Please read over this analysis of the response from our former student MK. If you are able to fully understand what this person has done, then you should be able to replicate/improve.
The Mark
First of all, let's look at section A.
For this section, MK received a mark of 42. She was originally given 40, but then the marker clearly had second thoughts, and moved AO1 + AO2 up by a mark. 40 would equate to a Mid B, and 42 would be a high B.
A lot of you would probably be very happy to achieve this mark, so clearly there is a lot we can learn from the response.
MK has scored 15 for both AO1 and AO2, so take note of how often she uses terms, and how often she explains meaning. AO4 scores lower, so you should also take note of how few comparisons are made, and consider how you could have done this better.
Amount/Structure
You will probably notice a couple of things after only a brief read of the response.
Firstly, the response features only FIVE paragraphs on each text, not including the introductions. This is different to the 7-8 you have been told to attempt. Therefore, you can imagine how much higher the mark could have been if a wider range of points had been covered.
Secondly, only FOUR comparisons are made between the texts, and they ALL appear in the analysis of Text B. Whilst MK is awarded 12/20 for AO4, we can certainly assume that she would have scored higher if she had provided more connections. Note also that she points out similarities and differences, which is fine in this question.
Content
Note how the paragraphs are concise, but that the amount of analysis covered in each varies. Sometimes only one quote is used. Sometimes up to three are used. However, EVERY time, linguistic features are picked out of the quotes with terms applied to explain their effect.
Note how EVERY topic sentence makes a clear point about role, attitude, tone, relationship etc.
Note how most topic sentences perform more than one function, often including at least some basic text analysis ONCE the point has been CLEARLY MADE.
Note how both texts are introduced with a CLEAR OVERVIEW paragraph which shows their initial understanding of what is going on.
Thursday, 19 December 2019
1A - Political Spoken Language (Basic)
The role of the interviewer
*If you get a question about political language, it is likely to be between an interviewer and a politician/aspiring politician.
*The first thing you should do is to determine whether or not the interviewer has any bias. If there is any indication that the interviewer is 'on the same side' as the politician, then you should focus on how this is shown throughout the interview.
*However, this is unlikely to be the case. Most respected political interviewers have reached their position because they are able to remain relatively impartial.
*The main reason politicians are interviewed is to 'hold them to account'. Essentially, this means that politicians should always be made to explain themselves and their actions, as they are the ones who are running the country. Due to their public role and privilege, they are not afforded the same levels of privacy that other public figures are.
*So, if a politician has implemented a new law, they will be quizzed about it.
*If a politician has done or said something controversial, they will be quizzed about it.
*Even if the politician has done nothing 'wrong', interviewers will still try to find questions which put them on the spot and make them feel that they have to explain themselves in depth.
*Interviewers will often ask questions which are sharp, or even insulting. They do this because, as press, they have the right to do so, and they want informative and honest answers. Provided they are not being slanderous or libellous, they have a lot of freedom to ask what they want.
The role of the politician
*You have seen this VERY clearly over the last few weeks and months. Politicians are the absolute Kings and Queens of a technique known as AVOIDANCE. This is where they flout Grice's Maxim of relation, and sidestep awkward questions by changing the subject, interrupting, or answering an interrogative with another interrogative.
*The reason they do this is quite simple. Politicians often do not have the answers to the questions they are asked OR they are aware of the fact that if they were to answer truthfully, it would make them look bad.
*Even the kindest-hearted politicians will have things they would rather not talk about on TV or Radio because, by its very nature, politics involves pleasing some people and upsetting others. There is no way to please everybody.
*In terms of their purpose and roles, politicians primarily care about one thing - gaining votes and staying in their job. Most politicians will do whatever it takes to stay in their position.
*So, expect to see lots of avoidance. Lots of focus on the things they have done well, even if it is not relevant to the question. Lots of euphemism and minimisers when discussing things they have done wrong. Lots of dysphemism and hyperbole when discussing the failings of their competitors.
*In terms of structure, expect to see them interrupting a lot if they feel the conversation is becoming uncomfortable. Expect them to attempt to appear happy/laughing, even if things are decidedly uncomfortable. Expect them to show non-fluency features such as false starts or stutters if they are trying to buy time after a particularly awkward question.
*In terms of grammar, expect them to use formality in large parts of their discourse to appear educated. Expect them to use low-frequency catchphrases or statements from the semantic field of politics to make them sound constant, reliable etc. They may us excerpts of Latin or French to make themselves sound 'elite' and educated. HOWEVER, do also expect them to drop their formality (convergence) when they are specifically appealing to the votes of the public - particularly the working classes. This is to make them appear more human.
*Lexis - Expect lots of emotive language. Expect them to make references to emotive issues such as health, education, disasters etc as these are the things which the public primarily feel most emotion towards. Expect them to be increasingly vague when asked about money, timescales etc as they will often not want to commit to things that they know are untrue.
Overall
*Look for interviewers asking questions on behalf of the public.
*If the politician avoids, sidetracks etc - ask yourself WHY and turn it into a point.
*If the politician seems to make more honest references, ask WHY and turn it into a point.
*Look at the structure of the conversation and ask why things like interruptions and latches on are happening.
*And ALWAYS remember. A politician's speech is not just THEM speaking. They have whole teams of advisers who will tell them what they can and cannot talk about. They will have been briefed AT LENGTH before agreeing to any political interview. They will be hugely ON THEIR GUARD.
Practice Task
Go on YouTube and find a couple of political interviews and see if you can make a quick plan about the purpose, attitudes and roles of the speakers, also commenting on the relationship between them.
*If you get a question about political language, it is likely to be between an interviewer and a politician/aspiring politician.
*The first thing you should do is to determine whether or not the interviewer has any bias. If there is any indication that the interviewer is 'on the same side' as the politician, then you should focus on how this is shown throughout the interview.
*However, this is unlikely to be the case. Most respected political interviewers have reached their position because they are able to remain relatively impartial.
*The main reason politicians are interviewed is to 'hold them to account'. Essentially, this means that politicians should always be made to explain themselves and their actions, as they are the ones who are running the country. Due to their public role and privilege, they are not afforded the same levels of privacy that other public figures are.
*So, if a politician has implemented a new law, they will be quizzed about it.
*If a politician has done or said something controversial, they will be quizzed about it.
*Even if the politician has done nothing 'wrong', interviewers will still try to find questions which put them on the spot and make them feel that they have to explain themselves in depth.
*Interviewers will often ask questions which are sharp, or even insulting. They do this because, as press, they have the right to do so, and they want informative and honest answers. Provided they are not being slanderous or libellous, they have a lot of freedom to ask what they want.
The role of the politician
*You have seen this VERY clearly over the last few weeks and months. Politicians are the absolute Kings and Queens of a technique known as AVOIDANCE. This is where they flout Grice's Maxim of relation, and sidestep awkward questions by changing the subject, interrupting, or answering an interrogative with another interrogative.
*The reason they do this is quite simple. Politicians often do not have the answers to the questions they are asked OR they are aware of the fact that if they were to answer truthfully, it would make them look bad.
*Even the kindest-hearted politicians will have things they would rather not talk about on TV or Radio because, by its very nature, politics involves pleasing some people and upsetting others. There is no way to please everybody.
*In terms of their purpose and roles, politicians primarily care about one thing - gaining votes and staying in their job. Most politicians will do whatever it takes to stay in their position.
*So, expect to see lots of avoidance. Lots of focus on the things they have done well, even if it is not relevant to the question. Lots of euphemism and minimisers when discussing things they have done wrong. Lots of dysphemism and hyperbole when discussing the failings of their competitors.
*In terms of structure, expect to see them interrupting a lot if they feel the conversation is becoming uncomfortable. Expect them to attempt to appear happy/laughing, even if things are decidedly uncomfortable. Expect them to show non-fluency features such as false starts or stutters if they are trying to buy time after a particularly awkward question.
*In terms of grammar, expect them to use formality in large parts of their discourse to appear educated. Expect them to use low-frequency catchphrases or statements from the semantic field of politics to make them sound constant, reliable etc. They may us excerpts of Latin or French to make themselves sound 'elite' and educated. HOWEVER, do also expect them to drop their formality (convergence) when they are specifically appealing to the votes of the public - particularly the working classes. This is to make them appear more human.
*Lexis - Expect lots of emotive language. Expect them to make references to emotive issues such as health, education, disasters etc as these are the things which the public primarily feel most emotion towards. Expect them to be increasingly vague when asked about money, timescales etc as they will often not want to commit to things that they know are untrue.
Overall
*Look for interviewers asking questions on behalf of the public.
*If the politician avoids, sidetracks etc - ask yourself WHY and turn it into a point.
*If the politician seems to make more honest references, ask WHY and turn it into a point.
*Look at the structure of the conversation and ask why things like interruptions and latches on are happening.
*And ALWAYS remember. A politician's speech is not just THEM speaking. They have whole teams of advisers who will tell them what they can and cannot talk about. They will have been briefed AT LENGTH before agreeing to any political interview. They will be hugely ON THEIR GUARD.
Practice Task
Go on YouTube and find a couple of political interviews and see if you can make a quick plan about the purpose, attitudes and roles of the speakers, also commenting on the relationship between them.
Wednesday, 18 December 2019
A List of Revision Activities for over Christmas
1. (Section B) Take one of your case studies for either power or Standard/Non-Standard. Read it over when you get up in the morning (that'll take you about two minutes). Try to remember just a couple of really key quotes. Then, later in the day, sit down and try to write an analytical paragraph about it from memory, making reference to the quotes you have remembered and using terms.
If you aren't sure which 'question' to answer, just be very generic. For STD/NSTD, answer the question 'How does this case study reveal people's attitudes to standard/non-standard English'. For POWER, just answer 'How is power revealed or used in this case study.'
2. (Section A) Attempt a full response on the Strictly/The Voice transcripts based on your bullet point plan. Once you have done this, mark it using the mark scheme which I've sent out to you by email. Try to be critical of yourself and point out things you have fallen short on. Even better, send your essay to a friend and get them to mark it.
3. (Section A) If you have attempted this Section A essay, read my post on the blog which analyses a strong response from a former student. I have emailed this out to you. See how yours compares and set yourself about 3-5 targets for next time.
4. (Section A) Have a go at redoing some paragraphs and see if you can improve.
5. (Section B) Look at the 'possible questions' post on the blog, and pick one or two of the toughest ones. Have a go at making a quick plan if they were to come up.
6. (Section B) Look at the former student's response that I have emailed out to you. Make a list of things she does which get her ticks and positive annotations. Highlight bits that you think are better than what you would have written. Look at the case studies she references and write example paragraphs on them. (She mentions one or two which we haven't done yet, so don't panic.)
7. (Section A) - Attempt a plan/response on the 'Don't Tell The Bride/ Radio' extracts.
That should easily be enough to keep you going.
Have a great Christmas!
Nick
If you aren't sure which 'question' to answer, just be very generic. For STD/NSTD, answer the question 'How does this case study reveal people's attitudes to standard/non-standard English'. For POWER, just answer 'How is power revealed or used in this case study.'
2. (Section A) Attempt a full response on the Strictly/The Voice transcripts based on your bullet point plan. Once you have done this, mark it using the mark scheme which I've sent out to you by email. Try to be critical of yourself and point out things you have fallen short on. Even better, send your essay to a friend and get them to mark it.
