June 2026
The 2025 VCE English Language essay section sent a clear message: contemporary examples matter, but memorised examples are not enough.
Section C required students to write a sustained expository response to one of three prompts. Each prompt asked students to engage with contemporary Australian language use, refer to at least two subsystems, and use at least one stimulus item.
That combination matters.
The essay was not asking students to reproduce a prepared discussion of slang, inclusive language, technology, identity or Australian English. It was asking them to build an argument in response to a specific proposition, using evidence that genuinely suited the question.
The strongest essays showed flexibility. They used examples because those examples clarified the argument, not because they had been memorised in advance.
That is the difference between preparation and pre-preparation.
Section C rewarded adaptation
A strong English Language essay needs preparation. Students should know contemporary examples, understand key debates, practise using metalanguage and be able to discuss social attitudes to language.
However, the 2025 Examination Report warned against an increased reliance on pre-prepared examples. In some responses, examples sat awkwardly beside the argument rather than deepening it.
This is one of the most important lessons from the 2025 exam.
A contemporary example is only useful if it has been adapted to the topic. A student may know an excellent example about inclusive language, AI, slang, Aboriginal Australian English, youth sociolects or political language. But if the example does not illuminate the exact proposition in the prompt, it loses force.
The best students do not simply insert examples.
They make examples work.
Question 6 required nuance about language, equality and separation
Question 6 asked students to discuss the proposition:
“In contemporary Australian society, language can increase both social separation and social equality.”
This was a rich topic because it required students to hold two ideas together. Language can connect people, support inclusion and give marginalised groups a way to describe their experiences. It can also divide, exclude, stereotype, patronise or reinforce social hierarchies.
The stimuli made this complexity clear.
Stimulus A, from Edith Cowan University’s Inclusive Language Guide, presented language as a way for people to describe experiences, find community and advocate for change. This invited discussion of non-discriminatory language, inclusive language and the role of language in promoting social equality.
Stimulus B, from Disability Reframed, challenged euphemisms such as “differently abled”. It suggested that some language designed to sound inclusive may instead talk around disability, obscuring the reality of disabled experience.
Stimulus C raised questions about non-standard English and whether universities should mark down international students for using varieties that differ from Standard English.
Stimulus D referred to a sexist comment made during coverage of the Paris Olympics, where women athletes were described in relation to “hanging around” and “doing their makeup”.
A weak response to this topic might simply argue that inclusive language creates equality and offensive language creates separation. That is true as far as it goes, but it does not take full advantage of the prompt.
A stronger response would explore how the same language choice can be interpreted differently depending on audience, context and social attitudes. Euphemistic language may be intended to protect positive face needs, but it can also patronise or erase. Non-standard varieties may support identity and belonging, but social attitudes towards those varieties may produce exclusion. Sexist language may appear casual or humorous to some audiences, while reinforcing gendered assumptions and increasing social separation for others.
This is the kind of complexity VCE English Language rewards.
The “differently abled” stimulus showed why good intentions were not enough
Stimulus B was one of the most useful stimulus items in the 2025 essay section because it challenged a simplistic view of inclusive language.
The phrase “differently abled” is euphemistic. It attempts to avoid the noun “disability”, presumably to soften the perceived discomfort around the term. However, the stimulus criticises that avoidance, suggesting that people often “talk around” disability rather than naming it directly.
This stimulus could support a sophisticated discussion of face needs, euphemism, semantic ambiguity and social attitudes.
A student could argue that euphemistic language may attempt to increase equality by avoiding terms perceived as harsh or stigmatising. However, in this context, “differently abled” may instead increase separation by implying that disability is something that must be disguised. The euphemism does not necessarily empower disabled people. It may protect the comfort of non-disabled speakers.
That is the level of analysis Section C needs.
The example is not simply about whether a phrase is “good” or “bad”. It is about how language reflects and constructs social attitudes.
Question 7 required both social change and technology
Question 7 asked students to discuss the proposition:
“Contemporary social changes and technologies have influenced language norms in Australia.”
This topic was highly accessible, but that accessibility created risk. Many students have examples about TikTok, slang, texting, AI and internet language. The challenge was using those examples analytically.
The key words were “social changes”, “technologies” and “language norms”.
A response that only discussed technology was incomplete. A response that only discussed changing social values also missed part of the task. The strongest essays considered how social and technological changes interact.
The stimuli encouraged this.
