example continual references to weather Cyclical structure - where a story
begins or ends in the same place Foreshadowing - an advance hint of
something that is to come later And on it goes.
However, it’s important to point out that the source may have none of these - structure is
all about the shifting, moving, changing focus of an extract. You might only be able to write
about more subtle points such as alternating between action and dialogue, building up of
tension, or the move from outside to in. Whatever you find, it’s not enough to just
spot these structural features and even to add some generic comment on effect such as
‘it draws you in’ or ‘it makes you want to read on’. No, once again, just like in question 2,
analysis of effects should be precise, and contextualized to a specific point in the text.
So question 3 is the ONLY question in the paper where we know what it will say before
we even get into the exam. Every year it’s worded exactly the same, like this. The only change is
this tiny bit which tells you where the extract comes from. But the question will always say:
You now need to think about the whole of the Source.
How has the writer structured the text to interest you as a reader?
You could write about: • what the writer focuses
your attention on at the beginning of the source
• how and why the writer changes this focus as the source develops
• any other structural features that interest you. [8 marks]
So with that in mind, it’s not a bad idea to actually consider the structure of the extract
when you read it for the first time at the start of the exam. Yes you’ll be reading to see what the
extract is about, but if you think you can do it, why not also consider the structure of the text
as you read it. That way, when you get to question 3 you’ll already have some ideas on what to write
about. As an 8 mark question, there isn’t going to be enough time to re-read the extract looking
at structure. You’ll ideally need to have some ideas already, which you can then look back at
the extract to develop.
And here’s the answer:
At the beginning of the extract, the writer focuses our attention on the narrator;
the first-person perspective at the start allows us to have the same ‘realisation’
that the narrator may ‘become very quickly lost’ and so from the beginning of the extract we are
immediately drawn into this mysterious and perilous scenario along with the narrator.
The focus shifts to the walk back to the house. From this point on,
the extract is structured in a way that does not allow the reader to forget about
the imminent threat of the surrounding marsh hidden in the mist. Throughout the extract,
the writer refers to the ‘mist’ repeatedly – the narrator considers whether to wait until the
‘mist cleared’, then we are told of the ‘shifting… swirling mist’, and how the ‘mist played tricks’.
This repetition of ‘mist’ continues throughout the text, and even at the end we hear that the
‘mist was still so thick…’. This repetition of the image throughout the text means that just
like the narrator, the reader cannot escape from it, and feels the fear and claustrophobia too.
In the centre of the extract, there is also an intense atmosphere of fear
created by repeated language and ideas of fear and confusion. The paragraph starts
with the line that the ‘mist played tricks with sound as well as sight’,
and the paragraph itself is structured in a way to bring about confusion for the reader too,
so that we feel the same ‘tricks’ being played on us. For example, the narrator describes how he
‘tried to work out the direction of the wind but there was none,’ which sounds almost paradoxical,
as he tries to measure something that doesn’t exist. The paragraph is littered with words
such as ‘baffled’, ‘chilled’ and horrified’ and descriptions of how the mist ‘clouded’
him and ‘everything’ from his sight. Just as he cannot escape the confusion,
shown through the entire text being structured around these ideas, the reader is also trapped.
The extract ends with further terrifying ideas including how the narrator was
‘shuddering at the dreadful thoughts’ and how he ‘fumbled’ his way ‘blindly’
to the house. Although the reader might feel a sense of relief that he has reached safety,
we are left with the unsettling knowledge that ‘all was still and silent’, and that the ‘pony
and trap might never have existed.’ Despite the safety of the narrator, the reader is left
with a half-formed sense that the unnamed adult and child may be lost to the quicksand forever.