June 2026
The 2025 VCE English Language analytical commentary was built around a powerful spoken text: Professor Kelvin Kong’s acceptance speech at the NAIDOC Awards.
The text was rich. It gave students opportunities to discuss identity, register, tenor, audience, cultural context, humour, advocacy, gratitude, face needs and spoken discourse. It also created a major challenge.
There was too much to analyse.
That is what made the 2025 analytical commentary so revealing. The strongest responses were not those that tried to mention every feature. They were the responses that chose carefully. They selected language features that carried real analytical weight and used them to explain how the speech worked in context.
In Section B, feature spotting is not enough.
The feature has to matter.
The context shaped everything
Text 2 was an acceptance speech delivered by Professor Kelvin Kong, a Worimi man and Australia’s first Indigenous surgeon. He received the NAIDOC Person Award for his innovations in hearing health, especially his work with children.
The speech was delivered in front of a live audience, predominantly made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and fellow award recipients. This context mattered deeply.
Kong was not simply accepting an individual honour. He was speaking as a surgeon, a community member, an Indigenous man, an advocate, a husband, a father and a recipient of a major public award.
The 2025 Examination Report noted that the speech was highly emotive and supported a wider purpose of showing gratitude to the committee and broader community. It also celebrated culture and raised awareness about ear health in Australia.
This means students needed to analyse the speech as more than a thank-you message.
It was also an act of identity construction, advocacy and solidarity.
The best commentaries had a clear direction
A high-scoring analytical commentary does not need to begin with a long formulaic introduction.
The report noted that many responses opened by listing text type, mode, audience, register, tenor, functions, intents and purposes. This approach can work, but only when those ideas are actually used in the analysis that follows.
A commentary introduction should not become a checklist.
In 2025, the stronger responses gave themselves a clear analytical direction. They might have organised the commentary around Kong’s shifting purposes: expressing gratitude, acknowledging community, raising awareness about hearing health and ending with warmth and celebration. Others focused on identity construction, moving from Kong’s Indigenous identity to his professional identity and then to his personal identity as a husband and father.
Both approaches could work.
The key was not the structure itself. It was whether the structure allowed students to analyse how language features reflected context, shaped audience relationships and supported the speech’s purposes.
Salient features mattered more than abundant features
The speech contained many features that students could identify: pauses, repetition, pronouns, Aboriginal English terms, humour, prosody, discourse markers, topic shifts, informal lexis, formal lexis, emotive language and audience responses.
The strongest responses did not treat all of these features equally.
They selected features that helped explain the speech’s most important effects.
For example, Kong’s use of “our Elders” was analytically valuable because it connected to cultural identity, collective belonging and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
His statement “I stand here before you because of the opportunities that you gave all of us” was also significant. It reduced individual self-focus and positioned the award as the result of collective support, not personal achievement alone.
His use of “thank you” across the speech supported gratitude and attended to the positive face needs of different audience members.
His humorous patient anecdote about hearing that “farts don’t just smell they actually make noises” was not merely funny. It made the issue of hearing health concrete, human and accessible.
These examples worked because they were not isolated observations. They connected language to purpose.
That is the standard Section B rewards.
Identity had to be analysed linguistically
Professor Kong’s speech strongly invited discussion of identity. The report noted that many responses explored aspects of his identity, including his humble identity, occupational identity as a surgeon, Indigenous identity, wider Australian identity and identity as a caring husband and father.
However, identity analysis must be grounded in language.
It is not enough to say that Kong is Indigenous, a surgeon or a family man. The commentary must show how the speech constructs those identities through linguistic choices.
Kong’s references to “my community”, “our culture”, “our songs”, “our singing” and “our Elders” use first-person possessive forms to construct collective identity. The repeated possessive language positions Kong as belonging to, and speaking from within, a shared cultural community.
His reference to “appalling ear health statistics” draws on his professional identity. The adjective “appalling” gives the issue moral force, while the reference to statistics reflects his medical and advocacy role. He is not only celebrating an award. He is using the platform to direct attention to a public health problem affecting children and communities.
His admission that he feels “ashamed” adds emotional complexity. It reveals discomfort at receiving recognition against the background of continuing health inequity. This helps construct Kong as humble and ethically aware.
The strongest responses followed these shifts closely.
Kong’s identities were not listed. They were shown through the language.
