Download welsh joint education committee

GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AS/Advanced
JANUARY 2014
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Unit
Page
LG1
1
LG4
3
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Education
January 2014
Advanced Subsidiary
LG1: Introduction to the Language of Texts
Principal Examiner:
Elizabeth Hughes
The candidature was small for the January 2014 examination and all candidates were
resitting the unit. They were generally well-prepared with many answers fulfilling the
requirement to produce concise analytical points which explore a range of aspects of the
texts and make precise use of relevant linguistic terminology. Overall the three texts proved
to be accessible for weaker candidates whilst also allowing more able candidates to
demonstrate their high level knowledge and skills effectively. There were very few instances
of candidates failing to recognise the different demands posed by the paper’s two sections.
Section A: The Language of Texts
Candidates were asked to analyse two texts related to healthcare choices: an information
leaflet provided by the organisation Flu Fighters offering vaccinations for working adults at
the request of their employers and an extract from the NHS website promoting the 5 A DAY
campaign encouraging the public to adopt a healthier diet by eating more fruit and
vegetables. The main focus for both texts was the use of language, especially how language
is used to give advice and information.
Most candidates were able to demonstrate an understanding of the aims and purposes of
the texts and showed awareness of how the language of the two texts appealed to their
respective audiences, recognising that one was quite specific whilst the other was much
broader. They were able to discuss how this affected the register of the text. Successful
responses were able to contextualise the texts by linking points to their specific audiences
and purposes whilst exploring how successfully language was used to present the texts’
approaches to maintaining good health and countering issues and concerns. The very best
candidates were able to make a lot of points by writing concisely and precisely.
Text A (the Flu Fighters leaflet) described the harm that flu can do and the ease with which it
can be transmitted. The vaccination was presented as safe and convenient, whilst the
organisation itself was shown as being concerned for its customers’ welfare. Candidates
were generally able to identify and discuss some of the specific language features used to
create both a sense of urgency and reassurance. There was sensible discussion of the
metaphor and alliteration in the noun phrase ‘Flu Fighters’, with some candidates exploring
the idea of super heroes and team work quite successfully. Many candidates commented on
the effective use of hypophora throughout the leaflet, although there was some mislabelling,
for example: ‘How does the vaccine work?’ often being referred to as a rhetorical question.
Other candidates referred to the questions and answers in the written leaflet as adjacency
pairs. There was some sensible discussion of the use of listing to create a sense of threat
but also to give the range of benefits that the vaccination would provide. However, as often
happens, there was some confusion between asyndetic and syndetic lists. Many candidates
mentioned the persuasive features of the proper noun ‘World Health Organisation’, the
superlative ‘best’ and the noun phrases ‘qualified Flu Fighters nurse’ and ‘your peace of
mind’ whilst others sensibly discussed the use of the colloquial noun ‘flu’ in relation to the
leaflet’s audience. On the other hand, a number of candidates referred to the exclamatory
simple sentence ‘It’s free!’ as an exclamative.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Text B (the NHS 5 A DAY website extract) was clearly promoting the health benefits of
adding more fruit and vegetables to your diet. There was much sensible discussion covering
the use of imperatives e.g. ‘Add fruit …’ throughout the extract, as a device to encourage
readers to make changes to their diet. Many candidates noted the use of parenthesis
‘(provided you don’t fry them or roast them in lots of oil) but often did not add any analysis.
The better candidates were able to explore the humorous effect created by this feature.
There was some wide-ranging discussion of the persuasive language used in the text, with
many candidates commenting on the repetition of the adjectives ‘delicious’ and ’healthy’ and
the syndetic lists setting out the many health problems averted by healthy eating e.g. ’heart
disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and obesity’.
Most candidates were able to make useful comparisons and contrasts between the texts,
although in some cases this did not move beyond some fairly vague and unproductive
discussion of differing levels of formality. There were some effectively structured responses,
but other candidates included very broad introductions to the texts, often spending an
inordinate amount of time describing audience and purpose with no accompanying analysis.
Some candidates wasted valuable time copying out the contextual information.
Common errors included confusion between asyndetic and syndetic listing; describing the
determiner ‘your’ as a pronoun; describing plural nouns such as ‘potatoes’ as collective
nouns; referring to the pronoun ‘you’ as a vocative; describing complements e.g. ’broccoli
florets are delicious ‘ as adjectives and referring to the first person plural pronoun ‘we’ as
third person. Some candidates are still quoting imprecisely. This occurred mainly when
syndetic lists were referred to as asyndetic lists, because the conjunction had been omitted
from the quotation. It is vital that the selection of quotations accurately supports the points
being made. Problems arise when some candidates do some or all of the following: referring
to line numbers instead of giving a quotation; omitting line numbers altogether; writing out
sections of the text when making a point about a specific word or phrase.
Section B: Language Focus
There was a good sense of focus in this section and most candidates found little difficulty in
identifying relevant examples from the text to show the writer’s attitudes to the opening
ceremonies of the London and Beijing Olympics and his opinions of the host nations
themselves. There was much intelligent and interesting discussion but not all candidates
were able to offer a linguistic analysis, despite engaging with the text. Some used only
limited terminology in their answers and there was not always an awareness of language in
context e.g. both ceremonies were described by the writer as a ‘party’ but the choice of the
noun had a different effect. Most candidates were able to offer a focused discussion of the
opening minor sentence and adjective ‘Brilliant’, as a way of establishing the writer’s
admiration for Great Britain’s Olympic ceremony. There was also some sound discussion
surrounding the context of the Chinese opening ceremony and the government’s lack of
humanity evident in that ceremony. The majority of candidates offered some exploration of
the effect of the parenthesis ‘(which was an injury …). Most also chose to discuss the effect
of the asyndetic listing and patterning of abstract noun phrases ‘their passion, their hope,
their struggle’ although the nouns were sometimes referred to as verbs or adjectives.
Similarly, many candidates commented on the effect of the patterning of the manner adverbs
‘epically’ and ‘poetically’ but often referred to them incorrectly as adjectives. It would be
useful if candidates were made aware of the importance of precision and accuracy when
using word classes.
The best candidates were able to comment on the flattering language used by Weiwei when
praising the realism of the London Olympic ceremony and his view of the Beijing ceremony
as being grand though impersonal and affected. Weaker candidates tended to just comment
on ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ features. Finally some candidates are still spending time writing
lengthy contextual opening paragraphs, which are not required for this focused section.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Education
January 2014
Advanced
LG4: Analysing and Evaluating Language Modes and Contexts
Principal Examiner:
Sara Thorne
There were very few entries for the January module this time. In a small but significant
number of cases, candidates had clearly spent longer on one section than the other,
resulting in marks that were noticeably different across the two responses. There were also
scripts where one section had not been tried at all.
Section A: Analysis of spoken language (radio news)
Good answers tackled a range of issues arising from the texts, with a clear understanding of
both genre and spoken language features. There was useful discussion of the differences
between professional broadcasters and contributors (members of the public, Text A; an
‘expert’, Text B). In the best examples, candidates addressed levels of fluency; the use of
non-standard lexis and grammar, informal pronunciation, and colloquial lexis in Text A; and
subject specific lexis, the length of turns and utterance structure in Text B.
While many could make an accurate observation that the man in Text A uses ‘wasn’t’ where
we would expect ‘weren’t’ in Standard English, few were able to use terminology accurately
to explain that the subject and verb did not agree (i.e. a third person singular verb form had
been used where grammatically a third person plural would have been standard). There was
some brief, sensible use of theory in comparing the contributors, referencing Lakoff to
suggest that women are more likely to use prestige forms.
Responses showed a good understanding of the relationship between the topics chosen and
the intended audience, but understanding of the structure of a news broadcast was not
always secure. A number of responses did not recognise the relationship between the
opening headlines and the extended reports. The recurrence of lines spoken by the two girls
in Text A (often mistakenly referred to as a topic loop) was seen as evidence that they were
nervous rather than as an example of a hook at the beginning of the programme to persuade
the audience to continue listening. Few responses addressed the importance of editing in
Text A.
Most candidates were aware of the informative nature of the texts with some sensible
comments made about the use of enumerators (although many did not use the term), proper
nouns, subject specific lexis and neutral modifiers. There was also broad understanding of
the use of emphatic stress and emotive modifiers to engage the audience. The best
responses were able to cite stressed emotive adjectives (e.g. ‘special’, ‘extraordinary’) and
the use of superlatives as evidence. The importance of deictic references was often
recognised, but many candidates found it difficult to provide precise evidence using
appropriate terminology. In Text A, for instance, there was clearly some confusion between
adverbials such as ‘right’ and ’left’, and deictic place references such as the adverb ‘here’
and the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ (l.23).
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
Discussion of the non-fluency features in Text B showed general understanding, but the
specific context was often not considered. Many responses described James Naughtie as
interrupting because he wanted to dominate the turn-taking and Justin Webb as having a
stutter (which was described as ‘surprising’ for a broadcaster in an attempt to make sense of
the apparent incongruity). It is very important that candidates read the information provided
about each text because it sets the context of the interaction. In the best responses,
candidates understood the importance of affirmation, apology and humour in minimising the
threat to the contributor’s positive face, and saw the use of colloquial lexis and extensive
unintentional repetition as a direct result of the unexpected technical disruption.
Candidates should take every opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge. Many cite words
to support their argument, but do not include appropriate terminology. In any discussion of
emphatic stress, for instance, it is important that word class labels are used – otherwise the
points made become little more than very general observations in which words in bold are
copied from the extracts. Similarly, in exploring lexical sets or semantic fields it is useful to
consider the type of words rather than just listing groups with loose semantic associations.
Section B: Analysis of written language over time (travel writing)
Most candidates seemed to find all three texts accessible and were able to recognise the
differences at some level, with the best responses exploring changes in the nature of the
genre as well as changes in language over time. Where candidates deal only with historical
features, their responses can become rather limited, and in some cases there is no sense of
what the texts are about. Observations about language change should be accompanied by
discussion of the content. Candidates commenting on the presentation of tobacco as
medicinal in Text A, for instance, were able to address changes in attitude alongside
discussion of ‘naming’ i.e. the adoption of ‘tobacco’ as a loan word from the Spanish, and
Hariot’s use of vppówoc from the Native American Algonquian language – in a few cases, a
link was made to Palin’s use of the Italian tartuffi. The best responses recognised Hariot’s
and Palin’s enthusiasm for a local product, and their differing attitudes to the inhabitants.
Very few responses cited the environmental concerns and subject specific lexis in the final
paragraph of Text C as evidence of the text’s twenty-first century provenance and
contemporary attitudes.
Candidates were on more secure ground with attitudes in Text B, although generalisations
often meant that candidates missed interesting opportunities for discussing changes in tone.
Many picked out the positive adjectives in the first paragraph of Text B and clearly
recognised their importance in communicating Smollett’s attitude to Perugia. Many others
identified the negative attitude in the second paragraph, but very few talked about both. In
one very astute response, a distinction was made between Smollett’s positive attitude to the
things he saw and his negative attitude to the experiences he had. Attributive adjectives
were accurately identified, but few commented on the predicative adjectives, which allowed
Smollett to be particularly emphatic. Where candidates had read and assimilated the
background information, they were able to make sensible links between Smollett’s attitude
and his ill-health and the death of his daughter.
Language change was addressed less effectively in Text B with candidates often just
copying words from the footnotes and describing them as obsolete. There were, however,
some successful points made about the spelling of ‘risque’, the loan word ‘cabaret’, and
changes in attitude to culturally alienating terms (‘Hottentot’). There was some attempt to
explore the semantic change of ‘post’, and some valid discussion of the archaism ‘forenoon’.
Awareness of changes in tenor usefully contrasted the formality of Texts A and B with the
more informal spoken voice of Text C. Palin’s humour was well-observed, but candidates
often found it difficult to explain linguistically. There was some understanding of the use of
parenthesis and colloquial idiom, but the ambiguous pronoun reference (l.5) caused more
problems. Candidates often cited the elliptical ‘Truffles, that is, not socks.’, but provided no
analytical comment.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
There continue to be problems with candidates’ identification of period, with a number
identifying Text A as Old English or Middle English. Candidates also use up valuable time on
generalisations about Caxton’s printing press, Shakespeare’s English and Jane Austen’s
‘carefully crafted sentences’. Broad statements about the educated and the uneducated,
wealth and poverty, the ‘exceptional intelligence’ of Hariot and Smollett, and ‘the invention of
the dictionary’ are equally vague.
Ultimately, what makes an answer stand out at all levels is where the candidate is clearly
engaging with the texts as examples of real language with meaning. They do need to
describe spelling variation, to comment on semantic change and to use terminology
appropriately, but this is most productive when combined with an awareness of genre and
content.
Terms causing problems:

false start – this is distinguished from unintentional repetition because there is evidence
that a speaker has started again with a different grammatical structure (e.g. just uh I can
… l.15, Text B)

vocative – this is a direct address to a named individual - it exists outside the
grammatical structure of a sentence. Justin Webb’s direct reference to Mr Downs (l.15,
Text B) is a vocative; other names are not.

anaphora – this is often used inaccurately as a general term for repetition. In classical
rhetoric, it describes the grammatical repetition of a sequence of words at the beginning
of consecutive clauses (e.g. ‘It was a town of red brick … it was a town of unnatural red
and black…It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys … ‘, Hard Times). In linguistic
terms, it describes a process of referencing e.g. a pronoun referring back to the noun
which precedes it is an anaphoric reference

phatic – this describes a function of language used for interaction (e.g. good morning,
thank you very much, Text B); talking about the weather can be an example of phatic
language, but this is not the case in the headlines of Text A; individual words such as
‘coz’ and ‘well’ are not phatic

collective noun – this refers to a singular noun which represents a group (e.g.
committee, flock, family); it should not be used to describe plural nouns such as people

present continuous – this refers to the progressive aspect which is a verb phrase made
up of the verb ‘to be’ + present (-ing) participle. Where –ing verb forms are functioning as
nouns (e.g. stamping … dauncing, clapping … , Text A), they are best described as
verbal nouns

-eth verbs – it would be useful if candidates could describe this commonly occurring
EME inflection using the appropriate terminology i.e. third person singular present tense
inflection; by the end of the Early Modern English period, this standard southern
inflection had become obsolete, replaced by the Northern dialect –s inflection
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Other problems:









the spelling of ‘spontaneity’ (often spelt ‘spontinuity’)
the use of ‘emphasis’ (noun) where the verb ‘emphasise’ was needed
the use of ‘sentence’ where ‘utterance’ is better for transcribed speech
the listing of words which are poly- or monosyllabic with a very generalised comment
about formality or informality
the use of ‘listener’ (with the implication that this was a radio broadcast) rather than
‘viewer’
long quotations which are tagged on at the end of sentences and not analysed or
discussed
the spelling of ‘deixis’ and ‘deictic’
not checking words in context – many candidates described cheers (l.22, Text A) and
burst (l.24, Text A) as verbs when they are nouns in this context
mistaken references to Huw Edwards as ‘Huw Stephens’ (the Radio 1 presenter), which
often resulted in candidates making a false correlation between informality features and
a supposed ‘disrespect’ for royalty
Section B
Analysis of Written Language over Time: Advertising or Promotion of Magic/Circus
Acts
Many candidates seemed to enjoy writing about these extracts, although there were also
cases where answers were not completed. Inevitably the older texts are more challenging,
but most candidates managed to explore the formality of Text A and recognised the change
of tone in Text B with its attempt to re-create the drama of the moment through exclamatory
interjections. Candidates were on secure ground with Text C, making sensible points about
language and structure, and exploring the use of humour.
Discussion of historical features was often quite narrow. Candidates were able to observe
variations in spelling, but often did not attempt to describe or explain the differences. In the
better responses, there was evidence of understanding since candidates were able to
accurately label examples and to use grammatical terminology: for instance, the best
responses recognised that join’d was a past participle where the –ed inflection had been
elided; or that capitalisation was used for words with semantic significance such as the
abstract noun Wonder where we would now only use initial capitalisation for proper nouns
and to mark the beginning of a new sentence. In Text B, while many picked out hath as
archaic, very few were able to describe it as a present tense 3rd person singular verb and
many thought it was a past tense form. In a few cases, candidates identified this as an
example of archaic usage at the time, linking the choice of verb to the purpose of the text in
creating a mysterious and esoteric mood.
Picking out examples of semantic change is difficult in exam conditions, but in some cases
candidates showed evidence of close reading, selecting words that they could explore
sensibly. There was effective discussion of the nouns Tavern, Satisfaction and Maidens and
the adjective tedious (Text A), and the interjections when lo! and What, ho! and the nouns
autographs, Daguerratype and Electrography (Text B). As a point of comparison, some
responses explored the American spelling in Text C. Candidates also considered word
formation effectively, discussing the noun phrase any thing and the hyphenated noun facsimile which are now compounded.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
Many were able to pick out examples of inverted syntax, but few were able to discuss these
successfully. The opening sentence of Text A, for instance, was often described as archaic,
but the fronted adverbials are less interesting as a feature of historical language than the
archaic preposition over-against, which was often over-looked. Similarly, the fronted noun
clause (l.5) was more significant for its re-positioning of the proper nouns at the beginning of
the sentence. A more effective example of archaic grammar can be seen in the position of
the adverb ‘before’. It occurs both in its modern end position (ever seen before) and in the
medial position (any thing before seen). There was some sensible discussion of time
references, although many candidates could do little more than state that half-past Seven
o’clock “should not have ‘o’clock’ on the end”. The ability to recognise this as a contracted
prepositional phrase would be helpful. Very few candidates saw the inconsistent use of the
possessive inflection in Text A, which was absent in the title (At Mr Barnes and Finleys
Booth), but used in the noun phrase The late Jacob Hall’s Son.
There are some misconceptions about historical language features which often occur
because of confusion about historical periods and the historical sequence of events. Many
thought that the contracted verb forms were a result of Caxton “charging by the letter”, or an
example of “the latest fashion”. Others argued that the use of initial capitals was a hangover
from the Germanic influence. These theories are quite difficult to authenticate and
candidates would be better advised to stick to a close reading of the text and analysis of its
key features.
Candidates should be wary of spending too long exploring graphological features. There
were differences in approach and some candidates used this fact to support their argument
about changes in genre. However, others dealt with the presentation of each text in detail
with a separate paragraph for each extract. Discussion of paragraph length and the use of
headings does not offer opportunities to demonstrate linguistic knowledge and candidates
spending this long on very general features often did not manage to cover a wide enough
range of language analysis.
There was evidence of real engagement where candidates recognised that Texts A and B
were examples of self-promotion and Text C was a review. It gave the opportunity for effective
exploration of genre, with a consideration of the tone and the effects created by language
choice. Discussion of superlatives, emotive pre-modifiers, figurative language, rhetorical
patterning and changes in grammatical mood showed a secure understanding of purpose and
genre.
Some problem with terms:





exclamatives – these are grammatical structures where the aim is to express the extent to
which speakers or writers are stirred by something. They begin with ‘What …’ (What a night
that was!) or “How …’ (How stupid is that!). The examples here are exclamatories.
past tense – candidates often use this term to describe all –ed verb forms. It is important to
look at the context to see whether the verb form is a past tense standing alone (premiered),
or is a past participle dependent on an auxiliary (has … surpass’d) or a group of auxiliaries
(have been … pleas’d).
abstract nouns – these were frequently described as adjectives: Agility, Sweetness,
Perfection, Excellency (Text A); Amazement (Text B); zaniness, flexibility (Text C)
hyperbole – anything positive tended to be described as hyperbole, with many candidates
missing effective examples such as the whole World can testify; hyperbole was also
mistakenly used as proof that Text A was “informal”
superlatives – while recognising highest and best (l.5), many candidates cited only ‘most’
rather than the complete most famous (Text A) and most minute (Text B); in addition,
positive adjectives (breathtaking, awe-inducing) were often described as superlative
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7



adverbials/prepositional phrases – it is important to recognise that not all prepositional
phrases are adverbials. Where a prepositional phrase stands alone and gives us information
about time (On Monday, June 14th) or place (Between the Crown-Tavern and HospitalGate …), it is an adverbial; where it is linked to a noun, it has a post-modifying function (A
little Girl about 3: Years old …)
vocative – this was again used interchangeably with ‘terms of address’ with only a few
candidates recognising the vocative Ladies (Text B)
collective nouns – these are nouns referring to a group of people or things (e.g. audience,
Text B); many candidates were using the term to refer to plural nouns (e.g. Spectators,
Text A)
Other problems:








the spelling of ‘consonant’ and ‘advertisement’
not checking words in context – many candidates described publick (Text A) as a noun
where it is an adjective, and best as an adjective where it is functioning as the head of
noun phrase (the best of musick)
spending too long discussing very narrow features – for example, a whole paragraph on
the use of the definite article
assuming that formal words (thus) are archaic and therefore obsolete
spending too long on wider context (for instance, children and work, the Education Act,
sexism)
the use of broad expressions like ‘back in the day’ and ‘back then’
the use of long quotations which are tagged onto the end of sentences with no comment
overly long quotations where the key words are not underlined
GCE English Language Report January 2014
19/2/14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
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.