Paper 2 Question 3: Analysing Language in Non-Fiction

Question 3 on Paper 2 points you to one of the two sources and a line range, then asks how the writer uses language. In the 2026 sample paper the wording is: "You now need to refer only to Source A from lines 12 to 23. How does the writer use language to describe the train crash?"

It is worth 12 marks and assesses a single Assessment Objective, AO2: analysing how a writer uses language to create effects and influence the reader, using subject terminology.

Feature	Question 3
Marks	12
Objective	AO2 (language only)
Source	One named source
Focus	A given line range and a stated focus

Question 3 is worth more than the language question on Paper 1 (which is 8 marks), so it needs more depth and more analysed quotations. Aim for around 13 minutes and three or four well-developed points.

The two words that decide everything are language and one. You analyse words and techniques (not the shape of the whole text), and you stay inside the single source and line range named.

The mark scheme states that this question "assesses language i.e. words, phrases, language features, language techniques, sentence forms." That is the whole toolkit for this answer, and it is different from the structure question.

• Language is what individual words and phrases do: a verb's force, an adjective's connotation, a metaphor's picture, the effect of a short sentence.
• Structure is how the whole text is ordered: where it begins, how the focus shifts, how it ends. That is a separate question and earns nothing here.

Connotation is the ideas or feelings a word suggests beyond its dictionary meaning. Analysing connotation is the heart of AO2: you take a specific word and unpack what it makes the reader think or feel.

Stay inside the named source and line range. The mark scheme is explicit that writing about the wrong source or outside the given lines, even if well written, is placed at the bottom of the level. Read the reference first, then find your quotations only within it.

Because the sources are non-fiction (travel writing, letters, articles, speeches), the language is real and purposeful. A writer describing a train journey chooses words to make you share a feeling, so your job is to explain how those choices land on the reader.

The 12-mark scheme has four levels. Moving up is about doing three things well, not writing more.

Level	Marks	What it takes
4	10–12	Analyses the effects of choices; a range of judicious quotations; sophisticated, accurate terminology
3	7–9	Clearly explains effects; a range of relevant detail; clear, accurate terminology
2	4–6	Attempts to comment on effect; some appropriate detail; some terminology
1	1–3	Simple comment on effect; simple references; simple terminology

(Level descriptors paraphrased from the AQA 8700/2 sample mark scheme, first exam 2026.)

The jump from Level 2 to Level 3 is the jump from commenting to explaining: not "this makes it dramatic" but "the verb turns the suitcase into a weapon, so the reader feels the crash as an attack on the writer." The jump to Level 4 is analysis: exploring more than one effect of a choice and how the writer's whole picture builds.

Terminology matters, but it is a means, not an end. Naming ten techniques with no analysis stays low; naming three and explaining each in depth reaches the higher levels.

A dependable paragraph shape stops you feature-spotting. Lead with the effect, prove it with a short quotation, then analyse how the specific word makes that effect happen.

Element	What to write
Point	The effect or impression the writer creates (what the reader feels)
Evidence	A brief, precise quotation from the correct lines
Analysis	Name the method, then explain how the word or technique creates the effect on the reader

Zoom in on the single most loaded word in your quotation. This is sometimes called the "word-level" move: pick one verb, adjective or image and dig into its connotations, rather than commenting on the whole sentence at once.

Consider an original example sentence: "The rain hammered the tin roof all night." A weak answer says "hammered' shows it was raining hard." A strong answer analyses the choice:

The verb "hammered" carries connotations of violence and repeated blows, as if the storm were physically attacking the house. This makes the rain feel relentless and threatening rather than merely heavy, so the reader shares the speaker's sense of a night under siege.

Notice the shape: the effect, the quotation, the named method (verb), and the explanation of how it works on the reader.

You cannot analyse every word, so select the choices that carry the most feeling. In non-fiction, writers lean on a recognisable set of language techniques (the full definitions live in the language-techniques toolkit; here is how to use them under exam pressure):

Technique	What to look for	What to analyse
Verbs	Forceful action words	The energy or violence they add
Adjectives	Vivid describing words	The mood or judgement they create
Metaphor	Describing one thing as another	The picture and the idea it plants
Personification	Human qualities given to objects or nature	What attitude the writer projects onto it
Hyperbole	Deliberate exaggeration	The strength of feeling it signals
Semantic field	A run of words sharing a meaning (e.g. warfare)	The overall atmosphere it builds

Hyperbole is deliberate exaggeration for effect, not meant literally. A writer who says a delay felt like "the end of the world" is not being literal; the exaggeration conveys the strength of their frustration. Semantic field is a group of words sharing an area of meaning; spotting a field of warfare words across a passage lets you make a bigger, more perceptive point than analysing one word alone.

A perceptive move (Level 4) is to notice a pattern: several words from the same semantic field, or the same technique used twice. Grouping choices shows you understand the writer's whole method, not just one word.

1. Analysing structure instead of language

This question is AO2 language: words, phrases and techniques. Writing about how the source opens, shifts or ends belongs to the structure question and earns no credit here. Stay at the level of the word and the sentence.

2. Feature-spotting without effect

Listing techniques ("there is a metaphor, an adjective and alliteration") without explaining what each does keeps you in Level 1 or 2. Every technique you name must be followed by its effect on the reader.

3. Using the wrong source or lines

The question names one source and a line range. Quotations taken from the other source, or from outside the range, are capped low even if the analysis is good. Check the reference before you choose a single quotation.

4. Quoting too much

Copying a whole sentence and then writing "this is effective" wastes time and shows no analysis. Embed a short phrase or a single word, then zoom in on it.

5. Naming terminology inaccurately

Calling an adjective a verb, or a simile a metaphor, undercuts the "accurate terminology" the higher levels need. If you are unsure of the label, still analyse the effect; a precise effect with no label beats a wrong label.

Working from the 2026 sample (Source A, a train crash), with brief quotation only for analysis, a Level 4-style paragraph might run:

The writer describes how his "heaviest suitcase was cannoned down" onto him during the crash. The verb "cannoned" belongs to a semantic field of warfare, turning an ordinary suitcase into a weapon fired at him and casting the crash as a deliberate assault rather than an accident. This hyperbole exaggerates the force of an everyday object so that the reader feels the violence and helplessness of the moment through the writer's own eyes, sharing his sense of being under attack.

That single paragraph names two methods with accurate terminology, quotes briefly and precisely, and analyses more than one effect of the choice on the reader — exactly the analytical depth the top of the mark scheme rewards. Build three or four paragraphs like it, each on a different choice, and the answer covers the range Level 4 asks for.