Quick questions on The reflective commentary: analysing your own writing - Eduqas A-Level English Language

The first principle is to analyse, not narrate. A weak commentary retells the content of the piece ("first I described the setting, then the character arrived") or summarises its aims in vague terms ("I wanted it to be engaging"). A strong commentary analyses the language: it names the specific features used and explains how they work, exactly as you would analyse an unseen text. The shift from telling the story of the piece to analysing its language is the single most important move.

"Rather than narrating, a strong commentary analyses: 'I opened the article with a short, declarative sentence ("Vinyl is back.") to create an emphatic, attention-grabbing hook suited to a feature's need to engage a browsing reader quickly. The minor sentence that follows mimics the rhythm of speech, establishing the informal-but-literate register I judged appropriate for a weekend supplement's general audience.'

A narrating commentary writes "I started with a punchy opening to grab attention, then explained the topic." Upgraded: the analysis names the features and their effect, the short declarative and the rhetorical question that follows it work together to establish the article's stance and draw the reader into a shared assumption, a structural choice suited to the persuasive-informative purpose and the publication's audience. This shifts from narration to analysis.

Which assessment objectives does the commentary address, and what does that mean for how you write it? [2 marks]

What is the difference between narrating a piece and analysing it in a commentary? [2 marks]

Write a reflective commentary on an original piece, justifying your language choices for your audience and purpose. [18 marks]