Doing Textual Analysis: Representing People
This page will help you develop your skills in doing this thing that we call textual analysis. The page focuses on the ways that language is often used in texts to represent people. We suggest that meanings are not hidden in texts, as some IB students occasionally suppose, but that careful and critical textual analysis requires attending to particular forms of language use in which attitudes and values are implicitly rather than explicitly expressed. This page, then, asks you to attend closely to language, and guides you towards understanding particular forms of language. The contents and activities on the page will help you prepare for a number of assessment tasks, not least Paper 1.
Teacher only boxThis is a page that your students can return to, and it is likely to help their revision as they approach (in particular) Paper 1. In constructing the page, we have borrowed from the language of linguistics. Specifically, we have borrowed from the sub-discipline that is broadly referred to as discourse analysis. Some of the terminology, then, may seem a little daunting, and there is no particular value in learning and remembering nomenclature for the sake of it. However, the page highlights the various ways that language represents and constructs people, who are, let's face it, frequently the main point of interest in both literary and non-literary text types. Of course people can be represented in many ways, including visually. Here, we focus mainly on written representation (although see task 3). Students, as they read texts, very frequently search for something they regard as ‘the hidden meaning’, wishing they could develop the seemingly alchemic capacity to decode texts. This, broadly speaking, is unhelpful, and it can distress those students who struggle to separate language analysis from sorcery. Nevertheless, there is a small kernel of truth that informs the ‘hidden meaning approach’ to textual analysis. That is, language doesn't always explicitly express and overtly reveal the world to us. At times, obviously, intended meaning is implicit. And, of course, it is sometimes in the omission of an utterance that meaning is made. What students need to do, really, is to become sensitive to the typical language moves (of English). In doing so, they will become better prepared for their IB Language and Literature exams. In addition - it almost goes without saying - students will hopefully become more attuned to ways, sometimes subtle, in which language, identity, status, and power intersect. In this sense, we are teaching to promote active citizenship.
As a teacher, please feel free to organise your lesson in accordance with your own preferences. We have provided the preamble, the texts, and the tasks. You may like to consider where a lesson like this will support other aspects of the particular course, works, and texts that you have put together.
For Students:
Textual analysis is an essential skill you need to develop to become successful in your English A: Language and Literature course. But, when it comes to doing this thing called textual analysis, what exactly does it involve? That is, what do you do? What does it mean to analyse a text? You could just read more closely, and textual analysis does involve close, careful reading. However, to suggest that textual analysis is just close reading is misleading. It is misleading because reading closely without knowing what you could or should pay attention to brings you no closer to understanding what textual analysis is and how you do it.
Textual analysis is about language and meaning. In written texts, words and sentences are selected by writers to mean something. This kind of language can be viewed as a resource through which writers seek to achieve their communicative aims. There is, in writing, no one way of expressing an idea; ideas can be expressed in a virtually unlimited number of ways. Thus, doing textual analysis involves thinking about the choices writers (and other kinds of creators) make, their possible motivations, and the possible impact of this on readers (and listeners and viewers), as well as the ways we think about the world and lead our lives.
Of course, texts exist in many different forms. The ways in which texts mean is different and various. Graphs, diagrams, photographs, and (genres of) writing are all different kinds of text. As such, they have different affordances, and this shapes what they can and cannot do or ‘say’. Doing textual analysis involves, in part, developing an awareness of the broader affordances of different text types and, in turn, applying those broader understandings to particular texts to assess the ways in which their creators combine elements to represent something in a particular way. For example, as a way of representing an event in the world, it is possible to write that ‘youths attack local buildings’. Equally, it is possible to write ‘youths attack local family homes’. Clearly, buildings and local family homes have different connotations (i.e., they have different associations for readers). And, a photographic representation of young people attacking buildings, given the affordances available in photography, would be different again. Textual analysis does not involve looking for ‘hidden’ meanings. After all, a text does not conceal. Nevertheless, in the example above, the different connotations of buildings and local family homes are implicit rather than explicit. Thus, in doing textual analysis, it is important to consider the choices made by writers (and other creators) within a broader system of choice, as well as what has been omitted from a text. From there, it is necessary to say something about meaning – how is a text representing the world, and for what reason and effect?
In doing textual analysis, it is important that it is done with a consideration for context. That is, texts do not just represent the world, they constitute it. That is, they influence how we think about and behave in the world. You might, then, think of texts as having ideological purposes (and this ‘ideology’ need not be anything sinister!). In addition, it is not normally helpful to consider texts in isolation. Rather, it is beneficial to consider a text with a concern for intertextuality; that is, the ways in which texts relate to other texts. For example, if over a period of time, you read many newspaper stories that are critical of immigrants, or particular immigrant groups, where immigrants are represented in particular ways as problematic, it is useful to situate the reading of such a text in the context of wider textual discourses and real-world social attitudes and practices. As a newspaper reader, we can, of course, reject the racism of some contemporary media, but it would be foolish to imagine that such discourses have no influence on broader social attitudes.
Doing textual analysis is not easy. It is certainly not something that can be done formulaically, and you should be suspicious of anyone who suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, textual analysis can be done more or less systematically through close attention to particular detail – and the detail you are likely to pay attention to will vary in accordance with the affordances of the text type you are considering. Textual analysis involves developing an awareness and sensitivity, over time, to the ways that language typically represents the world to construct meaning. In other words, textual analysis can be said to have its own toolkit. The toolkit can be viewed as a repertoire for understanding how language constructs meaning. Doing textual analysis, like good craftsmanship in general, involves bringing out the right tools at the right time for the right text. You cannot become expert in fine woodworking overnight. It requires dedicated practice over time. Becoming expert in textual analysis takes practice too, learning which tools to bring to which text types.
Let’s, then, look at a range of tools used in textual analysis for representing people.
For Students:
A key understanding, introduced above, is that language is a resource that is used for representation. You can think about language and meaning in a way that is similar to how you think about maps. A map is a representation of something else. It is a symbolic (and sometimes iconic) representation of a territory. Maps use signs to indicate areas of interest or salience. They are, to be useful, symbolic, simplified versions of reality. What is included and excluded from a map will depend on what a map is to be used for, reflecting their intended purpose and the interests of the map’s creator(s). Language is similar. That is, by way of example, if you want to represent a person or group of people, there is no neutral, objective way of doing this. Every language choice will draw attention to some aspects of identity and underplay or ignore others. Consider the following two sentences:
- Asylum seeker arrested for shoplifting.
- Mother of four children arrested for shoplifting.
You’ll notice that the representational choice – the way the participant is ‘constructed’ – is different. Probably you will agree that shoplifting is wrong, or at least wrong in most instances. The ‘asylum seeker’ is part of a group of people who, very frequently, are demonised in some news media as a group of outsiders who are ‘not like us’ and characterised as problematic. This is not to say that we straightforwardly condone the shoplifting of the ‘mother of four children’, but it is possible that readers will assume that the mother’s shoplifting was somehow motivated by a desire to feed her children. If so, we may incline to being more understanding of her actions. Of course, ‘mother of four children’ is itself a choice. It would be possible to label the participant, for example, as ‘Canadian woman’, ‘engineer’, ’60-year-old local woman’, and so on. However, doing so, alters the connotations associated with the women’s identity and is likely to alter the reader’s perception of her action.
For Students:
Let’s consider further the various referential strategies that are often used to classify people. You can view these referential strategies as part of your textual analysis toolkit. Some of the terminology may be unfamiliar. Don’t be put off; the ideas are not particularly complex, and once you become familiar with them, you will be able to analyse many different kinds of text with a clear understanding of the ways language is used to construct social identities.
Personalisation and Impersonalisation
Read the two sentences, below:
- IB coordinator David McIntyre requires students to notify him of any planned absences.
- The school requires students to notify it of any planned absences.
In the first instance (personalisation), it is very obvious who is ‘requiring’. In the second instance (impersonalisation), it is not clear who is ‘requiring’. After all, ‘the school’ is an institution. But what comprises the institution? Aren’t the students also part of ‘the school’? Thus, impersonalisation, where it occurs, hides or obfuscates who is responsible for an action, and potentially does not mention any motivation for the action. Anyone who wishes clarification can, following from sentence 1, ask David McIntyre. Following from sentence 2, it is not obvious where clarification can be sought.
