What Mistakes Do Students Make with Subject Terminology?
August 24, 2025 |
Subject Terminology
Today we are diving into a common pitfall: the classic mistakes students make with subject terminology. If you are aiming for a top grade, these are the traps you need to avoid.
Mistake 1: Misidentifying Techniques
Calling something the wrong name is a quick way to lose marks, for example saying personification when it is really a metaphor. It sounds small, but examiners notice. A wrong label can make it look like you are not confident in your analysis.
Mistake 2: Feature Spotting
You already know I am not a fan of this one. This is where students list techniques with no analysis.
Mistake 3: Analysing the Wrong Thing
This one crops up all the time. You spot a technique correctly, but your explanation has nothing to do with that device.
Example:
You say, “This is alliteration.”
But then you analyse the meaning of the words, not the repeated sound.
That mismatch tells the examiner you don't truly understand how meaning is being created in the quote.
Mistake 4: Overloading with Obscure Jargon
Some students think that chucking in fancy terms like “zeugma” will impress examiners. Spoiler alert: it will not, unless you can actually analyse them. Stick with clear, accurate terms you can analyse properly.
Zeugma is a bit of an extreme example, so I'll give you a more common one: lots of students have gone through the effort of learning the distinct types of nouns (concrete, abstract, proper etc.), verbs (dynamic, modal, stative etc.) and adjectives (laudatory, pejorative, factual etc.) and can specify which type they have identified in a text. However, do they ever analyse why the writer is using dynamic verbs, or do they just analyse the verb? Most of the time, it's the latter.
Mistake 5: Defining the Term
You are aiming to analyse the techniques used, not define them. If you say, for example, "This is a verb because the character is doing a physical action" then you are showing you know the definition of a verb, not how to analyse it.
I know this example sounds ridiculous and obvious, but this is a common mistake students make when they are using obscure jargon that they only know how to define rather than analyse. For example: "This is zeugma because the writer is playing with the two different meanings of the word".
Mrs Wear’s Top Tip
Range is better than obscurity. Being able to analyse semantic field, narrative viewpoint, personification, assosance, imperative, enjambment, laudatory adjective etc. is going to be better than always being on the look out for polysyndeton, ekphrastic language and hypophora; it's also a better choice than only ever analysing the 'word'.
Mistake 1: Misidentifying Techniques
Calling something the wrong name is a quick way to lose marks, for example saying personification when it is really a metaphor. It sounds small, but examiners notice. A wrong label can make it look like you are not confident in your analysis.
Mistake 2: Feature Spotting
You already know I am not a fan of this one. This is where students list techniques with no analysis.
- “This is a metaphor.”
- “This is a verb.”
- “This is a rhetorical question.”
Mistake 3: Analysing the Wrong Thing
This one crops up all the time. You spot a technique correctly, but your explanation has nothing to do with that device.
Example:
You say, “This is alliteration.”
But then you analyse the meaning of the words, not the repeated sound.
That mismatch tells the examiner you don't truly understand how meaning is being created in the quote.
Mistake 4: Overloading with Obscure Jargon
Some students think that chucking in fancy terms like “zeugma” will impress examiners. Spoiler alert: it will not, unless you can actually analyse them. Stick with clear, accurate terms you can analyse properly.
Zeugma is a bit of an extreme example, so I'll give you a more common one: lots of students have gone through the effort of learning the distinct types of nouns (concrete, abstract, proper etc.), verbs (dynamic, modal, stative etc.) and adjectives (laudatory, pejorative, factual etc.) and can specify which type they have identified in a text. However, do they ever analyse why the writer is using dynamic verbs, or do they just analyse the verb? Most of the time, it's the latter.
Mistake 5: Defining the Term
You are aiming to analyse the techniques used, not define them. If you say, for example, "This is a verb because the character is doing a physical action" then you are showing you know the definition of a verb, not how to analyse it.
I know this example sounds ridiculous and obvious, but this is a common mistake students make when they are using obscure jargon that they only know how to define rather than analyse. For example: "This is zeugma because the writer is playing with the two different meanings of the word".
Mrs Wear’s Top Tip
Range is better than obscurity. Being able to analyse semantic field, narrative viewpoint, personification, assosance, imperative, enjambment, laudatory adjective etc. is going to be better than always being on the look out for polysyndeton, ekphrastic language and hypophora; it's also a better choice than only ever analysing the 'word'.
