IB English Lang Lit SL common mistakes
IB English Lang Lit SL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Paper 1, the candidate summarises or paraphrases what the text says (e.g., retells the speaker's argument or the plot of the extract) instead of analysing how meaning is constructed through language and structure.
Under time pressure, retelling feels productive and safe because it can be generated without close reading; many candidates have practised comprehension-style responses rather than guided analysis, so they default to content reporting.
What to do instead
Before writing, annotate the extract and force every body paragraph to begin with a technique or structural feature, not a content statement. Use the frame 'The writer [technique] in order to [effect on reader], which positions us to [interpretation].' Ban yourself from any sentence that could be written by someone who had only read a summary; if a sentence survives that test, cut or rewrite it as analysis.
The candidate lists techniques without linking them to meaning or effect ('The writer uses a metaphor and alliteration to make it interesting'), producing feature-spotting rather than interpretation.
Technique identification is easy to teach and easy to reward in early practice, so candidates learn to name devices as an end in itself; they lack a habit of moving from device to effect to significance for the whole text.
What to do instead
Practise a three-step chain for every quotation: name the feature, explain the specific effect it creates in context, then state what that effect reveals about a theme, character, or the writer's attitude. Only list a device if you can complete all three steps; otherwise choose a different quotation. Build a bank of strong analytical verbs (constructs, undercuts, foregrounds, distances, aligns) to replace vague words like 'shows' and 'interesting'.
In Paper 2, the candidate writes two separate mini-essays, one on each work, with comparison confined to a sentence or two at the start or end.
Candidates revise each text separately and know each one better in isolation; comparison demands holding both texts in mind simultaneously, which is cognitively harder and rarely rehearsed under timed conditions.
What to do instead
Plan by point of comparison, not by text. Build a grid with one row per comparative claim and two columns for the works, then write each body paragraph so both texts appear within it. Practise opening paragraphs with a shared concept ('Both texts interrogate...') followed immediately by divergent treatment. Aim for at least one direct comparative sentence in every paragraph, using connectives such as 'whereas', 'in contrast', 'similarly, but with a different emphasis'.
The candidate treats a global issue as a topic label ('gender', 'climate change', 'poverty') and never narrows it to a specific, arguable claim with local and global dimensions.
Students confuse the IB requirement for a 'broad and significant' issue with a single abstract noun; they have not been taught to phrase the issue as a contestable statement with stakes, so the oral drifts into general commentary.
What to do instead
Phrase the global issue as a full sentence with a claim and tension, e.g., 'The pressure to perform national identity forces individuals to suppress private selves.' Check it against the three required dimensions: it must be transnational, have local/particular manifestations, and be visible in both extracts. Write the issue statement at the top of your planning sheet and test every analytical point against it.
In the individual oral, the candidate spends too long on context, biography, or plot summary of the extracts and runs out of time for analysis, often exceeding the 10-minute limit or being cut off.
Context feels authoritative and is easier to rehearse than close analysis; nervous candidates front-load what they know rather than what the task rewards, and they have not timed full run-throughs.
What to do instead
Structure the oral as: brief framing of the global issue (about one minute), then alternating analysis of extract 1 and extract 2, each anchored in two or three specific quotations, then a short conclusion on wider implications. Rehearse with a timer at least three times and mark a 'must-say' list of six to eight quotations. Cut any sentence about the author's life that does not directly serve analysis of the extract.
The candidate chooses extracts that are too short, too context-dependent, or insufficiently rich to sustain 10 minutes of analysis, or picks extracts that do not genuinely connect to the chosen global issue.
Extract selection is often left until late and driven by convenience (a favourite passage, a memorable scene) rather than by analytical yield; candidates underestimate how much material 10 minutes of close analysis requires.
What to do instead
Select extracts of roughly 30 to 40 lines each that contain dense language, a clear voice or perspective, and at least three analysable techniques. Test each extract by drafting three analytical points before committing. Ensure both extracts allow parallel and contrasting treatment of the same global issue, and annotate them with quotations and technique labels in advance.
The candidate ignores form and genre conventions, analysing a poem, a speech, and a novel extract with identical vocabulary and no attention to how genre shapes meaning.
Many candidates learn one generic analytical toolkit and apply it indiscriminately; they have not been explicitly taught how form (line breaks, staging, narrative voice, rhetorical occasion) carries meaning differently across text types.
What to do instead
Before writing, identify the text type and list three genre-specific features to address. For poetry, discuss lineation, stanza shape, and sound; for drama, staging, stage directions, and dramatic irony; for prose, narrative perspective and focalisation; for non-fiction and speeches, rhetorical situation and audience positioning. Build a one-page 'form checklist' per genre and use it in every practice response.
The candidate uses quotations as decoration, dropping them in without integrating them into the sentence or commenting on specific word choices, often quoting whole sentences and then paraphrasing them.
Candidates believe more quotation equals more evidence and have not been taught to select the smallest meaningful unit (a word, phrase, or punctuation choice) and embed it grammatically.
What to do instead
Quote only the words that carry analytical weight and embed them in your own syntax, e.g., 'The verb "claw" reduces the relationship to...' After each quotation, comment on at least one specific word or structural choice rather than restating the quote's content. Limit yourself to one short embedded quotation per analytical point and check that the sentence would be ungrammatical or incomplete without it.
The candidate makes unsupported claims about the reader's response ('This shocks the reader', 'The audience feels sympathy') without grounding them in textual evidence or acknowledging that responses are constructed rather than universal.
Reader-response language is easy to produce and sounds analytical; candidates have not learned to distinguish between asserting an effect and demonstrating how the text produces it for a particular implied audience.
What to do instead
Replace bare effect claims with mechanism-plus-audience reasoning: 'The abrupt caesura forces the reader to pause, mirroring the speaker's hesitation and inviting us to question...' Specify the implied reader or audience the text constructs, and tie every claimed effect to a concrete textual feature. Where appropriate, note how different readers might respond differently and why the text anticipates or resists that.
The candidate treats intertextuality as naming another text or making a biographical or historical aside, rather than analysing how the relationship between texts produces meaning.
Intertextuality is often taught as 'references and allusions', so candidates list parallels without examining transformation, critique, or reframing; they also confuse context with intertext.
What to do instead
When connecting texts, always state what the later or responding text does with the earlier material: echoes, revises, parodies, or contests it. Use the frame 'Text B takes the [motif/form] of Text A and reworks it to [effect], which reveals...' Compare not just shared themes but shared formal strategies and how each text's context reshapes them. Keep a comparison log with one entry per pairing, recording the specific textual evidence for the connection.