A-LEVEL English Language A

UNIT3 - ENGA3 Language Explorations Report on the Examination

2700 June 2013 6A13
Version: 1.0

Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the school/college.

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

General This was the fourth summer series of this unit and examiners reported seeing some excellent and inspiring work. The questions provided students of all levels with stretch and challenge as they explored the unseen data illustrating language variation and change and attitudes to them. It was clear that AO1 is being very thoroughly taught. Far more students than in previous series, for example, were able to write with insight about the effect and meaning of modal verbs, though the accurate description of first person plural pronouns is still causing problems, and this was the AO1 error most frequently encountered. Another common problem was the quoting of material that did not accurately illustrate the description. This was particularly true of attempts to identify phrases and clauses. Many students were able to perform in the top two bands for AO1. A major issue was that for many the description of language features was becoming feature spotting. Some answers were AO1-led to the detriment of engaging with meaning. The knowledge students could bring to AO2 was also very impressive. However once again there was evidence that students sometimes had knowledge without understanding. They could recite names, approaches and findings but were less able to construct a discussion and argument about their significance. All the data used were readily accessible to almost all students and provided plenty of opportunities for discussion at a variety of levels. In Question 1 two texts were provided so students could examine the ways language used to advertise a product had changed over time. In Question 2 students were provided with an interview containing dialectal variation and some graphical data on non-standard language use. These source materials in Questions 1 and 2 provided primary data for analysis and discussion. The Section B materials were different: folklinguistic popular psychology writing about variation and change in English. The wording of the questions proved largely clear and straightforward. The two bullet points helped students approach and structure their responses to the tasks. The first bullet in each question guided the students to analyse some textual data that was relevant to language change or variation in Section A and came from a discourse about language in Section B. The second bullet then asked students to look at wider issues raised by the data and to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of relevant concepts and issues. The bullets guided students towards which sources to use and for what purposes. The bullets were designed to help students hit the assessment objectives. Key messages: Students analysis needs to be led by their interpretation of the significance of contexts and the creation of meaning, with the technical description of language being used to explore and illuminate these. Students need to understand the significance of different theories and research findings and to be able to evaluate them and construct arguments about language use.
3 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

SECTION A Language Variation and Change Question 1 This question used a poster advertising coffee from 1851 and a page from the website of a coffee chain accessed in 2012 to test students knowledge and understanding of how language has changed and the nature of such changes. This question was more frequently answered than Question 2. Students were asked to analyse the two texts by describing (AO1) and commenting on (AO3) the language used to represent the coffees they referred to. They were then asked to illustrate and evaluate different ways of explaining how the language had changed (AO2). The texts were very accessible and provided students with lots to analyse in terms of their persuasive language and the changing contexts that produced them. All students understood that Text A and Text B were advertising coffee/coffee based drinks and were created at different times. All also recognised that the main purposes were to inform and to sell the products. All students were able to pick out some words, usually adjectives, which made the products sound appealing and might persuade a potential customer. Almost all recognised that the advertisements took different forms, though a surprising number, after repeating the information given in the question that Text B was a webpage, paid no further attention to the mode of this text, or how this might affect the language it used and the ways in which it would be received. The most successful students used their knowledge of the 19th century, the industrial revolution, the expansion of trade and travel, and the Great Exhibition of 1851 itself to comment in an illuminating way, on the context and meaning of Text A. For others, the past is clearly another country, and the date of 1851 suggested nothing helpful. It was surprising that more students did not look closely at the illustration in Text A, which might have suggested the international nature of the event. Successful students looked at both the content of Text B, its presentation of Caff Neros products, and its form as a webpage. This provided interesting opportunities to discuss marketing strategies for bullet point one and language changes for bullet point 2. Responses to the second bullet point varied in relevance. Not all students addressed this part of the question. A surprisingly large number gave a detailed account of the whole history of English, ignoring the instruction to illustrate and evaluate different ways of explaining how language changes and to do so with reference to Text A and Text B. The best responses were those that could identify a range of examples of language change in the texts, explain their causes and use them to illustrate and evaluate different ways of viewing change. There were a number of very pre-prepared answers, which did not engage. The ability to explore the data is a major discriminator in this task and tests students understanding as well as the knowledge the pre-prepared answer could show.
4 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

