Comparative text responses share many features with analytical text responses on a single text. Each response: •
is a coherent essay, with an introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion
•
takes a position on a given essay topic
•
presents a line of argument about, and a consistent interpretation of, the texts
•
includes detailed textual evidence, including brief quotations, to support the argument and reasoning.
On the other hand, comparing two texts requires a balancing act – a balance between the two texts, and between writing about an individual text and writing about two texts together. Some of your analysis will focus on a single text, showing your indepth understanding of characters, plot, narrative and language. Other paragraphs will compare and contrast both texts. This will be particularly important in your final paragraph or two.
The following sections show you ways to structure your comparative essays, appropriate language for comparing and contrasting texts, and strategies for analysing the main types of topics.
The diagrams and explanations on the following slides show you main ways to structure a comparative response. Each structure ensures that your essay is coherent – that is, it develops an argument in a consistent and logical manner.
This is the most straightforward structure. It ensures that you deal with both texts in detail, and that your response focuses on the ideas, issues or themes identified in the introduction. It does restrict your comparison of the two texts to the final paragraph or two, so remember to make this part of the response just as detailed and thorough as the rest.
Introduction: state your argument in response to the prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1
Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2
Discuss both texts, indicating similarities and differences, finishing with one or two concluding statements
The introduction ‘sets up’ your discussion by stating your point of view, or main contention, in response to the topic. In the body paragraphs, link back to your main contention; the final sentence of a paragraph is a good place to make this link. You might also wish to add a brief conclusion to sum up and restate your position on the topic.
This structure is slightly more complex than the block approach above. If you can become comfortable with it, your responses should have:
• more fluency, as there is a smooth transition from discussion of one text to the next
• more detailed discussion of similarities and differences between the texts.
In this structure, you can devote more space to a side-by-side comparison of the texts, examining both similarities and differences. As in your detailed discussion of each individual text, your comparison of the two texts must be supported by textual evidence. You might emphasise similarities or focus on differences and contrasts, depending on the topic and your interpretation of the texts.
Introduction: state your argument in response to the prompt with brief reasons, referring to both texts Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 1 In a transitional paragraph, discuss similarities and differences Discuss ideas, issues and themes in text 2 Discuss both texts, in a concluding paragraph
This structure organises the paragraphs according to the ideas discussed, rather than discussing the texts one after the other.
Comparison of the two texts occurs throughout the response, rather than just in particular paragraphs.
Introduction: state your argument in response to the prompt with brief reasons Discuss one key similarity or difference
Discuss another key similarity or difference Discuss another key similarity or difference
Discuss both texts in a concluding paragraph
To give this response more shape and coherence, you could begin with similarities and move on to consider differences, or vice versa.
Planning is very important when using this structure, as each key similarity or difference needs to be clearly identified in a topic sentence.
As in the previous two structures, it is very important that you write in depth and detail on each text. You still need to convey a thorough understanding of each text, as well as examine the similarities and differences between them.
If you adopt this integrated approach, avoid shifting back and forth between your texts too many times in each paragraph.
Write in detail on one text, then discuss the same point in relation to the other
1. KNOWLEDGE OF CHARACTERS AND THEMES
Mark
Thorough and insightful understanding of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts.
9-10
Thorough knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts.
7-8
Knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes constructed and presented in both texts.
5-6
Some knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts.
3-4
Limited knowledge of the ideas, characters and themes in both texts.
1-2
2. ANALYSIS OF HOW THE AUTHOR CONSTRUCTS MEANING
Mark
Complex discussion and critical analysis (using correct metalanguage) of the structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct meaning.
9-10
Well-developed discussion and critical analysis (using correct metalanguage) of the structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct meaning.
7-8
Discussion and some analysis (using correct metalanguage) of the structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct meaning.
5-6
Generalised discussion (using some metalanguage) of the structures, features and conventions used by each author to construct meaning. Little analysis.
3-4
Minimal, if any, appropriate identification of the structures or features or conventions used by the authors to construct meaning.
1-2
3. INTERPRETATION
Mark
Construction of a sophisticated, precise comparison and argument: ideas are ordered into a logical structure and links are made between paragraphs/ideas.
9-10
Construction of a well-developed, careful comparison and argument: ideas are ordered into a logical structure and usually links are made between paragraphs/ideas.
7-8
Construction of a somewhat pedestrian comparison and argument: ideas may be expressed in paragraphs and sometimes link.
5-6
Generalised comparison of both texts. Ideas are ordered into paragraphs but do not make links between each idea/argument.
3-4
Little evidence of an ability to analyse and compare texts. Retelling rather than analysis.
1-2
4. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Mark
Considered and accurate use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation.
9-10
Careful use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation.
7-8
Suitable use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation.
5-6
Some use of textual evidence to justify the interpretation.
3-4
Limited reference to the text.
1-2
5. EXPRESSIVENESS AND FLUENCY
Mark
Highly expressive, fluent writing with sophisticated control of the conventions of written English.
9-10
Expressive, fluent writing with good control of the conventions of written English.
7-8
Generally expressive, fluent writing with reasonable control of the conventions of written English.
5-6
Coherent writing with some control of the conventions of written English, though there may be numerous errors.
3-4
Simple expression of ideas and limited control of the conventions of written English. Not fluent.
1-2