One of the simplest but most effective questions I ask my students when analysing a text is ‘what other words could have been used?’ This one question has become a staple of our classroom talk and is now deeply embedded into our discussion and analysis routines. I regularly ask it of them, but much more importantly they regularly ask it of themselves.
Using the example of ‘the man trampled calmly over the child’s body’ in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a typical exchange might go something like this:
- Teacher: Let’s look at the use of ‘trampled’. What other words could have been used?
- Student A: Maybe ran over the child’s body
- Student B: Walked over
- Student C: Stamped on
- Student D: Crushed the child’s body
Then comes the most important question: well, why do you think Stevenson chose ‘trampled’ instead of any of these? What exactly does ‘trampled’ add that they don’t? What is the precise difference between ‘trampled’ and, say, ‘walked’? What does one convey and add to the description that the other doesn’t?
This will then lead into a rich and detailed discussion of the precise connotations and associations of the chosen word. We might then continue and do something similar for ‘calmly’ or ‘child’.
Of course, there’s nothing new about this question — it’s the foundation and hallmark of good language analysis, but I’ve found regularly and explicitly making it part of our discussion routine, as above, really helps to focus and direct our analysis. It also facilitates really specific consideration of effect rooted in the detail of the text and helps to avoid at all costs vague assertions like ‘the word makes me want to read on’.
However, I’ve also taken this question one step further and started to use it as part of written routines, prefacing class discussion. For instance, I might ask students to answer the following questions, based on the following line from Heaney’s ‘Storm on the Island’: ‘Forgetting that it pummels your house too’:
- List four other words that could have been chosen instead of pummel
- What connotations or associations does pummelled have compared to these other possible choices?
- What is the overall effect of pummelled?
What has been most gratifying and indeed impactful, though, is the way in which the line of enquiry has now become almost automatic to students. I’ve increasingly noticed that when discussing a text and without any prompting from me they’ll now move through the above process in order to grapple with and negotiate whatever we happen to be exploring.
Even better, I’ve started to notice, when for instance marking an unseen poetry analysis, little spider diagrams in the corner of the page that list alternative words students think an author could have used. It has also explicitly made its way into essays with students including points such as: ‘What makes ‘trampled’ especially powerful, unlike ran, is the animalistic violence associated with it’.
The point, of course, is that we all ask questions like this all the time when teaching, but by making it an explicit part of our routines of analysis (both written and during discussion), the process has become internalised by students so that it is automatically employed as a point of entry, opening the door often to a rich and nuanced contemplation of the text.
A very, very simple question, but equally as powerful.
codexterous 