Individualisation and Collectivisation
Texts will also identify participants as individuals or as part of a group. Read the sentences below:
- IB Diploma graduate, Sally Smith, was injured in a car accident.
- Bank robbers were injured in a car accident.
In the first instance (individualisation) the person is named and, in effect, humanised. As a reader, we are likely to feel a certain sympathy for the injured individual. In the second instance (collectivisation), we do not know who the injured are, nor do we know how many have been injured. Language labels them as part of a generic group and, typically, ‘bank robbers’ does not carry particularly positive connotations. It is not unreasonable to suppose that reader’s will assume the bank robbers were driving their getaway car when they had their accident and, in consequence, got what they deserved!
Specification and Genericisation
These categories share similarities with the previous categories (individualisation and collectivisation). Read the following sentences.
- A man, Humza Yousaf, a school teacher and father of two young children, was arrested for disorderly behaviour.
- A Muslim man was arrested for disorderly behaviour.
Possibly, the sentences could refer to the same man and the same act of disorderly behaviour. Without more context, we cannot know. However, in the first instance (specification) we know the identity of the man. We may not approve of disorderly behaviour, but the (likely) positive connotations of teacher and father may lead readers to assume that an incident has taken place, but that there is some nuance to understanding the event. In the second instance (genericisation), we know only that the man is ‘Muslim’. We have no further detail and no way of knowing if one aspect of the man’s identity – his religion – in any way explains his behaviour. His identity is collapsed into a category. Arguably, in isolation, the utterance (sentence 2) is problematic. As part of a wider racialised discourse it is harmful and destructive. If groups of people (here, Muslims) are vilified – even implicitly – through monolithic labelling, this contributes to discourses and behaviours of bias and discrimination. The genericisation suppresses diversity and intergroup differences. No doubt you can think of cases in your own society or around the world where (often marginalised or disadvantaged) groups are frequently genericised in various media.
Nominalisation and Functionalisation
Nominalisation occurs when a person is represented as who they are. Functionalisation occurs when a person is represented in terms of what they do. Read the following sentences.
- Tim said that it was very difficult to attain forty-five points in the IB Diploma programme. (nominalisation)
- The IB coordinator said that it was very difficult to attain forty-five points in the IB Diploma programme. (functionalisation)
Nominalisation and functionalisation can have different effects, depending on context. In the example sentences, above, nominalisation seems more personal, whereas nominalisation seems more impersonal. The ideological effect of functionalisation can, however, vary. In the second example, above (the IB Coordinator said…), the formality of the sentence connotes legitimacy. However, functionalisation can have the opposite effect; that is, the effect of delegitimising people. Consider this sentence:
- The demonstrator was hurt during the animal rights protest.
You will notice that demonstrator carries a slightly negative connotation. It would be possible to substitute the role of the individual (‘demonstrator’) for something more positive, such as ‘Agnes Owens, an elderly grandmother’.
Using Honorifics
Honorifics are the ways in which people are designated titles, often associated with specific, official roles. Examples include IB coordinator, headteacher, prime minister, and lord advocate. Honorifics generally confer authority, legitimacy, and power, as in the following example:
- The headteacher, Paul Lloyd, instructed the students to be quiet.
Like other aspects of representation, writers and speakers have a choice as to whether they include honorifics or remove them. Compare the first sentence, above, to this sentence:
- Paul Lloyd instructed the students to be quiet.
It can be interesting, as you watch, listen to, or read the news to think about the ways in which honorifics are either used or withheld. What contexts explain this? What is the ideological impact of this?
Objectivation
Objectivation occurs when someone is represented by highlighting a feature of their identity. For example, a woman could be referred to as a ‘beauty’, a ‘stunner’, or a ‘peach’. While each of these epithets are slightly different and, you may think, more or less derogatory, they concentrate on the quality of being physically attractive. The emphasis on things like appearance, sexuality, and gender, downplays other ignored or understated aspects of identity. It is not improbable to imagine that the ‘stunner’ is also the ‘IB coordinator’. Objectivation, then, tends to have the effect of diminishing people, ignoring any authority they might have and other aspects of a more nuanced, pluralistic identity.
Anonymisation
It should be quite obvious that this representational strategy anonymises participants. Read the following example:
- Some people believe that increased immigration is not in the national interest.
