Writing the Commentary

The commentary is a 750-word piece that accompanies your original writing. It is not a separate, optional extra — it is an assessed component worth a significant portion of your original writing marks. The commentary is where you demonstrate that your creative choices were deliberate and linguistically informed, not accidental. Many students lose marks unnecessarily on the commentary because they treat it as a simple description of what they wrote. In reality, the commentary requires analytical, metalinguistic writing of the same quality as your language investigation.

---

The Purpose of the Commentary

The commentary serves three main purposes:

1. To explain your creative choices using linguistic terminology — you must show that you understand the language features you have used and can label them accurately
2. To link your choices to your style model — demonstrating that you have studied a published text and used it to inform your own writing
3. To reflect on audience, purpose, and genre — showing that you understand how these contextual factors shaped your writing

Key Definition: Metalinguistic awareness — the ability to think about, talk about, and analyse language itself. In the commentary, you demonstrate metalinguistic awareness by using linguistic concepts and terminology to explain and justify your own creative choices.

---

What the Commentary Must Include

A strong commentary addresses the following areas:

Element	What to Include
Genre and conventions	Identify the genre of your piece and explain which conventions you followed (and which you subverted, if applicable)
Audience and purpose	Who is your intended reader? What are you trying to achieve? How do these factors shape your language?
Style model comparison	How has your style model influenced your writing? What techniques did you adopt or adapt? Where did you depart from your model, and why?
Lexical choices	Explain key vocabulary decisions — why did you choose particular words, semantic fields, or levels of formality?
Grammatical choices	Explain sentence structure decisions — why did you use particular sentence types, lengths, or constructions?
Discourse and structural choices	Explain the overall organisation of your piece — why did you structure it this way?
Phonological effects (if relevant)	If rhythm, sound patterning, or prosody are important in your piece, explain your choices

---

Using Language Levels in the Commentary

The commentary must demonstrate that you can analyse your own writing at multiple language levels. This is the same skill you use in the investigation and in the exam papers, applied to your own text.

Lexis and Semantics

Discuss your vocabulary choices explicitly:

Weak commentary:

I used lots of descriptive words to create atmosphere.

Strong commentary:

The opening paragraph draws heavily on the semantic field of decay — "peeling," "corroded," "sour" — to establish the neglected state of the house and, by extension, the deterioration of the family relationships within it. This lexical patterning mirrors the technique used by my style model, in which Hilary Mantel uses sustained semantic fields to create a pervasive sense of atmosphere that operates below the reader's conscious awareness.

Grammar and Syntax

Discuss your sentence-level choices:

Weak commentary:

I used short sentences to create tension.

Strong commentary:

The shift from complex, subordinated sentences in the opening descriptive passage to short, declarative sentences during the confrontation scene was a deliberate structural choice. The reduction in syntactic complexity mirrors the character's narrowing focus under emotional pressure — there is no space for qualification or nuance when fear takes over. The abrupt minor sentence "Nothing." at the end of the exchange functions as a declarative that paradoxically communicates the weight of everything left unsaid.

Discourse and Structure

Discuss the overall organisation:

Weak commentary:

I structured my article with an introduction, main body, and conclusion.

Strong commentary:

The piece follows the conventions of a broadsheet feature article, opening with an anecdotal hook — a specific individual case — before widening to the broader issue. This structure, which my style model also employs, serves a pragmatic function: it makes the abstract personal, encouraging readers to engage emotionally before encountering statistical evidence. The shift from the second paragraph's personal narrative to the third paragraph's impersonal statistical data represents a register shift from pathos to logos.

---

Comparing with Your Style Model

The comparison with your style model is a required element of the commentary. Approach it analytically, not descriptively.

How to Compare Effectively