The most successful answers: identified the impersonal address in Text A, and personal address in Text B accurately analysed sentence types in both texts, including minor and compound-complex sentences, identifying them clearly identified patterns of meaning in the ways the products were represented in the texts: exoticness, exclusivity, quality, choice identified adjectives and how these represented the products in the texts analysed how verbs represented processes persuasively, showing care and expertise identified some of the expectations of the different audiences analysed ways in which the texts sought to persuade explored the modality and positioning created by must be appreciated by all the Lovers of a Cup of good Coffee discussed the borrowing of barista and the way it was used to create an image of the coffee shop examined the significance of the abstract noun art to present coffee making looked at how Caff Nero sought to present itself by the use of possessive determiners, our, and its creation of a sense of community of coffee lovers commented on the influence of health concerns in the presentation of the drinks in Text B and the presence of a Nutritional Info link looked at ways in which Caff Nero presented their coffee as famous and unique looked at adjectives conveying ideas of taste and texture; refreshing, creamy and smooth commented on the significance of the definite article in the noun phrase The Caff Nero espresso commented on the fashionability of the noun shots contrasted the sentence styles of the two texts saw how both texts used the adjective continental to lend an air of sophistication to their products commented on the persuasive effects of syntax, eg the thematised adjective phrase Unique to Caff Nero, the relative clause thats also low in fat! and the minor sentence Really good! commented on the creation of a warm, personal spoken tenor by the use of the minor sentence Really good! and its emphatic effect explored how Caff Nero paid attention to the health issues of its customers and offered lots of choice and individualisation in its products (examining modal auxiliaries and adverbial clauses of condition) commented on the colour and layout in Text B as evidence of technological advances compared the audiences for the texts, showing clear understanding of the different economic and social contexts of the texts compared the physical vs online contacts for the two businesses the address vs the hyperlinks explored the ways in which technology affected the interactive features of Text B hypothesised that Text A used capitalisation as a device to convey emphasis explored the use of imperatives in links to guide readers around the website

5 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

used examples from the texts to illustrate word formation processes such as compounding and clipping discussed the creation of online evaluated the presence of a clipping info, often linking to views of change caused by laziness examined the use of suffixation to create chocolatey examined the use of currency and measurements in Text A explored the business creation and model of Caff Nero noted the impact of health concerns reflected in nouns like soya milk, the adjective decaffeinated and the adjective phrase dairy free commented on the representation implied by warehouseman and discussed ideas about political correctness contrasted sentence styles and modes of address, often exploring synthetic personalisation described accurately and in detail and evaluated prescriptivist and descriptivist views of language change used functional theory to explain the loss and emergence of some features of language (eg currency and measurements) explored ideas about how the texts might reflect social changes evaluated prescriptivist views, often represented by applying Aitchisons metaphors to examples such as info (clipping as laziness/damp spoon syndrome), various borrowings (as infectious diseases).

Less successful answers: applied no linguistic frameworks to analyse the texts described decontextualised and individual features of language with little sense of their significance attempted to analyse the sentence structures in Text A, with partial accuracy quoted text in ways that invalidated the feature they claimed to be describing, especially when referring to clauses and phrases largely ignored Text A did not mention the mode of Text B and did not analyse the effect of internet technology on language use did not address the second bullet point wrote a pre-prepared explanation of different views of change, without exemplification from Text A and Text B and without evaluating the views included some less helpful information, such as the history of standardisation from the invention of the printing press wrote at length about the whole history of English from Old English onwards and therefore did not answer the question placed 1851 variously at the time of the invention of printing, the Renaissance, the Elizabethan voyages of discovery, the great vowel shift, the publication of the King James Bible and Johnsons dictionary and the inkhorn controversy outlined prescriptive and descriptive attitudes to change without detail or evaluation wrote about Grice, attitudes to accent, and the use of overt and covert prestige

6 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

confused Jean Aitchisons metaphors, and ascribed prescriptivist views to her personally.

