IB Lang Lit HL cheat sheet

Paper 1 asks for a guided textual analysis of one unseen text (SL) or a pair of texts (HL); the guiding question must shape the thesis, not just the introduction.

Close reading targets: diction, syntax, imagery, figurative language, tone, register, structure, and typography; each observation needs a function claim about effect on the reader.

Authorial choice is inferred from textual evidence only; avoid biography unless the text itself signals it.

Reader positioning: identify the implied reader, the assumed values, and where the text invites alignment, resistance, or irony.

Context of production and reception are separate; a text's meaning can shift across reception without the words changing.

A defensible interpretation cites at least two independent textual features that converge on the same reading.

HL Paper 1 requires a comparative analysis of the two texts; organise by points of comparison, not text-by-text summary.

Analysis verbs to prefer: constructs, positions, foregrounds, undercuts, invites; avoid 'shows' and 'relates to' without a mechanism.

Time in narrative: order (chronology, analepsis, prolepsis), duration (scene, summary, stretch, ellipsis, pause), and frequency (singulative, iterative, repeating).

Space operates at three levels: physical setting, social/cultural space, and psychological or symbolic space.

Setting becomes meaningful only when tied to character action, theme, or power relations; description alone is not analysis.

Historical and cultural context counts as evidence only when the text itself encodes it (allusion, dialect, dated reference, material detail).

Temporal markers to track: tense shifts, deictic words (now, then, here), dates, seasons, and transitions between scenes.

Spatial markers to track: thresholds, boundaries, interiors versus exteriors, movement patterns, and who is granted access.

Colonial, postcolonial, and global contexts often appear as contested space: borders, migration, displacement, and belonging.

A strong time-and-space claim explains how structure produces meaning, e.g., fragmented chronology mirroring fractured memory.

Intertextuality covers allusion, quotation, parody, pastiche, adaptation, genre convention, and shared archetype or motif.

Three connection types: thematic (shared idea), stylistic (shared technique or form), and contextual (shared historical or cultural moment).

Comparison must be analytical: state the connection, then explain what the juxtaposition reveals that neither text shows alone.

Genre is a contract with the reader; deviations from convention are as significant as conformity.

Paper 2 requires at least two works studied, compared around a focused line of inquiry, not a survey of both plots.

Avoid 'both texts show X'; the comparative claim needs a difference in how, why, or to what effect.

Adaptation study asks what is preserved, altered, or omitted and what that reveals about each text's context and values.

A useful structure for comparative paragraphs: claim, evidence from text A, evidence from text B, analytical synthesis of the contrast.

Time budget for Paper 1 (2h15): roughly 15 minutes reading and annotating, 90 minutes writing, 20-30 minutes reviewing.

HL candidates analyse both texts comparatively; SL candidates analyse one text guided by the question.

Open with a thesis that answers the guiding question directly, naming the text type, purpose, and central technique.

Paragraph structure: claim about effect, textual evidence (quoted precisely), analysis of technique, link to the guiding question.

Text types to recognise: opinion column, speech, blog, infographic, advertisement, letter, review, travel writing, memoir excerpt, interview.

For non-literary texts, analyse visual and layout elements (image, caption, font, colour, spacing) as deliberate choices with effects.

Quote sparingly and precisely; embed short quotations in your own sentence and analyse the wording.

Avoid feature-spotting lists; every technique named must be connected to a specific effect on a specific audience.

Paper 2 is 1h45 for one essay from a choice of questions, based on at least two works studied in detail.

Choose works that give the strongest comparative purchase on the question, not necessarily your favourites.

Thesis must take a position on the question and preview the comparative argument, including a tension or complication.

Balance is measured by analytical weight, not equal word count; each work should support and complicate the thesis.

Evidence should be specific: named characters, precise scenes, quoted phrases, structural features.

Address the question's key terms explicitly; define abstract terms (identity, power, justice) in relation to your works.

Include a counter-argument or alternative reading and resolve it to demonstrate depth.

Conclusion should synthesise what the comparison reveals about the question, not merely restate the introduction.

The HL essay is 1,200-1,500 words on a literary or non-literary text studied in the course; it is internally assessed and externally moderated.

The line of inquiry must be a focused, arguable question about the text; it should not be answerable by summary.

The essay must be based on one text; comparison across two texts belongs to Paper 2.

Assessment criteria: knowledge and understanding, analysis and evaluation, focus and organisation, and language.

Use the text's own features as evidence: quotation, structure, narrative technique, register, and form.

Secondary sources are not required; if used, they must be integrated and cited, not substituted for textual analysis.

A strong line of inquiry names a specific aspect (e.g., how a narrator's unreliability shapes the reader's sympathy) rather than a broad theme.

The essay should show awareness of the text's context where it illuminates meaning, without letting context replace close reading.