3. (Section A) If you have attempted this Section A essay, read my post on the blog which analyses a strong response from a former student. I have emailed this out to you. See how yours compares and set yourself about 3-5 targets for next time.
4. (Section A) Have a go at redoing some paragraphs and see if you can improve.
5. (Section B) Look at the 'possible questions' post on the blog, and pick one or two of the toughest ones. Have a go at making a quick plan if they were to come up.
6. (Section B) Look at the former student's response that I have emailed out to you. Make a list of things she does which get her ticks and positive annotations. Highlight bits that you think are better than what you would have written. Look at the case studies she references and write example paragraphs on them. (She mentions one or two which we haven't done yet, so don't panic.)
7. (Section A) - Attempt a plan/response on the 'Don't Tell The Bride/ Radio' extracts.
That should easily be enough to keep you going.
Have a great Christmas!
Nick
Tuesday, 17 December 2019
1B - Possible questions (Not official, I've just made these up)
Hi everyone,
A couple of people asked if I could provide any more potential questions for 1B as there are so few actual past papers. I will attempt to suggest some areas where you could write practice paragraphs.
1. A good study technique would be to print these off and jot down the case studies you would use if they came up. You have been given enough to cover any of these.
2. Answering example PGs on some of the trickier ones will help too.
All questions will begin with 'Using this extract as a starting point...'
Power
1. How can language be used to dominate?
2. How can language be used to manipulate?
3. How can language exploit certain types of people?
4. How can language be used to make people do things?
5. How can people break expectations of their role using language?
6. How is power shown in situations LIKE court cases?
7. How is power shown in the classroom and other SIMILAR situations?
8. How does the media use language to exert power over people?
Situation
1. How has Political Correctness changed language?
2. Discuss the idea that the context of a situation is as important as the language chosen.
3. How does language change in sensitive situations?
4. How does a person's job affect the language they use?
5. How does a situation's formality change how people use language?
Standard and Non-Standard English
1. How does a person's accent or dialect affect what people think about them?
2. Do people see a link between language and class?
3. Do people see a link between language and intelligence?
4. Do people see a link between language and crime/anti-social behaviour
5. "In general, people see Standard English and RP as BETTER than regional English." Do you agree?
6. "It is unlikely that Regional Varieties of English will ever be seen as equal to RP/STD". DO you agree?
Remember that you need to KEYWORD the question as it may state something very specific that you don't want to ignore.
A couple of people asked if I could provide any more potential questions for 1B as there are so few actual past papers. I will attempt to suggest some areas where you could write practice paragraphs.
1. A good study technique would be to print these off and jot down the case studies you would use if they came up. You have been given enough to cover any of these.
2. Answering example PGs on some of the trickier ones will help too.
All questions will begin with 'Using this extract as a starting point...'
Power
1. How can language be used to dominate?
2. How can language be used to manipulate?
3. How can language exploit certain types of people?
4. How can language be used to make people do things?
5. How can people break expectations of their role using language?
6. How is power shown in situations LIKE court cases?
7. How is power shown in the classroom and other SIMILAR situations?
8. How does the media use language to exert power over people?
Situation
1. How has Political Correctness changed language?
2. Discuss the idea that the context of a situation is as important as the language chosen.
3. How does language change in sensitive situations?
4. How does a person's job affect the language they use?
5. How does a situation's formality change how people use language?
Standard and Non-Standard English
1. How does a person's accent or dialect affect what people think about them?
2. Do people see a link between language and class?
3. Do people see a link between language and intelligence?
4. Do people see a link between language and crime/anti-social behaviour
5. "In general, people see Standard English and RP as BETTER than regional English." Do you agree?
6. "It is unlikely that Regional Varieties of English will ever be seen as equal to RP/STD". DO you agree?
Remember that you need to KEYWORD the question as it may state something very specific that you don't want to ignore.
1B - Maxine Peake Paragraph
Imagine your source material is the Maxine Peake article.
here's how you could attempt this...
Within her audition, Peake has clearly encountered some strongly prescriptivist and small-minded attitudes towards regional accents. We can see this when the director says, 'Martha’s been to university, she’s educated.' The proper noun RADA and adjective 'educated' imply a strong correlation for this individual between education and rationality. Dennis Freeborn would describe this as the 'incorrectness view': the belief that better educated people actually use language in a more inherently correct way. This is a view he refutes himself, claiming that prestige for SE is merely down to fashion rather than scientific superiority of SE. Peake's own descriptivist stance can be seen when she says, 'I go ‘I’ve been to Rada and I still talk like this.' The past participle adverb 'still' and present participle verb 'talking', imply that she is proud of her regional variation and has been able to keep it even when surrounded by those speaking SE for a long time. There is also an implication that she has been able to Code Switch during her time in RADA as she must have encountered situation where she had to 'lose' her regional accent in order to converge with those around her
here's how you could attempt this...
Within her audition, Peake has clearly encountered some strongly prescriptivist and small-minded attitudes towards regional accents. We can see this when the director says, 'Martha’s been to university, she’s educated.' The proper noun RADA and adjective 'educated' imply a strong correlation for this individual between education and rationality. Dennis Freeborn would describe this as the 'incorrectness view': the belief that better educated people actually use language in a more inherently correct way. This is a view he refutes himself, claiming that prestige for SE is merely down to fashion rather than scientific superiority of SE. Peake's own descriptivist stance can be seen when she says, 'I go ‘I’ve been to Rada and I still talk like this.' The past participle adverb 'still' and present participle verb 'talking', imply that she is proud of her regional variation and has been able to keep it even when surrounded by those speaking SE for a long time. There is also an implication that she has been able to Code Switch during her time in RADA as she must have encountered situation where she had to 'lose' her regional accent in order to converge with those around her
Wednesday, 4 December 2019
1B - Bill Bryson - Example Paragraphs
Remember this case study?
Ok...
Here is the sort of PGs you could write...
'Bryson appears to find the Devon accent both endearing and irritating within the extract. Firstly, he describes their way of talking using the low-frequency adjective 'quaint' implying that he values its traditional element. However, he then goes on to describe it as an 'Oi be drinkin zoider' accent. Firstly, the non standards spelling of the first person pronoun 'oi' denotes a lack of intelligence, whereas the elided 'g' on the present participle verb 'drinking' implies sloppiness. Jean Aitchison may identify this attitude through the 'Damp Spoon' metaphor, where people believe non-standard variations happen due to laziness. Additionally, the fact he associates their accent with the common noun 'zoider' (cider) implies that Bryson holds quite extreme prescriptivist views, and associates non-standard English with unsavoury social pactices such as excessive drinking. John Honey would argue that it is important to teach young people to rid themselves of these sort of accents for this very reason, otherwise we are 'doing them a disservice'.
Notice how I'm still using lots of terms. I've managed to squeeze in a couple of theories here, but one per paragraph should be more than enough. Also, I've managed to get quite a lot of analysis out of just one quote. You may need more quotes if your analysis is not so in-depth.
here's another PG...
In response to Bryson, we can see that the locals diverge away from Bryson's more standard use of English, possibly as they take pride in their regional individuality. We can see this through the extremely exaggerated prnunications of the proper nouns Minehead and October in the phrase, 'No buses to Moinhead arter firrrst of Octobaaarrr,' It appears the locals sense they have a sense of instrumental power as they know the bus routes but are making their advice difficult for an outsider to understand. In particular, the ommitted 'f' from the adverb 'after' seems to be used deliberately to confuse the American. Later, they use the proper noun phrase 'Scarrrlet Loin' which is not only pronounce in a regional way, but also requires local and pragmatic understanding for it to make sense. Bryson's response is to dehumanise them by describing their speech using the nun 'snort'. Dennis Freeborn would describe Bryson's attitude as 'The Ugliness View' as he seems to have allowed his prejudices about the Devon accent to influence his view of them as pig-like animals.
Again, lots of terms. More quotes used this time, and theory included at the end.
Discuss the idea that a person’s language may be affected by their dialect. In your answer you should discuss concepts and issues and issues relevant to language study. You should use your own supporting examples as well as from Text A, below.
Text A is from a travel book called Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson, written in 1995
The author has just arrived in Barnstaple, Devon. The author is American.
I went into the bus station and found two women sitting in an office beyond an open door, talking together in that quaint 'Oi be drinkin zoider' accent of this part of the world.
I asked them about buses to Minehead, about 30 miles to the east along the coast. They looked at me as if I'd asked for connections to Tierra del Fuego .
'Oh, you won't be gittin to Moinhead this toim of year, you won't be,' said one.
'No buses to Moinhead arter firrrst of Octobaaarrr,' chimed in the second one.
'What about Lynton and Lynmouth?'
They snorted at my naivety. This was England
'Porlock?'
Snort.
'Dunster?'
Snort.
The best they could suggest was that I take a bus to Bideford and see if I could catch another bus on from there. 'They may be runnin the Scarrrlet Loin out of Bideforrrrrd, they may be, oi they may, they may - but can't be sartin.'
'Will there be more people like you there?' I wanted to say but didn't. The only other option they could suggest was a bus to Westward Ho! But there didn't seem much point since I couldn't go anywhere else from there and anyway I couldn't face spending the night in an ejaculation, as it were. I thanked them and departed.
Well here are some VERY DETAILED example paragraphs to show you how to go about answering it....
Here is the sort of PGs you could write...
'Bryson appears to find the Devon accent both endearing and irritating within the extract. Firstly, he describes their way of talking using the low-frequency adjective 'quaint' implying that he values its traditional element. However, he then goes on to describe it as an 'Oi be drinkin zoider' accent. Firstly, the non standards spelling of the first person pronoun 'oi' denotes a lack of intelligence, whereas the elided 'g' on the present participle verb 'drinking' implies sloppiness. Jean Aitchison may identify this attitude through the 'Damp Spoon' metaphor, where people believe non-standard variations happen due to laziness. Additionally, the fact he associates their accent with the common noun 'zoider' (cider) implies that Bryson holds quite extreme prescriptivist views, and associates non-standard English with unsavoury social pactices such as excessive drinking. John Honey would argue that it is important to teach young people to rid themselves of these sort of accents for this very reason, otherwise we are 'doing them a disservice'.
Notice how I'm still using lots of terms. I've managed to squeeze in a couple of theories here, but one per paragraph should be more than enough. Also, I've managed to get quite a lot of analysis out of just one quote. You may need more quotes if your analysis is not so in-depth.
here's another PG...
In response to Bryson, we can see that the locals diverge away from Bryson's more standard use of English, possibly as they take pride in their regional individuality. We can see this through the extremely exaggerated prnunications of the proper nouns Minehead and October in the phrase, 'No buses to Moinhead arter firrrst of Octobaaarrr,' It appears the locals sense they have a sense of instrumental power as they know the bus routes but are making their advice difficult for an outsider to understand. In particular, the ommitted 'f' from the adverb 'after' seems to be used deliberately to confuse the American. Later, they use the proper noun phrase 'Scarrrlet Loin' which is not only pronounce in a regional way, but also requires local and pragmatic understanding for it to make sense. Bryson's response is to dehumanise them by describing their speech using the nun 'snort'. Dennis Freeborn would describe Bryson's attitude as 'The Ugliness View' as he seems to have allowed his prejudices about the Devon accent to influence his view of them as pig-like animals.
Again, lots of terms. More quotes used this time, and theory included at the end.
1B - Answering a STD/NSTD Question
So, it's been a while since we've looked at this. Does that mean we stress about it? No!
There's a reason we do non-standard in year 1: it's simple!
Provided you can follow these bullet points to guide your analysis, you should have no problem:
*Expect a short source. This will usually be a transcript of people talking or a short extract from an article where someone gives their opinions about standard or non-standard English.
*You need to find 2 paragraph's worth of stuff to analyse from within this source.
*If it is a transcript, simply identify what is going on with regards to STD/NSTD.
*Are they talking in standard? If so, give examples and analyse using terms. Explain why this is happening.
*Are they talking in non-standard? If so, give examples and analyse using terms. Explain why this is happening.
*Can you identify anything like convergence, divergence, code switching? If so, point it out and explain why it is happening.
*If it is an article or extract, simply identify the attitudes you can identify from the speaker's point of view. Eg, are they prescriptivist or descriptivist? Analyse examples of evidence. Do their views conform to any of the theories you have studied (damp spoon, crumbling castle etc)? Again, analyse the text to show where this can be seen.
*Then, be prepared to talk about 3-4 other case studies where standard/non-standard English is important.
*As I have explained, I will email a lot of stuff out to you tomorrow. However, you can begin to research this by thinking about your own experiences of using NSTD english, and discussing the various descriptivist or prescriptivist attitudes you have encountered along the way.
I will add theories and email out case studied tomorrow-
Nick
There's a reason we do non-standard in year 1: it's simple!
Provided you can follow these bullet points to guide your analysis, you should have no problem:
*Expect a short source. This will usually be a transcript of people talking or a short extract from an article where someone gives their opinions about standard or non-standard English.
*You need to find 2 paragraph's worth of stuff to analyse from within this source.
*If it is a transcript, simply identify what is going on with regards to STD/NSTD.
*Are they talking in standard? If so, give examples and analyse using terms. Explain why this is happening.
*Are they talking in non-standard? If so, give examples and analyse using terms. Explain why this is happening.
*Can you identify anything like convergence, divergence, code switching? If so, point it out and explain why it is happening.
*If it is an article or extract, simply identify the attitudes you can identify from the speaker's point of view. Eg, are they prescriptivist or descriptivist? Analyse examples of evidence. Do their views conform to any of the theories you have studied (damp spoon, crumbling castle etc)? Again, analyse the text to show where this can be seen.
*Then, be prepared to talk about 3-4 other case studies where standard/non-standard English is important.
*As I have explained, I will email a lot of stuff out to you tomorrow. However, you can begin to research this by thinking about your own experiences of using NSTD english, and discussing the various descriptivist or prescriptivist attitudes you have encountered along the way.
I will add theories and email out case studied tomorrow-
Nick
1B - Standard/Non-Standard Theories
Prescriptivism
A attitude towards language which states that there is a correct form (Standard English), which should be adhered to. If individuals do not, they should be corrected.
Descriptivism
An attitude towards language in which thinkers accept that change and variation are natural parts of language and that STANDARD English should merely be seen as a useful tool rather than a strict rule system.
Norman Tebbit - Politican - 1980s (Not a theorist but a useful prescriptivist quote)
Said - 'If you allow standards to slip to the stage where good English is no better than bad English, where people turn up filthy…at school…all those things tend to cause people to have no standards at all, and once you lose standards then there’s no imperative to stay out of crime.'
Donald MacKinnon
Identified - these attitudes which people have towards language:
Language use as correct or incorrect
Language use as pleasant or ugly
Language examples as socially acceptable or unacceptable
Language examples as morally acceptable or unacceptable
Language examples as appropriate or inappropriate in their context
Norman Fairclough
Came up with - CONVERSATIONALISATION - the belief that standards of written writing have slipped as people have become exposed more and more to spoken forms and technologies.
Dennis Freeborn
Identified - these attitudes which people have towards language:
The Incorrectness view - Non-Standard uses of language are incorrect. He refutes this, saying that prestige for Standard English comes through historical fashion rather than anything technical.
The Ugliness view - Non-Standard language forms are UGLY. He identifies that this seems to be based in peoples' social prejudices.
The Impreciseness view - Some accents are seen as lazy or sloppy by society.
Note - these are not HIS view. They are attitudes he identifies in OTHERS.
Peter Trudgill - Descriptivist
Said - 'English speakers should be encouraged to be more tolerant towards the dialects of others, and to feel free to use and preserve their own dialects if they wish'
Said - 'Traditional Dialects and Modern Dialects of England are part of our linguistic environment, and should be protected, just as our physical environment should be protected'
Believes - It is important for cultures to use STD English as a tool and means of communication, but also to preserve and values regional variations/become more tolerant.
A attitude towards language which states that there is a correct form (Standard English), which should be adhered to. If individuals do not, they should be corrected.
Descriptivism
An attitude towards language in which thinkers accept that change and variation are natural parts of language and that STANDARD English should merely be seen as a useful tool rather than a strict rule system.
Norman Tebbit - Politican - 1980s (Not a theorist but a useful prescriptivist quote)
Said - 'If you allow standards to slip to the stage where good English is no better than bad English, where people turn up filthy…at school…all those things tend to cause people to have no standards at all, and once you lose standards then there’s no imperative to stay out of crime.'
Donald MacKinnon
Identified - these attitudes which people have towards language:
Language use as correct or incorrect
Language use as pleasant or ugly
Language examples as socially acceptable or unacceptable
Language examples as morally acceptable or unacceptable
Language examples as appropriate or inappropriate in their context
Norman Fairclough
Came up with - CONVERSATIONALISATION - the belief that standards of written writing have slipped as people have become exposed more and more to spoken forms and technologies.
Dennis Freeborn
Identified - these attitudes which people have towards language:
The Incorrectness view - Non-Standard uses of language are incorrect. He refutes this, saying that prestige for Standard English comes through historical fashion rather than anything technical.
The Ugliness view - Non-Standard language forms are UGLY. He identifies that this seems to be based in peoples' social prejudices.
The Impreciseness view - Some accents are seen as lazy or sloppy by society.
Note - these are not HIS view. They are attitudes he identifies in OTHERS.
Peter Trudgill - Descriptivist
Said - 'English speakers should be encouraged to be more tolerant towards the dialects of others, and to feel free to use and preserve their own dialects if they wish'
Said - 'Traditional Dialects and Modern Dialects of England are part of our linguistic environment, and should be protected, just as our physical environment should be protected'
Believes - It is important for cultures to use STD English as a tool and means of communication, but also to preserve and values regional variations/become more tolerant.
John Honey - More towards Presciptivist, but not too far
Said - 'There is a simplistic argument which says...we should change society to accommodate the characteristics of the child. Those who use this argument to deny children access to any awareness of the implications of speaking with one accent rather than another are doing them an obvious disservice.'
Said - 'So long as accents persist, they will be made the excuse for some people to discriminate against others and belittle them'
Believes - While accents and dialects are important, it is bsolutely necessary to have a standard, and everybody should be taught the importance of using it. It is unrealistic to ever think regional accents will be given prestige in the 'real world' so people need to be honest with young people and get them to learn to speak/write properly.
Jean Aitchison
Identified - these ways of explaining how people see non-standard English:
The Damp Spoon metaphor - A PRESCRIPTIVIST attitude that some member of society have. NSTD English occurs because of LAZINESS.
The Crumbling Castle metaphor - Another PRESCRIPTIVIST attitude. English was once perfect but is slowly being chipped away at by people using NSTD English.
The Infectious Disease metaphor - Again, PRESCRIPTIVIST. NSTD English can be caught and spread like a disease. This is quite worrying as it links quite closely with attitudes to class/race too.
Key Terms
Convergence - Changing your way of communication to make it more like those around you. Can be done subconsciously or subconsciously.
Divergence - Changing your way of communication to set yourself apart from those around you.
Code Switching - The ability to use different levels of formality, dialect or standard English in different contexts or social situations, so that you can 'fit in' with multiple people.
Prestige - The significance or importance which society gives to a form of English. SE has lots of prestige, for example.
Overt Prestige - When a language form has lots of prestige that is agreed upon by the variety of people.
Covert Prestige - When a language form has prestige but in a more local, precise or unspoken way - such as using a broad scouse accent at a football match.
SE - Standard English abbreviation.
Received Pronunciation/RP - The proper pronunciation of SE - like the Queen's accent.
Howard Giles/Accommodation Theory - The idea that there will always be some degree of movement within conversation in order to make the communication more clearly understood. Incorporates idea like divergence/convergence/code switching etc.
1B - Power and Situation Theories
All of the theories below should be revised, so that they can be applied to a variety of different texts in your Section B essay.
Norman Fairclough:
Said - "Every use of language is a use of power. Every use of discourse is a negotiation of power."
Came up with - Features of dominance: Who leads? Set topic? Interrupts? Comments on what is said? Talks most?
Came up with the concept - Symmetrical and Asymmentrical conversations. Most conversation are ASYMMETRICAL
Came up with - Influential and Instrumental power
Paul Grice:
Came up with - Graice's Maxims (which, if flouted, will disrupt a conversation) Quality, Quantity, Manner, Relation.
Flouting these maxims can either be a sign that a person is losing power or asserting power depending on the context.
Erving Goffman:
Came up with - Politeness/Face theory
Said - "Face is the image that we present of ourselves to others"
Said - "Face is a persona we present in convesation. It changes from situation to situation."
Said - "Face is maintained by the AUDIENCE not the speaker. This is achieved by the LISTNER accepting the face presented to them by the SPEAKER, and generally being sensitive towards them."
Brown and Levinson:
Came up with - Positive and Negative Face
Said - "We meet the face needs of others through positive and negative politeness.
Came up with - Face threatening acts
Norman Fairclough:
Said - "Every use of language is a use of power. Every use of discourse is a negotiation of power."
Came up with - Features of dominance: Who leads? Set topic? Interrupts? Comments on what is said? Talks most?
Came up with the concept - Symmetrical and Asymmentrical conversations. Most conversation are ASYMMETRICAL
Came up with - Influential and Instrumental power
Paul Grice:
Came up with - Graice's Maxims (which, if flouted, will disrupt a conversation) Quality, Quantity, Manner, Relation.
Flouting these maxims can either be a sign that a person is losing power or asserting power depending on the context.
Erving Goffman:
Came up with - Politeness/Face theory
Said - "Face is the image that we present of ourselves to others"
Said - "Face is a persona we present in convesation. It changes from situation to situation."
Said - "Face is maintained by the AUDIENCE not the speaker. This is achieved by the LISTNER accepting the face presented to them by the SPEAKER, and generally being sensitive towards them."
Brown and Levinson:
Came up with - Positive and Negative Face
Said - "We meet the face needs of others through positive and negative politeness.
Came up with - Face threatening acts
1A - BLAGRS
A handy little technique to remember things to look out for in the SPEECH section (Section 1A) - just in case any of you are struggling.
Look for the following things...
Before - (Spontaneous, Pre-Scripted, Motives, Setting - How is this reflected?)
Lexis - (Make sure you analyse lexical choices and why they are important)
Audience - (What is the audience for this speech encounter, what are their needs/ how are they met?)
Grammar - (How is formality, complexity, fluency, tone important?)
Relationships/Roles - (What is the relationship between speakers/what are their roles? How is this shown?)
Specific spoken language features - (How do non-fluency, pragmatics, prosodics, power etc show themselves to be important here?)
Look for the following things...
Before - (Spontaneous, Pre-Scripted, Motives, Setting - How is this reflected?)
Lexis - (Make sure you analyse lexical choices and why they are important)
Audience - (What is the audience for this speech encounter, what are their needs/ how are they met?)
Grammar - (How is formality, complexity, fluency, tone important?)
Relationships/Roles - (What is the relationship between speakers/what are their roles? How is this shown?)
Specific spoken language features - (How do non-fluency, pragmatics, prosodics, power etc show themselves to be important here?)
1B Walkthrough
The Basics
Remember - 1/3 on the extract, 2/3 on your own wider knowledge
This exam is TWO HOURS long, and contains two sections.
Section A - Spoken Language Analysis
Section B - Language Issues
The section are EQUALLY WEIGHTED (60 marks per section), so you should spend roughly half of the time you are given on each text. You MAY feel you can devote 5 more minutes to section A, as it requires more reading and planning.
Section B - What to expect
You will be given a CHOICE of THREE questions. You MUST ensure that you only answer ONE, which will take the form of a 6-9 paragraph essay. You do not need an introduction
You have been preparing for this section of the exam by studying a variety of concepts:
Standard and Non-Standard English
Appropriateness of English use in a certain situation
Regional Dialect
Attitudes towards non-standard variations of English
Received Pronunciation
The crossover between spoken and written English.
Language and Power
Status in a particular situation
Conversation Analysis
Power in the media
Political Language
Legal Language
Language in advertising
Language and Situation
Formal and informal contexts (convergence, divergence, formality, code-switching)
Participants and purpose
Politeness
Face Theory
Political Correctness
Other Englishes
There will be a question on at least TWO of the above topics. If you are lucky, there will be a question on each of them. You MAY need to read the keywords of each question to identify which area the question relates to.
Each question will provide you with a short extract. This may be somebody's opinion, a short transcript, or a cutting from a complete text. Whatever the question is, it will ALWAYS ask you to use the extract as a starting point to answer the question, and then use your wider knowledge to finish your essay.
You should aim to answer this question on a 1 third vs 2 thirds basis. No more than 2-3 paragraphs on the extract, and then around 5-7 on your wider knowledge.
This section should be EXTREMELY accessible for you, if you put in the hours with your wider reading. To a certain extent, you should be able to prepare for around 5-6 eventualities, and then just write what you have prepared once you identify a relevant question.
DO NOT ANSWER ON CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW CHILDREN USE LANGUAGE.
I will go into more detail about how to answer this question in a separate blog post.
Remember - 1/3 on the extract, 2/3 on your own wider knowledge
This exam is TWO HOURS long, and contains two sections.
Section A - Spoken Language Analysis
Section B - Language Issues
The section are EQUALLY WEIGHTED (60 marks per section), so you should spend roughly half of the time you are given on each text. You MAY feel you can devote 5 more minutes to section A, as it requires more reading and planning.
Section B - What to expect
You will be given a CHOICE of THREE questions. You MUST ensure that you only answer ONE, which will take the form of a 6-9 paragraph essay. You do not need an introduction
You have been preparing for this section of the exam by studying a variety of concepts:
Standard and Non-Standard English
Appropriateness of English use in a certain situation
Regional Dialect
Attitudes towards non-standard variations of English
Received Pronunciation
The crossover between spoken and written English.
Language and Power
Status in a particular situation
Conversation Analysis
Power in the media
Political Language
Legal Language
Language in advertising
Language and Situation
Formal and informal contexts (convergence, divergence, formality, code-switching)
Participants and purpose
Politeness
Face Theory
Political Correctness
Other Englishes
There will be a question on at least TWO of the above topics. If you are lucky, there will be a question on each of them. You MAY need to read the keywords of each question to identify which area the question relates to.
Each question will provide you with a short extract. This may be somebody's opinion, a short transcript, or a cutting from a complete text. Whatever the question is, it will ALWAYS ask you to use the extract as a starting point to answer the question, and then use your wider knowledge to finish your essay.
You should aim to answer this question on a 1 third vs 2 thirds basis. No more than 2-3 paragraphs on the extract, and then around 5-7 on your wider knowledge.
This section should be EXTREMELY accessible for you, if you put in the hours with your wider reading. To a certain extent, you should be able to prepare for around 5-6 eventualities, and then just write what you have prepared once you identify a relevant question.
DO NOT ANSWER ON CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW CHILDREN USE LANGUAGE.
I will go into more detail about how to answer this question in a separate blog post.
1A - Walkthrough
The Basics
This exam is TWO HOURS long, and contains two sections.
Section A - Spoken Language Analysis
Section B - Language Issues
The section are EQUALLY WEIGHTED (60 marks per section), so you should spend roughly half of the time you are given on each text. You MAY feel you can devote 5 more minutes to section A, as it requires more reading and planning.
Section A - What to expect
KEY WORDS - Roles, Power, Attitudes
You will almost certainly be given TWO spoken transcripts from the same genre or related genres. The question will be rather general and will usually just ask you to analyse the spoken language of each text, as examples of that genre. So, you will need to make judgements about where it is taking place, who is speaking and who is listening. Once you identify these factors, you will be able to make points about whether or not the communication flows the way you would expect it to.
The texts WILL contain specific spoken language features such as non-fluency features, power struggles, politeness features etc. You should aim to analyse SPECIFIC spoken features where possible, though you normal linguistic terminology is relevant throughout.
Essentially, the examiner wants you to do the following things:
*Introduce and analyse each text EQUALLY, making CLOSE ANALYSIS of each text.
*Point out what is actually going on in the text by making a variety of points about Roles, Power, Attitudes and relating these to the context.
*Make close and valid comparisons between the texts analysing specific differences you are able to identify, and explaining this via context, speaker, listener etc.
Amount:
Obviously, your aim is to write as much QUALITY analysis as possible, shared equally amongst the texts. I would aim to make a MINIMUM of SEVEN individual points per text (14 in total). Remember, however, not every paragraph needs to be long and sprawling (although some might be longer than others). Some might just be extremely concise, based on one specific word or phrase, whilst others may need separate pieces of evidence to support them. Essentially, each PG should take you around 4 minutes to write, so you might want to practice writing individual paragraphs as part of your preparation.
Things to remember and watch out for:
*Timings. If you are spending too long on a point, wrap it up and move on. Variety is essential.
*Balance. If you have gone over the half way point and are still on Text A, wrap it up and move on. An equal analytical balance is essential.
*Theories. Whilst we can not guarantee which of these will be relevant, it is possible you will need to mention Power, Grice's Maxims, Face, Politeness etc and relate this to context. (eg, identify a politeness feature and explain why the context has made this happen)
*Anomalies. Remember, a transcript won't always pan out the way you expect it to. Sometimes you are looking for points which are odd or surprising. (eg, it is totally inappropriate for someone to commit a FTA here - this is not what we would expect in this context.)
*Pragmatics. Always use PLENTY of terms per PG. However, don't just list term after term. Identify the important ones, and analyse closely any words or phrases which are interesting or significant in this context.
For example - "You rebel scum are no match for the power of the Dark Side."
Don't analyse like this, "The second person pronoun, premodifying adjective, colloquial noun, conjunction, negated abstract noun, preposition, definite article, abstract noun and proper noun show that the Emperor is confident of his army's might."
Instead, focus on pragmatics, "Within the statement, the colloquial noun 'scum' connotes the Emperor's hatred of the plural noun 'rebels', whereas the abstract noun 'power' implies a lack of hope for them. Interestingly, the adjective 'Dark' implies that he knows he is a bad guy, but doesn't care.
This exam is TWO HOURS long, and contains two sections.
Section A - Spoken Language Analysis
Section B - Language Issues
The section are EQUALLY WEIGHTED (60 marks per section), so you should spend roughly half of the time you are given on each text. You MAY feel you can devote 5 more minutes to section A, as it requires more reading and planning.
Section A - What to expect
KEY WORDS - Roles, Power, Attitudes
You will almost certainly be given TWO spoken transcripts from the same genre or related genres. The question will be rather general and will usually just ask you to analyse the spoken language of each text, as examples of that genre. So, you will need to make judgements about where it is taking place, who is speaking and who is listening. Once you identify these factors, you will be able to make points about whether or not the communication flows the way you would expect it to.
The texts WILL contain specific spoken language features such as non-fluency features, power struggles, politeness features etc. You should aim to analyse SPECIFIC spoken features where possible, though you normal linguistic terminology is relevant throughout.
Essentially, the examiner wants you to do the following things:
*Introduce and analyse each text EQUALLY, making CLOSE ANALYSIS of each text.
*Point out what is actually going on in the text by making a variety of points about Roles, Power, Attitudes and relating these to the context.
*Make close and valid comparisons between the texts analysing specific differences you are able to identify, and explaining this via context, speaker, listener etc.
Amount:
Obviously, your aim is to write as much QUALITY analysis as possible, shared equally amongst the texts. I would aim to make a MINIMUM of SEVEN individual points per text (14 in total). Remember, however, not every paragraph needs to be long and sprawling (although some might be longer than others). Some might just be extremely concise, based on one specific word or phrase, whilst others may need separate pieces of evidence to support them. Essentially, each PG should take you around 4 minutes to write, so you might want to practice writing individual paragraphs as part of your preparation.
Things to remember and watch out for:
*Timings. If you are spending too long on a point, wrap it up and move on. Variety is essential.
*Balance. If you have gone over the half way point and are still on Text A, wrap it up and move on. An equal analytical balance is essential.
*Theories. Whilst we can not guarantee which of these will be relevant, it is possible you will need to mention Power, Grice's Maxims, Face, Politeness etc and relate this to context. (eg, identify a politeness feature and explain why the context has made this happen)
*Anomalies. Remember, a transcript won't always pan out the way you expect it to. Sometimes you are looking for points which are odd or surprising. (eg, it is totally inappropriate for someone to commit a FTA here - this is not what we would expect in this context.)
*Pragmatics. Always use PLENTY of terms per PG. However, don't just list term after term. Identify the important ones, and analyse closely any words or phrases which are interesting or significant in this context.
For example - "You rebel scum are no match for the power of the Dark Side."
Don't analyse like this, "The second person pronoun, premodifying adjective, colloquial noun, conjunction, negated abstract noun, preposition, definite article, abstract noun and proper noun show that the Emperor is confident of his army's might."
Instead, focus on pragmatics, "Within the statement, the colloquial noun 'scum' connotes the Emperor's hatred of the plural noun 'rebels', whereas the abstract noun 'power' implies a lack of hope for them. Interestingly, the adjective 'Dark' implies that he knows he is a bad guy, but doesn't care.
Hi Everyone! Welcome to the blog!!
Hello Columns 1 and 4.
This is your new blog!
Hope you like it :)
This is your new blog!
Hope you like it :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)