1 METHODOLOGY OF THE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
Methodology
One of the major pitfalls of close textual analysis is to lapse into paraphrase, that is to repeat the apparent or manifest contents of the document without ever:
• Explaining the social and political context in which it was written
• Discussing the intentions of its author
• Analyzing the rhetorical strategies used by the author to convince their audience
• Highlighting the historical significance of the document
You need to tell your reader/audience something more than what seemed obvious or straightforward at first sight.
Preliminary work
1. Number the lines to make quoting easier.
2. Read the document several times and write down carefully:
- The origin of the document - The date of its publication - The name of the author
3. During your first reading of the text, identify anything that will need to be explained, including:
- dates. Understanding the context is absolutely essential to the analysis of a text. Not knowing the context or a partial understanding of the context can lead to serious mistakes;
- historical, political and cultural references;
- proper nouns, names of places, names of institutions, acronyms, etc...
- concepts or keywords belonging to the political discourse of the time (liberalism, welfare state, segregation)
4. Distinguish clearly between the facts, the raw information (figures, percentages etc.) and the comments, the interpretation or the analysis offered by the author of the document. Using the same piece of information, another author might have produced a different analysis of the same phenomenon.
The rhetoric of the author is of prime importance: by rhetoric; I mean all the technical means the author makes use of or resorts to in the writing or the composition of the document in order to obtain a desired effect (repetitions, rhetorical questions, images, metaphors, etc.)
It goes without saying that no text is ever really objective, neutral or transparent. Objectivity is a myth. All texts are anchored in a particular ideology, a culture, a particular system of representations or values.
Refrain from passing any a priori value judgment on the substance of the problem raised. If the text is biased (partial), the commentary should show how the bias operates. You have to study the coherence or incoherence of this type of reasoning. When you give your opinion try to be
2 moderate. However, you have to be critical and find counter-arguments in order to show/prove that the author is sometimes biased.
5. Once the preliminary work is over, identify the main issues raised in the text and point out the main line of the argument.
Writing stage
A) Your introduction should answer the following questions:
1. Origin and nature of the document:
What paper or what book is it taken from?
Was it produced by an official body, an institution or an individual?
What is the nature or the status of the document to be studied?
A speech, an interview, a newspaper article?
A primary or a secondary document?
2. Who is speaking? Where from? To whom? At what specific time?
Status of the person who is writing: male, female, public figure anonymous?
Who does the author address and for what purpose, (convince, intimidate, entertain) Is the date of publication important?
If some chronological data is needed to explain why that particular document was produced at that particular moment in time, it should be kept very short
The context should always be given very briefly, and only the main features indicated.
A few biographical indications might be necessary.
B) Your commentary should highlight the main aspects of the text
Avoid producing a running commentary of the text (commentaire linéaire). Instead, focus on three topics which you find particularly interesting/original.
Every idea should be illustrated with examples from the text, with the help of quotes (followed by line numbers).
C) Your conclusion should answer the following questions:
1. Is there an internal coherence to the text?
2. Is the document representative of something more general?
Does it correspond to the atmosphere of the period, of the culture of the time? Or is it marginal, atypical or premonitory?
3. What place should be given to this document within a long-term historical perspective?
BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE LANGUAGE (spelling, grammar, punctuation).