Stimulus A, from Gretchen McCulloch, noted that the internet did not create informal writing, but made it more common by shifting previously spoken interactions into near-real-time text exchanges. This invited discussion of mode, informality, digital discourse and changing expectations around written communication.
Stimulus B referred to Oxford Word of the Year examples, including terms shaped by online culture and Gen Z. Examples such as “goblin mode”, “rizz” and “brain rot” showed how online communities can generate, spread and legitimise new lexical items.
Stimulus C discussed ChatGPT language as generic and vague, raising questions about AI, standardisation, writing norms and the possible flattening of individual expression.
Stimulus D referred to TikTok and the way slang has become more universal in the social media era.
A strong essay on Question 7 needed to move beyond saying that technology creates new words. It needed to consider how digital platforms accelerate diffusion, how social groups create and circulate in-group language, how AI may reinforce certain norms, and how codification gives once-informal language greater public recognition.
The best responses would also consider the limits of technological influence. Technology may spread a term, but social attitudes determine whether that term becomes prestigious, humorous, cringe, inclusive, outdated or mainstream.
“Brain rot” was not just a slang example
Stimulus B’s reference to “brain rot” offered more than a convenient contemporary example.
It allowed students to discuss how new language emerges when social experience changes. The term names a condition associated with excessive digital consumption and online culture. Its rise reflects a society increasingly conscious of the cognitive and cultural effects of technology.
A weaker essay might mention “brain rot” as proof that technology creates slang.
A stronger essay would explain how the term reflects changing norms around digital life. It compresses a complex social concern into a memorable lexical item. It also shows how online language can move from subcultural usage into mainstream recognition, especially once institutions such as dictionaries or media organisations begin to discuss it.
That movement matters.
It shows the relationship between covert norms, public usage and codification.
ChatGPT created a different kind of language issue
Stimulus C was particularly interesting because it was not simply about slang. It concerned AI-generated language.
The stimulus described ChatGPT text as generic and vague, suggesting that AI tends to produce the most common word rather than the best word for a particular scenario.
This could support a sophisticated discussion of language norms in contemporary Australia. Generative AI may influence writing by encouraging more standardised, less individualised expression. It may affect lexical choice, syntax, punctuation, register and even expectations around what polished writing looks like.
Students could also connect this to concerns about authenticity. If AI-generated writing becomes common in schools, workplaces and public communication, language users may become more alert to features that appear generic, over-polished or impersonal.
In this sense, technology does not only create new words.
It changes attitudes towards style, authorship and linguistic identity.
That is the kind of conceptual depth Question 7 allowed.
Question 8 required judgement about non-standard varieties
Question 8 asked:
“Non-standard varieties of Australian English support the construction of identity.”
Students were then asked:
“To what extent is this true in the public domain?”
The phrase “to what extent” was crucial. This was not an invitation to simply agree. It required judgement.
The stimuli gave students several possible directions.
Stimulus A referred to NITV’s “Big Mob Brekky”, allowing discussion of Aboriginal Australian English, cultural identity, public representation and audience connection.
Stimulus B discussed Australian nickname formation, including shortened names with “-o” and “-sy”, inviting discussion of Australian informality, larrikin identity, humour and solidarity.
Stimulus C referred to Mahmoud Ismail, a TikToker associated with western Sydney, whose accent contributes to representation and relatability. This stimulus opened discussion of ethnolect, accent, identity, public attitudes and social media visibility.
Stimulus D discussed politicians using Gen Alpha slang and suggested that once a slang term loses exclusivity, it loses in-group status and becomes dated.
A strong essay needed to explore the public domain carefully. Non-standard varieties can support identity when they are used authentically by speakers who belong to the relevant community. They can index cultural belonging, local identity, age, ethnicity, solidarity or resistance to overt prestige norms.
However, public use also changes the stakes. When non-standard varieties are used by outsiders, institutions, politicians or brands, they may become inauthentic, commodified or mocked. In-group language can lose force once it becomes mainstream or is appropriated for strategic purposes.
That is why Question 8 needed a measured answer.
Non-standard varieties do support identity, but the extent depends on speaker, audience, context and authenticity.
Public identity is not the same as private belonging
Question 8’s reference to the public domain made the prompt more complex.
A language variety may function one way within a community and another way when performed publicly. For example, a western Sydney accent may create relatability and representation for young people who recognise themselves in it. At the same time, public exposure can invite judgement from audiences who attach negative attitudes to that accent.
Similarly, Aboriginal English features in a public media context may celebrate identity and increase visibility, but they may also be interpreted differently depending on the audience’s cultural knowledge and attitudes.
Gen Alpha slang works strongly as in-group language when used by young people who share the relevant norms. When politicians use the same slang to appear relatable, the language may lose authenticity. Instead of reducing social distance, it may increase it.
That is the point Stimulus D made especially clear.
Identity is not constructed by language alone. It is constructed through the relationship between language, speaker, audience and context.
The stimulus had to become part of the argument
The 2025 exam instructions required students to refer to at least one stimulus item. The Examination Report noted that some otherwise strong responses did not meet this requirement.
That is avoidable.
However, using the stimulus well requires more than mentioning it in brackets. A stimulus item should become part of the reasoning.
A weak stimulus reference might say:
Stimulus B shows the word “brain rot”, which is an example of slang.
A stronger version would say:
The codification of “brain rot” demonstrates how online culture can generate lexical items that move from youth or internet-based contexts into broader public recognition. Its rise reflects not only technological influence, but also changing social attitudes towards digital consumption.
The second version does more than name the stimulus. It uses the stimulus to advance the argument.
That is what Section C requires.
Linguist quotations were not a substitute for analysis
The Examination Report also warned against tokenistic scholarly quotations.
This is important because many students believe that using a linguist quote automatically makes an essay more sophisticated. It does not.
A quotation only helps if it is accurate, contextualised and connected to the point being made. Misattributed quotations, vague references to academics or memorised lines that do not fit the question can weaken the essay.
In Section C, contemporary examples usually do more work than decorative quotations. Students need to analyse language in use. They need to show how examples reflect attitudes, identities, norms, functions and social values in contemporary Australia.
A linguist quote may support that discussion, but it cannot replace it.
The essay is not marked on how many authorities a student can name. It is marked on the quality of linguistic discussion.
Contemporary examples needed to be current and Australian
The 2025 report also made clear that contemporary examples should be socially and culturally relevant at the time of writing.
This does not mean every example must come from the same year as the exam. Some examples remain relevant because the language use or social attitude continues. However, for fast-changing areas such as youth slang, political rhetoric, online discourse or AI language, examples need to feel current.
This is especially important in VCE English Language because the subject is concerned with how language operates in Australian society.
An example bank should therefore include material from contemporary Australian contexts, such as:
- political language
- social media discourse
- public debates about inclusive language
- Australian media commentary
- advertising and branding
- youth slang
- AI-generated writing
- Aboriginal Australian Englishes
- migrant ethnolects
- public attitudes towards accents and non-standard varieties
The example is only the starting point. The analysis is what matters.
Students must be able to explain how the example works linguistically and why it matters socially.
A better way to build an example bank
The 2025 essay section shows that students should not prepare examples as fixed paragraphs.
They should prepare examples as flexible analytical tools.
For each example, students should know:
- the language feature involved
- the subsystem or subsystems it connects to
- the social context
- the relevant attitudes
- the identities or relationships being constructed
- the possible functions of the language
- which types of prompts it could suit
- where the example has limits
For instance, “brain rot” could be used in a paragraph about technology, youth language, slang, codification, social attitudes to digital culture, or changing language norms. It should not be locked into one memorised paragraph.
Similarly, “differently abled” could support discussion of euphemism, inclusive language, face needs, semantic ambiguity, disability discourse, political correctness, social equality or social separation.
Flexible preparation allows students to respond to the question actually asked.
That is what the 2025 exam rewarded.
What future students should take from Section C
The 2025 Section C essay section showed that strong preparation must be adaptable.
Students need contemporary examples, but they also need judgement. They need metalanguage, but they must use it naturally. They need stimulus references, but those references must be integrated. They need arguments that respond to the exact wording of the prompt.
Most importantly, they need to avoid writing the essay they prepared before they entered the room.
They must write the essay the exam asked for.
That requires careful reading, flexible evidence and controlled analysis.
How ATAR STAR approaches Section C
At ATAR STAR, Section C preparation is built around adaptability.
Students are taught to build contemporary example banks that can be used flexibly across different prompts. They learn how to connect examples to subsystems, social attitudes, language functions, identity, register, norms and Australian context. They also practise integrating stimulus material so that it strengthens the argument rather than sitting beside it.
The 2025 VCE English Language exam confirms why this matters. The strongest essays did not rely on memorised material alone. They selected, adapted and analysed.
That is what high-scoring Section C writing requires.
A prepared student knows examples.
An exceptional student knows what to do with them.