Investigation Analysis and Write-Up

The analysis section is the heart of your language investigation. It is where you demonstrate your ability to apply linguistic methods to real data, and it is where the majority of your marks are earned. A strong analysis goes far beyond describing what you found — it interprets, evaluates, and connects findings to linguistic theory. This lesson covers how to structure your investigation, how to analyse data effectively at multiple language levels, and how to write up your findings in a clear, academic style.

---

Structuring the Investigation

Your 2000-word investigation should follow a clear structure. While the AQA specification does not prescribe a rigid format, the following structure is widely recommended and mirrors the conventions of academic linguistic research:

Section	Approximate Word Count	Purpose
Introduction	200–300 words	Introduce your topic, state your research question or hypothesis, explain why it is interesting, and outline the linguistic context
Methodology	300–400 words	Explain how you collected your data, justify your method, and address ethical considerations
Analysis	900–1100 words	Present and analyse your data in detail, applying language levels and linking to theory
Conclusion	200–300 words	Summarise your findings, evaluate your investigation, and suggest directions for further research

Key Definition: Language levels — the different layers of linguistic analysis: lexis and semantics (vocabulary and meaning), grammar (morphology and syntax), phonology (sounds), pragmatics (meaning in context), discourse (structure and organisation of texts), and graphology (visual presentation). A strong investigation analyses data at multiple levels.

---

The Introduction

Your introduction should accomplish several things efficiently:

1. State your topic clearly — what area of language are you investigating?
2. Present your research question or hypothesis — this must be precise and answerable
3. Provide linguistic context — briefly explain the relevant area of linguistic study (e.g., if investigating language and gender, outline key theories such as Lakoff, Tannen, and Cameron)
4. Explain your motivation — why is this topic interesting or significant?

Example Opening

This investigation examines the politeness strategies used by male and female participants in a university seminar setting. Drawing on Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory, the study tests the hypothesis that female participants will employ more positive politeness strategies, while male participants will use more direct, unmitigated face-threatening acts. This builds on earlier work by Holmes (1995), who found that women tend to use language to establish and maintain social relationships, while men are more likely to use language for transactional purposes.

Notice how this introduction states the topic, the hypothesis, and the theoretical context all within a few sentences. It is efficient, focused, and immediately engages with linguistic concepts.

---

Applying Language Levels to Data

The most common weakness in student investigations is superficial analysis — noticing things about the data but not analysing them in linguistic depth. To achieve top marks, you must analyse your data at multiple language levels.

Lexis and Semantics

Analyse the vocabulary used in your data:

• What word classes dominate? (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs)
• Are there semantic fields (groups of words related to a particular theme)?
• Is the lexis formal or informal? Concrete or abstract? Technical or everyday?
• Are there any interesting collocations (words that typically occur together)?
• Is there evidence of lexical innovation (new words, neologisms, blends)?

Grammar (Morphology and Syntax)

Analyse the grammatical structures in your data:

• What sentence types are used? (declarative, interrogative, imperative, exclamatory)
• Are sentences simple, compound, or complex?
• What tense and aspect choices are made, and what is their effect?
• Are there patterns in the use of modal verbs? (could, should, might, must — indicating degrees of certainty, obligation, or possibility)
• Is there evidence of hedging (tentative language) or boosting (emphatic language)?
• Are there any non-standard grammatical features?

Pragmatics

Analyse meaning in context:

• What speech acts are being performed? (requesting, ordering, advising, apologising)
• Is there evidence of conversational implicature — meaning that is implied rather than stated?
• How do speakers use politeness strategies? (positive politeness, negative politeness, bald on-record, off-record)
• Is there evidence of Grice's maxims being followed or flouted?
• What role does context play in shaping meaning?

Discourse

Analyse the overall structure and organisation:

• How is the text or conversation structured?
• What discourse markers are used? (well, so, right, anyway, basically)
• How are topics introduced, developed, and changed?
• In conversation, how are turns managed? Is there evidence of overlapping, interruption, or back-channelling?
• What cohesive devices are used to link ideas?

Phonology (if relevant)

If your investigation involves spoken data and accent/dialect features: