Download welsh joint education committee

GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AS/Advanced
JANUARY 2013
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Statistical Information
The Examiner’s Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical
information on candidates’ performances in all examination components (whether internally
or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit
Page
LG1
1
LG4
5
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Education
January 2013
Advanced Subsidiary
LG1: Introduction to the Language of Texts
Principal Examiner:
Martin Stafford
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed
should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly
occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
Entry
LG1
1944
Max Mark
60
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
42
35
29
23
17
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Mean Mark
31.0
LG1: Introduction to the Language of Texts
This was, on the whole, a successful unit which allowed candidates to demonstrate the full
range of their knowledge and understanding. Most candidates were very well prepared,
showing a sound understanding of the genre, audience and purposes of the texts involved
and making a range of precise, valid points using a range of linguistic terminology. The vast
majority of answers were methodical in approach and showed a sound understanding of the
requirements of the paper.
Section A: The Language of Texts
Candidates were asked to discuss two texts about home decorating; one from a
contemporary website aimed at parents of teenagers for whom the room would be decorated
and the second the introduction to a book from 1917 discussing more general approaches to
decorating. The question suggested that candidates look at the ways in which the writers
use language to advise and inspire readers in their approach to decorating and to discuss
the often quite striking differences in style.
Most candidates showed that they were familiar with the aims and conventions of this kind of
advice or instructional writing and demonstrated a clear understanding of its purposes.
Many made a number of insightful points by contrasting the differing images given of
decorating; as a way of expressing a younger person’s identity or of bonding with one’s child
in the newer text and as an art form in the second. Many also usefully contrasted the more
light hearted approach in text A with its emphasis on fun with the more serious tenor adopted
in text B which emphasised good taste.
Both texts attempted to present decorating a room as an enjoyable task rather than a chore
and Text A attempted to do this by presenting it as a fun, shared activity between child and
parent. While most candidates clearly identified and discussed the specific language
features that achieved this, a minority either misread or did not read the contextual
information given with the question and failed adequately to distinguish between writing
about teenagers and writing for teenagers. Others focused rather too much on audience
and restricted their discussion of language choices to limited comments such as ‘because
it’s for the parents of teenagers.’ Discussion of features that are audience-appropriate can
often be valid but should form only part of the analysis. In some weaker responses,
candidates did not write about the image that the texts give of decorating at all and focused
instead entirely on ideas about the age, class, gender or intelligence of the audience.
Text B presented decorating as a hobby or entertainment and compared it to the fine arts.
Many candidates commented well on the ways in which the writers suggested this image but
others, noticing the more serious style adopted, especially in contrast to Text A, seemed to
find the text actively hostile to its audience and commented on the writers’ ‘patronising’
approach. Similarly, others discussed differences in formality between the two texts
accurately and quoted relevant examples but did not develop their analysis beyond merely
pointing out that one text was more formal than the other. More able candidates were able
to go on to suggest why such a level of formality was appropriate to the text.
The differing publication dates of both texts caused no problems for the majority of
candidates. Many made some brief, useful comments about the effect of this contextual
difference while many more did not engage with it at all without any detriment to their
answer. Others however focussed quite heavily on it, making rather extensive comments on
the effect of either the current recession or World War One on decorating without linking
these comments to specific language features. One very common error when discussing the
age of the texts was candidates’ description of the pronoun ‘one’ either as archaic or as
entirely an idiolectal feature of the queen. While it may now be very formal and arguably
dated, it is overstating the case to call ‘one’ as a pronoun ‘archaic’.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Most candidates were fully aware that the texts were not merely giving instruction but were
attempting to affect their readers’ attitudes to decorating. Many commented on the sense of
assurance offered to readers by both pairs of writers or contrasted the way in which Text A
foregrounded choice and option while Text B was often far more assertive in approach. A
feature of weaker responses, however, used this as a way of applying gender theory from
speech analysis to the texts in an inappropriate way or wrote at length about the changing
status of women over the last century to the exclusion of all other considerations.
In a few cases, some very sensible comments by candidates could not be fully rewarded as
the language terminology used was not sufficiently precise. ‘Subheading’, ‘sophisticated
language’ and ‘emotive language’ are not technical terms that can be rewarded under AO1.
While ‘high/low frequency lexis’ and ‘colloquial language’ are both valid, a word class is
helpful in making a more precise point and ‘direct address’ is not a direct synonym for
‘second person pronoun’ and more precise labelling is again helpful.
In contrast, a small number of candidates identified relevant points accurately using
appropriate terminology but their analysis went no further than to say repeatedly that their
use was intended ‘to inspire the audience’ without explaining the way in which it was
inspiring or to what end. Similarly, some candidates gave as their explanation ‘to create a
relationship’ without specifying the kind of relationship created or claimed that instances of
patterning were intended to help readers to memorise the text.
A number of common errors may be worth discussing with future candidates when preparing
for this examination. ‘A lot’ is often written as one word and ‘guilt’ is often used as a verb as
in ‘to guilt the reader’. ‘Phrase’ is often used in a non-linguistic sense to refer to any
collection or words including full sentences and it is common to see students confuse the
spelling of ‘advice’ and ‘advise’. It may also be worth mentioning that not all uses of ‘like’ are
necessarily similes as in ‘low-cost novelties like beanbag chairs’.
Introductions and conclusions were again problematic for a small number of candidates.
There is little to be gained from making extensive introductory remarks about what might be
expected from a text of this genre without making precise references to the text or from
summarising points already made as a conclusion.
Section B: Language Focus
Most candidates seemed very well prepared for the Language Focus section of the
examination and approached it an appropriate way. The text in question was a charity
appeal for Animal Aid, an animal rights charity targeted at under-16s, and candidates were
asked to focus on the attitudes of the charity towards the treatment of animals, language
used to shock the audience and language used to highlight the charity’s achievements. The
vast majority of candidates seemed familiar with the genre of the text and fully aware of the
need to focus on the aspects specified by the question.
Stronger responses featured a wide range of precisely focused points making use of specific
language terminology. In fact, many covered an impressive number of features given the
time constraints of the question and were able to discuss the ideas of range and scale
conveyed by the text, the suggestion of brutality, the sense of achievement and the
suggestion of urgency. However, there is no requirement for candidates to cover all three
areas of focus equally and many successful responses were able to score well by dealing in
detail with one or two of them.
A common feature of weaker answers was to assume that the question was asking about
ways in which the writer encourages readers to donate and made that a main focus of their
answer without reference to the question. A small number of candidates spent a great deal
of time identifying which aspects of the text were fact and which were opinion, often without
reference to specific language features while others focussed on what made the text
appropriate for a teenaged audience. None of these approaches fulfilled the requirement of
the question to focus.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
It is worth reminding candidates that knowledge under AO1 is still an important part of the
assessment of this question and that, to score well, they need to make accurate use of a
number of language terms. A significant minority of candidates did fulfil requirement to focus
but at the expense of the requirement to demonstrate linguistic knowledge in this question.
To this end, it is worth mentioning to candidates that it can be very difficult to make a
precise, focused language point about the graphological choices made by the writer and that
their personal views on the subject matter are not relevant to the assessment.
In order to make a number of focused points in the time available, candidates are best
advised not to spend time writing extensive introductory or concluding paragraphs and
instead to spend the time on the body of their analysis.
An error that might be worth mentioning to future candidates is the imprecise use of
‘exaggerate’ and ‘hyperbole’. The figures stated in the text were presented as facts and, for
the purposes of the analysis, should be discussed as such. Also, ‘rhetorical question’ was
frequently misused to describe the opening sentence of the text which was not, in fact,
rhetorical. In order to make their points precisely linguistic, candidates should avoid vague
claims such as comments about ‘the writer’s use of nouns and verb’ followed by quoting a
complete sentence and should be reminded that ‘subheading’ and ‘statistic’ are not precise
linguistic terms.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Education
January 2013
Advanced
LG4: Analysing and Evaluating Language Modes and Contexts
Principal Examiner:
Sara Thorne
Unit Statistics
The following statistics include all candidates entered for the unit, whether or not they
'cashed in' for an award. The attention of centres is drawn to the fact that the statistics listed
should be viewed strictly within the context of this unit and that differences will undoubtedly
occur between one year and the next and also between subjects in the same year.
Unit
Entry
LG4
1465
Max Mark
80
Grade Ranges
A
B
C
D
E
58
48
38
28
19
N.B. The marks given above are raw marks and not uniform marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Mean Mark
38.1
LG4: Analysing and Evaluating Language Modes and Contexts
All candidates seemed to engage with the texts, finding plentiful material for discussion. It
was good to see that many had taken note of the importance of getting straight into analysis
and there were fewer examples of extended introductions. The listing of ‘expectations’ still
occurred in some scripts and this inevitably prevented candidates from spending more time
exploring the given texts.
More significantly, there were many examples of scripts where the use of appropriate
terminology was noticeably undeveloped or where there was an obvious insecurity with
basic terminology. Candidates should be using varied terminology which extends beyond the
word classes, but at this level we would at least expect them to be able to identify accurately
the class of most words cited. It is therefore worrying when scripts offer little more than a
common sense approach to the texts, with opportunities for using word class terms missed.
The use of “word” and more awkwardly “lexis” or “lexeme” – an apparent attempt to seem
more technical – is not an acceptable alternative in an A2 paper. Since AO1 has a double
weighting, the use of appropriate terminology is critical and candidates need to identify
words accurately in order to demonstrate their linguistic knowledge. A failure to do so will
inevitably affect the overall mark that can be obtained.
It would be useful to draw candidates’ attention to the fact that coherent and accurate written
expression is assessed as part of AO1. There are, increasingly, examples of informal writing
that feel out of place in a formal examination response – particularly in an English Language
paper. For instance, intensifiers do not big up the film; noun phrases do not keep the topic
trending in a seventeenth century newspaper report; and Danny Leigh is not complimentary
about the film as a means of keeping up the positive vibe.
Despite this, there were many scripts that showed evidence of high quality teaching and
learning experiences, with candidates well able to apply the knowledge they had to the texts
and to express their findings clearly. In the best examples, appropriate terminology and
linguistic approaches were used effectively to explore meaning, producing answers that
were a pleasure to read.
Section A
Analysis of Spoken Language: Conversations about Acting or Films
In the best answers, candidates managed to write at length about the key features of each
text. They addressed the turn-taking, the length of utterance and the relationship between
the participants, understanding the co-operative nature of each discourse. There was useful
discussion about the level of formality and candidates recognised the differences created by
the context and purpose in each case.
There were, however, a number of candidates who failed to take account of the interview
context. Many wrote at length about the flouting of Grice’s Maxims of Quantity and
Relevance: Rowan Atkinson was seen to talk for too long in response to Lawson’s questions
and to drift away from the topic. This clearly does not reflect the nature of an interview where
the guest is expected to use the host’s question as a spring board for extended personal
narrative. In fact, where an interviewee responds with short turns, an interview would be
seen as unsuccessful.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
Grice in general was often used too extensively. Some candidates seem to use references
to theory as a substitute for linguistic analysis – with some scripts citing as many as five or
six different theories (e.g. Goffman’s face theory, Giles’ accommodation theory, Lakoff’s
politeness principle, Fishman’s mixed sex theory, Zimmerman and West’s male dominance
theory, Beattie’s interruption theory). While these may offer a useful reference point, they are
no substitute for close reading and analysis of the texts. Where candidates embed the theory
neatly within the point they are making, references can work: When Rowan Atkinson replies
it is an extremely long utterance. However, it doesn’t disregard Grice’s Maxims of Relevance
and Quantity because his answer completely relates to what has been asked and the
interview context requires him to speak at length.
There were also many references to the ‘fight to hold the floor’ or to the ‘struggle for
dominance’ in each text. Candidates often failed to take note of the context, assuming that
all conversation is based on competition. Better answers recognised that the exchanges
were co-operative with each participant taking turns and responding positively.
Knowledge of spoken discourse was mostly good with candidates recognising the
dominance of the host in his choice of topic and the longer mean length turns of the
interviewee (Text A). There were useful comments about the anecdotal nature of Atkinson’s
turns and the mixed register of formal low frequency lexis alongside informal pronunciation
and colloquial expressions. Non-fluency features were mostly seen as indicative of
spontaneous speech rather than as ‘mistakes’, but there is still significant confusion about
the different kinds of non-fluency features. In many scripts, everything was described as a
false start where the terms ‘unintentional repetition’ (e.g. when I (.) when I, line 3) or ‘repair’
(e.g. I thought well this (.) you know these look funny, lines 11-12) would be far more useful.
With a false start, there should be evidence of a completely new grammatical structure (e.g.
and it certainly solicited laughter so (.) but since then …, line 15).
Some candidates spent too long discussing the significance of micropauses. General
references to ‘thinking time’ do not demonstrate understanding and candidates need to draw
attention to specific examples. Rowan Atkinson, for instance, is clearly thinking about the
different kinds of expressions he made in the mirror in line 10, but in line 29 the pause in the
middle of the noun phrase adds to the emphatic stress, strengthening the semantic
importance of the head noun hobbies. Almost without exception, candidates described
Lawson’s questions as open, assuming that they were designed to offer the interviewee the
chance to talk at length. In fact, both were closed questions and this raises an interesting
point about the context: interviewees accept their designated role in the discourse and
elaborate even though they could provide a yes/no answer.
The understanding of Text B was often less secure. Many candidates failed to recognise the
informality of the opening, seeing the formal vocative (Mr Leigh) as a mark of respect for
someone Claudia Winkleman has never met and disregarding the colloquial prepositional
phrase (to you) which makes the neutral exchange of greetings less impersonal. Those who
read the text closely, on the other hand, recognised this as a precursor to the banter later in
the conversation. The majority of candidates wrote well about the persuasive element of the
exchange, recognising the purpose of the discourse and understanding the function of the
adjectives. There were very varied interpretations of the relationship between the two
participants: some saw the exchange as equal, others saw either Leigh or Winkleman as
dominant. Support for the view put forward was not always sufficiently detailed with many
generalisations where candidates failed to look closely at specific examples.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Problems also occurred where candidates spent too long trying to use gender theory to
prove that men are more likely to interrupt or that women are more likely to provide backchannel affirmation. Points made tentatively and supported with evidence from the text
could offer a useful interpretation: Winkleman does provide supportive affirmation, but she
rather than Leigh interrupts to seek clarification. While the best responses recognised that
Winkleman’s role as host was of far more significance than her gender, a number of
candidates twisted the text to fit their gender-theory argument.
It is important to note that candidates need to include linguistic terminology as well as
discourse terms in their response to the texts in Section A. Good answers must look at the
actual language used as well as the broader discourse features in each case.
Some problems with terms:

post-modifying adjective – this was invariably used to describe predicative adjectives
(form label) i.e. adjectives occurring after a copula verb (these look funny). The function
label complement is equally valid. Post-modifying adjectives are not common, but an
example can actually be seen in Text A (something funny) where the adjective does
directly follow the head of the noun phrase (here a pronoun)

incrementum – this was used by a number of candidates in a very loose way to describe
co-ordination. It is a very specific rhetorical term used to describe the arrangement of
words or clauses in a sequence of increasing force where the aim is to amplify e.g. ‘Look
at this wound’ – for a minor graze; ‘Look! It’s a bird … It’s a plane … It’s Superman!’

non-standard speech/slang – widely used to describe dunno and coz. These are,
however, examples of informal pronunciation: they are clearly recognisable as standard
lexical items i.e. negative verb (‘don’t know’) and subordinating conjunction (‘because’)

interrogative – this grammatical mood is marked by an inversion of subject and verb.
While not a bad thing? is an implied question, it is not an interrogative

imperative – this grammatical mood is marked by the omission of a subject: you saw me
was incorrectly labelled as an imperative, but is a declarative; sit in the cinema is also not
an imperative because it is dependent on the verb idiom (you) have to (+ infinitive) in the
previous line

phrase – this was regularly used when a clause was quoted (e.g. I mean, you know
which are comment clauses)

auxiliary verbs – it is important to remember that the primary verbs ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘do’
can function as both auxiliaries and lexical verbs. Candidates must therefore check the
context e.g. do face 17B; Johnny English is in a motorised wheelchair; do you have a
strong sense = lexical verbs

elision and ellipsis were frequently confused and rarely spelt correctly

vocative – while Mr Leigh was often correctly identified as a vocative, other examples
where there was no direct address were also wrongly identified (e.g. Spielberg, Richard
Curtis, Johnny English)
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
Other faults and weaknesses in answers:

the misspelling of ‘spontaneity’ and Spielberg

the use of ‘opinionated’ to describe the expression of an opinion

not checking word classes in context e.g. describing trust/hope as abstract nouns when
they are verbs

spending too long on theory at the expense of close reading and analysis

not distinguishing between overlaps and interruptions - in Text B, back-channel features
such as yes (line 37) were often described as interruptions rather than as affirmation

not distinguishing between different uses of the same word or clause e.g. you know as a
filler (Text A, line 20) and as a subject + verb + object in a main clause (Text A, line 28)

describing pauses as non-fluency features

misspelling of ‘deixis’ and ‘deictic’

making generalisations about the texts and their audiences e.g. there is no formal
language in Text A; there is no informal language in Text A; the audience for Text A is
old people; the audience for Text B is 15-25 year olds

using broadcasted instead of ‘broadcast’ for the past tense or past participle of the verb
Section B
Analysis of Written Language over Time: Newspaper Reports on Fires
Candidates seemed to find all three texts accessible at a basic level, and were able to make
clear general points about changes in approach. Comments on the content were mostly
sensible and showed some evidence of close reading. In most cases, the texts were
correctly identified by period, although it was surprising how many forgot to use this
opportunity to show their linguistic knowledge. Some identified Text A and then forgot the
others as their answer developed; some seemed to forget the historical element of the
question altogether; and there are still a number of candidates who seem to be completely
bewildered by the linguistic periods and by the chronology of history in general. Those who
neatly dealt with the periods of all three texts in a brief introduction seemed to do best.
There were a sizeable minority who failed to deal with language change in spite of the fact
that there were many examples of variations in spelling and punctuation, and of archaic lexis
and grammar which could have been explored. While addressing changes in journalism over
time can provide some evidence of knowledge, it is difficult for candidates to avoid sweeping
generalisations about journalistic practice. There were some sensible references to the
increased use of facts in Text C, to the effect changes in the speed of reporting an event has
on the content, and to changes in style. Where these were tied directly to examples from the
texts, candidates could be credited with some broad awareness of language change.
However, in failing to tackle this area more directly, some candidates limited the range of
their answers.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Identifying archaic lexis is often difficult in an examination, but many candidates seem to pick
out any polysyllabic words with which they are unfamiliar and claim them as obsolete.
Examples such as lamentable, indefatigable, tenement (many asserted that ‘tenement’ was
an older form of ‘tenant’), exertion and alacrity were often cited and it would be sensible to
advise candidates to explore their relative formality rather than making claims about their
complete disappearance from the English language. There are more straightforward
examples of words that are no longer used and candidates usefully discussed examples like
Accompt/fomented (Text A) and Fire-drums/forenoon (Text B). There were also some
problems with attempts to discuss semantic change. While many could pick out the use of
shifts (Text B, line 7) as a noun describing nightwear, suggestions that this word now means
‘a time at work’ were less effective. Similarly, the suggestion that fly (Text B, line 27) has
narrowed because it now means to go by plane is not very helpful. A number of candidates
thought that wholly was an incorrect spelling of ‘holy’ (which was then used to support the
argument for religious references in Text A), and that irresistible was now spelt ‘irresistable’.
Surprisingly, almost no one observed the non-standard past participle awoke (Text B),
although many commented on wrought.
In addressing spelling, many candidates showed a good understanding. They chose
appropriate examples and described any variation from the standard. It would be useful to
remind candidates, however, that merely listing words with different spellings is less effective
than being able to describe what they have observed: e.g. commenting on the doubling of
the consonant in interrupted, the contraction of hapned with the omission of the consonant
and vowel, or the substitution of –ie instead of –y in Majesties.
The term ‘prescriptive’ continues to be problematic with candidates making unsupportable
claims about rules and their application. Terminology tends to be very judgemental with
references to incorrect spelling, bad grammar and mistakes. Many fail to communicate a
sense of language change as a process in which standardisation took place over a period of
time. The publication of Johnson’s 1755 dictionary is often represented as the point at which
spelling, grammar and punctuation were suddenly standardised, with the suggestion that
there were no rules prior to this. The most successful answers, however, showed awareness
of a process, citing the inconsistent spelling of Teusday/Tuesday, the change in the spelling
of the preposition neer (Text A) and near (Text B), and the ways in which each text records
time.
There were often generalisations which prevented candidates from exploring more
meaningful points. Many suggested that Text B was prescriptive, therefore allowing the
writer to show off by using complex sentences – which were, apparently, not used in Text A.
Text B was also identified as containing declaratives which supposedly set it apart from the
figurative style of Text A. Candidates should be wary of such general statements about
sentence structure and grammatical mood because they reflect a lack of understanding of
basic principles. Invariably, claims that the sentences are all complex in the older texts and
simple in the most modern are unfounded. It would be better practice to identify evidence of
co-ordination and subordination in specific examples – particularly since sentences are often
compound-complex in the older texts and complex in the most recent text despite the fact
they are shorter. Too much effort was also expended in some cases on broad claims about
the Great Vowel Shift and intended audiences.
Many candidates made useful references to time and place adverbials, clearly showing
understanding of their function in a journalistic text. Dedicating a separate paragraph to
adverbials for each of the three texts, however, tended to result in repetition of fairly thin
interpretative comment. A similar problem arose with reference to the proper nouns used in
each case. The best responses dealt with these elements of the texts in one paragraph
outlining similarities since it meant that there was no duplication of material. There was still
some confusion about the difference between an adverbial and an adverb phrase, with many
candidates using the term ‘adverbial phrase’. ‘Adverbial’ is a label describing the function of
a phrase or clause – it does not indicate anything about the structure or form. In form,
adverbials can be noun phrases (Yesterday morning), prepositional phrases (On the second
instant), adverb phrases (immediately) or adverbial clauses (When the fire was at its
greatest height). It is acceptable to use either the function or form labels, but the best
candidates should be able to distinguish between the two.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
Many candidates showed a good understanding of each text and were able to describe
similarities and differences in reporting using appropriate terminology. It is perhaps useful to
advise candidates, however, that listing words in a particular semantic field for each text
without using word class terminology is not the best use of their time. Similarly, there were
many instances where discussion of the connotations of words amounted to little more than
a paraphrase of their meaning. Candidates should have a clear understanding of the
difference between the denotation and connotations of a word.
Some problems with terms:

superlative – there seemed to be wide-spread confusion about superlatives. While
recognising greatest, many candidates quoted the adverb most as a superlative, failing
to realise that the superlative form of a polysyllabic adjective is most + adjective
(e.g. most extensive)

tenor – this describes the relationship between participants, in particular the level of
formality. There seemed to be some confusion between ‘tenor’ and ‘register’ with
candidates describing the religious tenor, the dramatic tenor of the texts

hyperbole – this was widely over-used to describe anything that had a heightened, or
dramatic tone. It is a figure of speech that is used specifically to describe something that
has been exaggerated for effect

inverted syntax – many candidates cited this paper having been interrupted/care was not
taken as examples of archaic syntax, not recognising the passive verb phrases; one of
the clock is archaic, but not an example of inverted syntax – we use the same
expression contracted

present continuous – some candidates described every ‘verb+ing’ as present continuous
(i.e. progressive aspect), not recognising that it is made up of ‘to be + -ing participle’ (e.g.
was operating – past progressive). Examples such as the spreading (verbal noun),
pulling down … (non-finite clause) and two bleeding women (participle functioning as a
modifier) were wrongly cited as examples

declarative – newspaper reports rarely use anything other than declaratives, but many
candidates cited Text B as evidence of the link between the emergence of prescriptivism
and the use of declaratives

acronym – used to describe CNN, which is an example of initialism. Acronym is reserved
for lexical units that have become words in their own right although they are also made
up of initial letters (e.g. radar i.e. radio detection and ranging)

adverbials – in quoting an adverbial, it is important to decide what form the lexical unit
takes in order to ensure that the whole phrase is cited e.g. in the city of London (PrepP),
Yesterday morning (NP)

determiners – there was significant confusion about possessive determiners (his hotel
room), which were almost universally described as possessive pronouns (‘mine’, ‘yours’)

direct speech – the words actually spoken are marked by speech marks and are usually
accompanied by a quoting clause (e.g. King said); reported (or indirect) speech – the
words spoken are not quoted directly, but are included in a noun clause beginning with
that (e.g. Tony Snow told reporters the incident did not appear …). Many candidates
referred to the direct speech in Text C as ‘quotations’
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Other faults and weaknesses in answers:

lengthy discussion of determiners - while there was a valid point to be made about the
elliptical nature of the headline (Text C), discussion of an omitted fronted indefinite article
suggested an inadequate understanding. For a lexical unit to be described as ‘fronted’, it
must have been moved from its usual position in the sentence to the initial position

making assumptions about word classes without checking the context - That a violent
Easterly wind – subordinating conjunction not a pronoun; short, but true – co-ordinating
conjunction linking contrasting adjectives, not a sentence co-ordinator marking a
compound-complex sentence; but their shifts – preposition meaning ‘except for/apart
from’ not a co-ordinating conjunction; by the blessing of God – abstract noun

choosing inappropriate examples to support points made – the personification of the fire
was often exemplified through the non-finite clause pulling down houses (i.e. an act by
the inhabitants) and the main clause It fell out most unhappily (where the pronoun does
not refer to the fire, but is a dummy subject used to place emphasis on the noun clause
in the end position)

extended discussion of paragraph length

quoting long extracts without focusing or commenting

spelling ‘orthography’ as authography

confusing punctuation with grammar and making false claims – that all the commas in
Text A would now be full stops

making general assertions about the sentence structure: that Text B was the only one to
have compound-complex sentences; that Text C had only simple and minor sentences

describing however as a subordinating conjunction when it is a linking sentence adverb
GCE English Language Examiners Report January 2013/ED
08 03 13
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.