Question 2 Question 2 focussed on language variation. The first bullet required students to analyse how a speaker with a social dialect used language to convey his views and experiences. The second bullet required them to explore and evaluate factors that influence the use of non-standard language with Figure 1 providing them with some information they could analyse and employ to start their discussion. Students were expected to analyse the text by describing (AO1) and commenting on (AO3) linguistic features to explore the distinctive features of Juveniles language use and how he used it to convey his views and experiences. They were then expected to consider to what extent social class affected peoples use of English (AO2). A higher proportion of students chose to answer this optional question on language variation than in previous series. Many of them answered it very well. The subject, an interview with a rapper, clearly engaged their interest. Everyone could recognise some of the non-standard features of Juveniles language; most students linked these to his social class. More successful students, however, engaged very closely with his use of language, and found convincing evidence of codeswitching, as well as his deliberate construction of a persona to suit his perception of himself and his fans. Some students devoted all their efforts to a careful and accurate analysis of Juveniles nonstandard grammar and ignored what he was actually saying. The ability to engage with his meanings tended to be a major discriminator in this part of the task. Those who did engage with meaning wrote with sensitivity about the ways in which he conveyed his feelings about his mother, rap music, his group and his career. There was also some perceptive analysis of his interaction with the interviewer. The fact that most of the research with which students were most familiar was carried out in England did not disadvantage them in addressing the second bullet point. Students were usually able to interpret the graph to make the basic point about the connections between class and language. Many were able to cite further research to illustrate this, the most common work cited being that of Trudgill in Norwich, Petyt in West Yorkshire and Labov in New York. The major discriminator in bullet point two was the ability to address the to what extent element of the task. Students analysed the information about ethnicity in the graph and looked at other variables such as situation, gender and age. There was discussion of the significance of overt and covert prestige and some students conceptualised issues of solidarity and distance in social interactions. Better answers showed an understanding of identity as performance and shifting, exploring the role of language in this. Better answers also often recognised the significance of changing cultural attitudes to accents and dialects. Some students took a critical line on the quantitative sociolinguistic methodology and explored the methodologies and findings of approaches using social networks and communities of practice. The work of Cheshire and Milroy was often cited but it was also frequently the case that students showed a limited grasp of their
7 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

conclusions about networks, identity and language. Often the research was simply said to show how lower class speakers used more non-standard language. The most successful answers: paid close attention to the interactive features of the interview analysed sensitively Juveniles thoughts and feelings conceptualised Juveniles values money, success, family, career analysed accurately Juveniles non-standard grammar, as well as his standard language features and code-switching analysed specific features of grammatical variation examined the use of ellipsis, minor sentences and monitoring features examined how standard language would have used the verb to be where Juvenile does not identified examples of Juveniles use of multiple negation commented on Juveniles use of man and cats to refer to people discussed his non-standard use of aint noted the use of nobody arms as a possessive expression commented on the spellings that conveyed Juveniles pronunciation explored the representation of Juveniles mother, her attitudes, behaviour and his feelings about her analysed Juveniles presentation of the changing status of rap music and the opportunities it presents explored his attitudes to money and work examined his attitudes to the family represented by other rappers explored how Juvenile performed his persona explained the correlation of social class and multiple negation use shown by Figure 1 discussed other research that illustrated this link, often citing work by Trudgill, Petyt and Labov interpreted Fig 1 to explore how ethnicity as well as class affected the use of multiple negation identified both class and other variables affecting the use of English, discussing gender, situation, and age had detailed knowledge of social network theory and research findings using this approach made use of the concept of communities of practice to explain Juveniles language use explored the overt and covert prestige of standard and non-standard language use adopted a critical approach to quantitative sociolinguistic methods explored contemporary attitudes to non-standard English youth dialects and street-cred, for example discussed the significance of research and concepts rather than just explaining them.

Less successful answers: identified Juveniles language as wrong, lazy, ignorant, or even criminal did not attempt to analyse the language of the text in detail focused on only the non-standard features or meanings in Juveniles interview misread the tone and address of the interview

8 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

misread My moms, man as meaning Juveniles stepfather could identify but not comment on non-standard features did not refer to Fig 1 at all did not understand that Figure 1 used percentages ignored the ethnicity data in Figure 1 did not address the second bullet point saw the work of Milroy and Cheshire as primarily using class as an explanatory factor confused the conclusions of Labov, Milroy and Cheshire did not address to what extent and did not look at other factors wrote only about prescriptivist and descriptivist attitudes to language change.