We do not know who these many people are, how many people are involved, or if their view is in any way representative of the population as a whole. Nor, for that matter, do we know what ‘the national interest’ is, how it can be established and by whom (the notion of ‘the national interest’ is often invoked in political discourses as if it were apparent to all),
You will notice that ‘some people’ conceals detail, but it arguably affords greater legitimacy to a claim than would be the case if ‘some people’ was made clear and obvious.
Aggregation
This is another representational strategy that is not difficult to understand, and again it is one that is frequently used to conceal and obfuscate. Read the following example:
- Many students are cheating by using AI to help complete assessment tasks.
This claim may or may not be true. However, we cannot fully assess the veracity of the claim because we do not know what ‘many students’ actually means. There is an implied quantification, suggesting a large number, but we do not know what the large number is. Claims such as the one above can (and are) used as part of wider discourses that can have far-reaching social and political consequences. Read the following example:
- Many migrants are arriving illegally by boats.
Again, we do not know how many migrants are arriving, and much else is not apparent. For example, who are the migrants? Why are they arriving? Why are they arriving by boat? What are the consequences of their arrival? Is this a new phenomenon? If not, are numbers increasing or decreasing. This kind of detail, and more besides, is absent from the utterance.
Suppression
Suppression is a representational strategy that removes the agent of an action. Consider the following examples:
- Salaries are low for teachers in this international school.
- Using AI to cheat is widespread in many educational settings.
In neither of the examples, above, are agents (i.e., ‘doers’) of actions apparent. Someone or some people ensure that (in 1) teacher’s salaries are kept low and (in 2) use AI to cheat in educational settings. Of course, it is possible to infer who the agents are or might be, but when an agent is omitted from an utterance it is reasonable to ask why this is the case. Is something being deliberately obscured, and if so for what reason?
Pronouns
Personal pronouns (such as you, we, us, them) and possessive pronouns (such as our and their) are often used as a representational strategy in persuasive texts. They are, then, commonplace in advertising, and in the language of political figures and organisations. Consider the following examples:
- We value our students.
- Choose the courses you want to study. Study your way.
The use of pronouns creates as sense of what we might call synthetic personalisation. That pronoun use suggests a sense of intimacy, care, and concern when, in reality, there may be none. The sense of familiarity and closeness is a ‘manufactured’ one. It is an artifice. In addition, in using words like ‘we’ and ‘you’, it is not always clear who is being addressed, potentially creating a sense of ambiguity.
Having considered a range of representational strategies, above, you may be feeling a little overwhelmed. You may be thinking that it was a mighty big toolbox, and that perhaps some of the tools were not entirely dissimilar. Do not worry. It is not expected that you commit all of these tools to memory. You should, however, try to become aware of the many ways that people are represented in texts, recognising that writers and speakers have choices. Thus, whenever you see people represented in language, you should consider it deliberate and intended. When individuals and groups of people are described in one way but not another, you should ask yourself what the implications are. What motivates or explains the choices made by writers or speakers?
In doing this thing called textual analysis – and this is important – it is not enough to say what the effect of a text is or might be. You have to draw attention to the language features that establish and maintain the meaning and effects of texts. Textual analysis, in short, involves identifying the link between language and meaning.
For Students:
Read the following text:
- Try to identify the various participants in the text. Who are they?
- What representational strategies has the writer used? Reread the strategies, above, to help you.
- How does the way individuals and groups are represented impact your understanding of events?
- As a reader, to what extent is it possible to reject an intended, dominant reading of the text?
Work with a partner and discuss your answers.
For Students:
- Find two texts, an advertisement and a newspaper story/article. You can find these online but, if possible, print them out.
- Identify and name the representational strategies in the texts. In what ways are individuals and groups of people represented? What is the effect of this?
Work as part of a group of students. Share your ideas.
Teacher only boxStudents could be asked to find and bring texts to class as part of a homework task.
For Students:
- Reconsider the various representational strategies on this page. So far, we have been considering texts that are either written or could be uttered in spoken language. However, there are other kinds of text, including visual texts. To what extent could the representational strategies introduced here be represented in visual texts such as photographs? How would this be done? Discuss your ideas in smaller groups or in a whole class discussion.