IB English Lit HL cheat sheet

IB definition of literary study: close reading of language, form and structure combined with awareness of how meaning is produced between writer, text and reader; no single fixed meaning is assumed.

Authorial intention is one interpretive hypothesis among several: it can be inferred from textual evidence but is not the sole arbiter of valid meaning.

Reader-response position: meaning is actualised in the act of reading; different implied readers (ideal, contemporary, later) may construct different but defensible readings.

Unreliable narration occurs when the narrator's account conflicts with the implied author's norms; signals include contradiction, omission, self-justification and clashes with other characters' accounts.

Implied author (Booth) is the organising consciousness inferred from the text, distinct from the biographical writer and from any narrating character.

Tone is produced by diction, syntax, register and punctuation; irony arises when surface statement and inferred attitude diverge, often signalled by context rather than by words alone.

Form carries meaning: line breaks in poetry, act/scene division in drama, chapter structure and narrative frame in prose all shape interpretation.

A defensible reading must be supported by specific textual evidence (quotation, structural pattern, lexical choice), not by plot summary or unsupported assertion.

Context is used as evidence, not biography: link a specific historical, political or social condition to a specific textual feature rather than asserting general 'background'.

Publication date and setting date can diverge; distinguish when a text is set, when it was written, and when it was first read - each affects meaning.

Reception history matters: a text's meaning for its first audience may differ from its meaning for later readers; censorship, canonisation and translation all alter reception.

Place functions as more than backdrop: setting can encode power (metropole/colony, city/country, public/private) and structure character possibility.

Period labels (Romanticism, Modernism, postcolonial) are conventions that group texts; use them to explain shared assumptions, but note texts that resist the label.

Historical distance cuts both ways: it can obscure contemporary references and it can reveal patterns invisible to the original audience.

Social categories visible in a text - class, gender, race, colonial status, religion - should be tied to textual detail (address forms, dialect, description) rather than asserted abstractly.

Comparative context question: when two works from different periods treat the same theme, the difference in treatment often reveals the historical shift more clearly than either work alone.

Intertextuality (Kristeva, after Bakhtin) holds that texts acquire meaning through relation to other texts: quotation, allusion, parody, pastiche, genre convention and translation.

Allusion requires recognition by the reader; an allusion that the reader misses produces no intertextual effect, so reader knowledge is part of the mechanism.

Parody imitates a style or text in order to transform or critique it; pastiche imitates without necessarily critiquing - the distinction is the presence of critical distance.

Genre is itself intertextual: a text invokes conventions (detective fiction, elegy, bildungsroman) and can confirm, hybridise or subvert them.

Adaptation and translation are intertextual acts; comparing a translation or adaptation with its source exposes choices about register, omission and cultural transfer.

A productive comparison needs a shared basis (theme, form, technique, situation) plus a meaningful difference; comparison without a stated basis becomes two separate analyses.

Archetypes and recurring motifs (the journey, the double, the outsider) allow comparison across periods, but the specific treatment, not the motif itself, should carry the argument.

When comparing works, organise by point of comparison rather than by work: alternating between texts on each point produces analysis, sequential summary does not.

Paper 1 gives unseen texts with guiding questions; the guiding question must be addressed explicitly, not treated as optional framing.

Standard SL/HL Paper 1 format: one guided analysis of a prose or poetry extract; HL also includes a poetry or prose comparison component depending on the paper variant - check current subject guide.

Analysis hierarchy: claim about effect, then technique, then quotation, then explanation of how the technique produces the effect - never quotation followed by paraphrase.

Poetry toolkit: lineation and enjambment, stanza shape, metre and caesura, rhyme and sound patterning, volta/turn, deixis (who speaks, to whom, where).

Prose toolkit: narrative perspective and focalisation, tense and narrative distance, free indirect discourse, sentence rhythm, lexical fields, dialogue presentation.

Drama toolkit: stage directions, dramatic irony, soliloquy and aside, spatial staging, act/scene structure, off-stage action.

A strong introduction states a thesis about the extract's central effect or preoccupation and names the main techniques; it does not summarise plot.

Timing rule of thumb: allocate roughly 5-10 minutes to annotate and plan, then write continuously; leave a few minutes to check that the guiding question is answered throughout.

Paper 2 is a comparative essay on studied works, written under timed conditions without access to the texts; quotations must be memorised or paraphrased accurately.

The question usually requires comparison of at least two works; a response discussing only one work cannot satisfy the comparative requirement.

Thesis must be comparative: it should state a relationship (contrast, development, shared assumption with different consequences), not two separate claims joined by 'and'.

Paragraph structure that works: comparative topic sentence, evidence from work A, analysis, evidence from work B, analysis, then a sentence drawing the comparison explicitly.

Basis of comparison must be named in the introduction (shared theme, technique, genre convention, or contextual pressure) so the comparison has a spine.

Context earns credit when it explains a difference in treatment between the works; it earns little when inserted as isolated background.

Avoid extended plot summary: examiners reward analysis of how meaning is made, so reference events only as evidence for an interpretive claim.

Conclusion should extend the thesis - state what the comparison reveals that studying either work alone would not.

HL Essay: one 1,200-1,500 word independent critical essay on a literary topic, developed from the course of study, externally assessed.

The essay must be based on a text or texts studied in the course; the chosen line of inquiry must be approved by the teacher before writing.

A line of inquiry is a focused question, not a topic: 'How does X use Y to explore Z?' rather than 'The theme of Z in X'.

Assessment criteria reward knowledge and understanding, analysis and evaluation, focus and organisation, and language; the line of inquiry drives all four.

Academic honesty: all quotations and ideas from secondary sources must be cited; the essay is checked for authenticity and the teacher supervises the process.

Structure: introduction stating the line of inquiry and thesis, analytical body sections organised by argument, conclusion evaluating what the inquiry revealed.

Evidence must be textual and specific; secondary criticism can support but should not replace close analysis of the primary text.

Word count excludes the bibliography and footnotes but includes the main body; exceeding the limit risks penalty under the criteria.

Individual oral: 10 minutes of student presentation followed by 5 minutes of teacher questions, based on a global issue explored through two works, one of which must be originally written in the language of study.

Works must be literary and from the course; the extract choice (one short extract per work) must be the springboard for the discussion, not a recited passage.

A global issue must be transnational, have significance in a real-world context, and be explorable through the two works: typical categories are culture/identity/community, beliefs/values/education, politics/power/justice.

The oral is internally assessed by the teacher and moderated; the student may bring unannotated extracts and a brief outline of no more than ten bullet points.

Balance requirement: both works and both extracts must receive sustained attention; spending most of the time on one work caps the achievement level.

The global issue must be narrower than a theme: 'the erosion of local language under colonial education' is workable; 'identity' is too broad.

Assessment criteria cover knowledge and understanding, analysis and evaluation, focus and organisation, and language; the presentation and the teacher's questions both count.

Effective structure: brief framing of the global issue, analysis of extract A, analysis of extract B, comparison of how each work treats the issue, conclusion on wider significance.