Paper 1 asks for a guided textual analysis of one unseen text (SL) or a pair of texts (HL); the guiding question must shape the thesis, not just the introduction.

Close reading targets: diction, syntax, imagery, figurative language, tone, register, structure, and typography; each observation needs a function claim about effect on the reader.

Authorial choice is inferred from textual evidence only; avoid biography unless the text itself signals it.

Reader positioning: identify the implied reader, the assumed values, and where the text invites alignment, resistance, or irony.

Context of production and reception are separate; a text's meaning can shift across reception without the words changing.

A defensible interpretation cites at least two independent textual features that converge on the same reading.

HL Paper 1 requires a comparative analysis of the two texts; organise by points of comparison, not text-by-text summary.

Analysis verbs to prefer: constructs, positions, foregrounds, undercuts, invites; avoid 'shows' and 'relates to' without a mechanism.

Time in narrative: order (chronology, analepsis, prolepsis), duration (scene, summary, stretch, ellipsis, pause), and frequency (singulative, iterative, repeating).

Space operates at three levels: physical setting, social/cultural space, and psychological or symbolic space.

Setting becomes meaningful only when tied to character action, theme, or power relations; description alone is not analysis.

Historical and cultural context counts as evidence only when the text itself encodes it (allusion, dialect, dated reference, material detail).

Temporal markers to track: tense shifts, deictic words (now, then, here), dates, seasons, and transitions between scenes.

Spatial markers to track: thresholds, boundaries, interiors versus exteriors, movement patterns, and who is granted access.

Colonial, postcolonial, and global contexts often appear as contested space: borders, migration, displacement, and belonging.

A strong time-and-space claim explains how structure produces meaning, e.g., fragmented chronology mirroring fractured memory.

Intertextuality covers allusion, quotation, parody, pastiche, adaptation, genre convention, and shared archetype or motif.

Three connection types: thematic (shared idea), stylistic (shared technique or form), and contextual (shared historical or cultural moment).

Comparison must be analytical: state the connection, then explain what the juxtaposition reveals that neither text shows alone.

Genre is a contract with the reader; deviations from convention are as significant as conformity.

Paper 2 requires at least two works studied, compared around a focused line of inquiry, not a survey of both plots.

Avoid 'both texts show X'; the comparative claim needs a difference in how, why, or to what effect.

Adaptation study asks what is preserved, altered, or omitted and what that reveals about each text's context and values.

A useful structure for comparative paragraphs: claim, evidence from text A, evidence from text B, analytical synthesis of the contrast.

Time budget for Paper 1 (2h15): roughly 15 minutes reading and annotating, 90 minutes writing, 20-30 minutes reviewing.

HL candidates analyse both texts comparatively; SL candidates analyse one text guided by the question.

Open with a thesis that answers the guiding question directly, naming the text type, purpose, and central technique.

Paragraph structure: claim about effect, textual evidence (quoted precisely), analysis of technique, link to the guiding question.

Text types to recognise: opinion column, speech, blog, infographic, advertisement, letter, review, travel writing, memoir excerpt, interview.

For non-literary texts, analyse visual and layout elements (image, caption, font, colour, spacing) as deliberate choices with effects.

Quote sparingly and precisely; embed short quotations in your own sentence and analyse the wording.

Avoid feature-spotting lists; every technique named must be connected to a specific effect on a specific audience.

Paper 2 is 1h45 for one essay from a choice of questions, based on at least two works studied in detail.

Choose works that give the strongest comparative purchase on the question, not necessarily your favourites.

Thesis must take a position on the question and preview the comparative argument, including a tension or complication.

Balance is measured by analytical weight, not equal word count; each work should support and complicate the thesis.

Evidence should be specific: named characters, precise scenes, quoted phrases, structural features.

Address the question's key terms explicitly; define abstract terms (identity, power, justice) in relation to your works.

Include a counter-argument or alternative reading and resolve it to demonstrate depth.

Conclusion should synthesise what the comparison reveals about the question, not merely restate the introduction.

The HL essay is 1,200-1,500 words on a literary or non-literary text studied in the course; it is internally assessed and externally moderated.

The line of inquiry must be a focused, arguable question about the text; it should not be answerable by summary.

The essay must be based on one text; comparison across two texts belongs to Paper 2.

Assessment criteria: knowledge and understanding, analysis and evaluation, focus and organisation, and language.

Use the text's own features as evidence: quotation, structure, narrative technique, register, and form.

Secondary sources are not required; if used, they must be integrated and cited, not substituted for textual analysis.

A strong line of inquiry names a specific aspect (e.g., how a narrator's unreliability shapes the reader's sympathy) rather than a broad theme.

The essay should show awareness of the text's context where it illuminates meaning, without letting context replace close reading.