The speech balanced gratitude and advocacy
One reason Text 2 was so effective as an analytical commentary text was that it did not have only one purpose.
Kong thanked the NAIDOC Committee, acknowledged Elders, recognised community members, addressed his family and celebrated the people whose work often goes unseen. At the same time, he used the speech to raise awareness about hearing health.
The phrase “two edged sword” was especially important. It captured the tension between receiving a prestigious award and recognising the troubling circumstances that made the work necessary. Kong says he is happy and overjoyed to be in the room, but also speaks of “appalling ear health statistics” and the sadness of celebrating “how bad our kids’ ears are”.
This movement gave students a rich opportunity to analyse shifts in topic, purpose and tone.
A weaker commentary might simply say that the speech was emotional. A stronger commentary would explain how Kong moves between celebration and discomfort, gratitude and advocacy, humour and seriousness.
That movement is central to the speech’s effect.
It allows Kong to honour the award while refusing to let the audience forget the broader issue.
Humour needed to be connected to purpose
Kong’s humour was one of the most memorable features of the speech.
His anecdote about a young patient hearing that “farts don’t just smell they actually make noises” generated audience laughter. It also did more than entertain.
The humour helped reduce social distance between Kong and the audience. It humanised his medical work, shifted the register into a more informal and conversational mode, and made the importance of hearing health immediately understandable.
This is exactly the kind of feature that high-scoring students can use well.
The analytical value is not in saying that the audience laughed. The analytical value lies in explaining why the humour matters in this context. Kong is discussing serious health inequity, but he avoids allowing the speech to become overwhelmingly sombre. The anecdote gives the audience a moment of warmth while still reinforcing the practical importance of his work.
It also supports his identity as down-to-earth and genuine.
In the 2025 commentary, humour was not a side detail. It was part of how Kong built rapport and sustained audience connection.
Tenor was one of the key discriminators
The Examination Report made a clear point about tenor: many responses did not describe it accurately.
Tenor refers to the social relationship between participants. It involves status, social distance and roles. It is not the same as tone.
This distinction mattered in Text 2.
Kong was receiving a prestigious award, which placed him in a position of public recognition. However, his language repeatedly reduced social distance. He acknowledged others, foregrounded community, used humour, referred warmly to family and positioned himself as indebted to those who came before him.
His statement “I stand here before you because of the opportunities that you gave all of us” helps construct a respectful and solidaristic tenor. He does not present himself as superior to the audience. Instead, he presents his achievement as enabled by collective support.
The live audience also mattered. Applause, laughter and cheering showed that the audience was actively involved in the speech. Kong’s language responded to that setting, moving between formal public acknowledgement and informal warmth.
Students who treated tenor as “sad”, “grateful” or “humorous” missed the social relationship at the centre of the term.
Tone describes emotional quality.
Tenor describes the relationship being constructed.
That distinction can decide the quality of an analytical commentary.
Register had to be proven through evidence
The report also noted that students often struggled to describe formal elements of Kong’s speech with appropriate metalanguage.
This is a common problem in English Language. Students often assert that a text is formal or informal without proving it through observable linguistic evidence.
In Kong’s speech, the register was mixed. The formal context of the NAIDOC Awards, the public nature of the speech and Kong’s role as an award recipient all contributed to a more formal dimension. This was supported by culturally significant and ceremonial language such as “acknowledge and pay my respects”.
At the same time, the speech included informal elements, including “wanna”, humour, personal anecdotes and direct references to family. These choices helped reduce social distance and make Kong appear sincere and approachable.
The important point is that register shifted according to purpose.
When Kong acknowledged the NAIDOC Committee, Elders and community, the register supported respect and public seriousness. When he told patient stories or referred to dancing with everyone later, the register became warmer and more informal.
High-scoring responses did not simply call the speech “mixed register”. They showed how the register moved and why those shifts mattered.
Non-fluency was not proof of informality
The 2025 report specifically warned against a common analytical shortcut: treating pauses, hesitations, repetitions and false starts as automatic evidence of informal register.
These features are part of spoken discourse. They can occur in formal, informal and mixed contexts.
In Kong’s speech, non-fluency features may reflect the live mode of delivery, emotional pressure, cognitive load, spontaneity or the significance of the occasion. They may also contribute to a sense of sincerity, because the speech does not feel overly polished or detached.
For example, pauses around difficult material, such as the discussion of poor ear health, may help convey emotional weight. Repetition in phrases such as “so so important” or “so so wonderful” can intensify emotion and emphasise the importance of what is being said.
A stronger response does not simply name a pause. It explains what the pause contributes.
That difference matters.
The report’s warning is clear: spoken discourse features need to be interpreted carefully, not used as automatic labels.
Face needs offered strong analytical opportunities
The report noted that higher-scoring responses often analysed how Kong attended to the face needs of various members of the audience.
This was one of the most productive ways to approach the speech.
Kong attends to the positive face needs of the NAIDOC Committee by thanking them and recognising their acknowledgement of hearing health. He attends to the face needs of Elders by acknowledging their role and contribution. He attends to the wider audience by positioning community work as valuable and by using inclusive language that emphasises shared belonging.
His thanks to his wife and children also contributes to his public identity as grateful and family-oriented. When he says “thank you for sharing me”, he acknowledges the personal cost of his work and gives his family public recognition.
These examples show how politeness strategies can operate in a formal public speech.
They are not just about being polite. They help construct relationships, distribute respect and maintain solidarity.
Purpose shifted across the speech
Another feature of high-scoring responses was their ability to track shifts in purpose.
Kong’s speech begins with acknowledgement and gratitude. It then moves into reflection on the bittersweet nature of the award, foregrounding the seriousness of hearing health inequity. It later shifts into anecdote and humour, before returning to cultural belonging, family thanks and celebration.
This structure matters.
The speech does not remain in one emotional register. Kong manages a complex public task. He must accept an award, honour community, raise awareness, avoid appearing self-congratulatory, keep the audience engaged and end in a way that suits the celebratory setting.
High-scoring responses recognised that different language features supported different stages of that task.
The best commentary writing often follows movement. It notices how the text changes.
In 2025, that was especially important.
Mode mattered
Because Text 2 was a live acceptance speech, students needed to account for spoken mode.
The transcript included features such as rising and falling pitch, pauses, emphatic stress, laughter, applause, overlapping speech, lengthened sounds and changes in pace.
These details were not decorative. They gave students access to how meaning was created in performance.
For example, emphatic stress can highlight gratitude or emotional emphasis. Audience laughter confirms the interpersonal success of Kong’s humour. Applause and cheering reinforce the audience’s approval and the ceremonial context of the speech. Fast-paced utterances may suggest excitement, nervousness or momentum, while slower delivery can create weight around serious reflections.
A commentary that treats a speech like a written essay will miss much of its meaning.
Mode-relevant analysis was one of the opportunities in the 2025 text.
Students needed to analyse the speech as speech.
What high-scoring responses did differently
The strongest analytical commentaries in 2025 showed control in several ways.
They selected features that mattered. They linked identity to language rather than biography. They distinguished tenor from tone. They proved register through evidence. They interpreted non-fluency carefully. They recognised shifts in purpose. They used contextual information without letting it replace analysis.
They also understood that the speech was complex.
It was joyful, but not simple. It was celebratory, but also serious. It was personal, but also communal. It was an award speech, but also an act of advocacy.
High-scoring students were able to hold these tensions together.
That is what strong analytical commentary does.
It does not flatten the text into one purpose, one tone or one identity.
It shows how language manages several things at once.
What this means for future VCE English Language students
The 2025 analytical commentary shows that students need to practise more than feature identification.
They need to practise selecting the most valuable features and explaining why those features matter. They need to write about spoken texts with attention to mode. They need to separate register, tenor and tone. They need to understand how identity is constructed through language. They need to link evidence to the exact context of the text.
Most importantly, they need to avoid generic commentary.
A sentence that could apply to any speech is rarely strong enough. The best analysis feels inseparable from the specific text.
That is the standard students should aim for.
How ATAR STAR approaches analytical commentary
At ATAR STAR, analytical commentary is taught as a process of selection, not simply identification.
Students learn how to identify salient features, organise commentary around meaningful textual patterns, and connect linguistic evidence to context, purpose, register, tenor, audience and identity.
The 2025 VCE English Language exam confirms why this matters. Professor Kelvin Kong’s speech rewarded students who could analyse language with nuance, cultural awareness and precision. It did not reward students who simply listed features or relied on generic commentary phrases.
The strongest students made the speech’s language explain something.
That is the skill that separates a competent commentary from an exceptional one.