SECTION B Language Discourses Question 3 Question 3 focussed on discourse about language and gender with a specific focus on interactional and texting styles. The first bullet required students to analyse how two texts, both extracts from a popular psychology/linguistics self-help book, represented the ways women and men communicate. The second bullet required them to explore the texts ideas about how women and men communicate in the context of wider linguistic research and ideas on this topic. Students were expected to analyse both texts systematically by describing (AO1) and commenting on (AO3) linguistic features to explore the way the communication styles of women and men were represented. The most successful answers were those that were AO3-led. These answers had a clear overview of the way the texts represented women and men and their communication styles and understood the arguments and tone. Such answers used their descriptions of language to illuminate how the texts worked as representations. They recognised that language worked at many levels and scored highly on both AOs. Less successful were answers where AO1 led the way with students identifying a range of features as the means of organising their response. This led to answers that were bitty and decontextualising or, at worst, named features with no sense of their significance. While these answers scored highly on AO1 for describing language they did less well in terms of communicating understanding in an organised way and often the AO3 performance was weaker. Students were then expected to evaluate the ideas presented in the texts within the context of the whole discourse about male and female interaction (AO2). The most successful responses identified Edelsteins views and placed them within a narrative arc that traced the development of thinking about language and gender. These answers were detailed in their knowledge of research and theories and understood their significance. Less successful answers tended to rehearse simple references that showed some knowledge but not always understanding of the issues.

9 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

The topic of gender and interaction was clearly familiar to most students. The texts were effective at discriminating different levels of understanding, response and analysis. The majority saw that the texts treat men and women as different, using generalisations and stereotypes. In spite of this, many seemed quite happy to accept these, even when they were able to cite research that suggested something different. A major discriminator was the ability to analyse the tone of the texts and the ways in which they created humour. Another significant discriminator was the ability to analyse the generalising and polarising strategies in the texts and the creation of authority through the texts modality. The best responses were those that were based on a clear articulation of Edelsteins attitudes to womens and mens language. Most students, though by no means all, recognised that Text D and Text E came from the same book, and were therefore by the same writer. Some spent a long time defining audience and purpose at length, twice. In spite of the terms of address in the text, many were determined to identify the writer as male, with a bias against women. Almost all students recognised the writers use of scenarios as a way of contrasting the supposed speech styles of men and women, but many did not get far beyond paraphrase when it came to analysing these scenarios. An effective discriminator was the ability to analyse the tone of the texts. Some students misread the tone and sarcasm of the texts, and consequently misjudged the writers attitude to men as genuinely sympathetic. While the majority of students were familiar with the main theories about language and gender, these were not always clearly or accurately explained. Some students seemed stuck in a bit of a time warp, not recognising any ideas later than those of Lakoff and Dale Spender. Other students treated all views as if they existed simultaneously in a time and context free state. Most could link some research and ideas to the presentation of men and women in the texts. Only a minority of students, even when they knew about the more recent views of Deborah Cameron, and the research of Hyde, used these effectively to challenge the difference ideas in the texts. There was some tendency to quote mantras about Cameron and her idea of more difference within the sexes than between them without fully developing an argument. This latter point re-appeared in the same formulation in many answers, often lacking the development and discussion needed to explore the issues. The most effective answers had an overview or a narrative arc that traced the development of thinking about language and gender, tracing the critical development of ideas. For example some treated dominance and difference approaches as two alternative approaches to explaining language use. Some saw how difference approaches succeeded dominance explanations. The best answers explained why difference theorists objected to the dominance approach and what the theoretical underpinnings of their approach were. Good answers would then go on to look at the critique of difference approaches as generalising and polarising. An on-going issue for students is how to relate the ideas in the texts to their wider knowledge. This relies on them firstly identifying and classifying the ideas in the text. These then need to be seen in the wider contexts of ideas about the topics and to be treated critically students need to evaluate and make judgements about the ideas presented.

10 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

In this years responses there was an issue in the use of the verb support with many claiming that the texts supported difference views in the sense of proving them. Better were answers that showed how the folklinguistic text drew on ideas from elsewhere and was influenced by them. Some students, quite a significant minority, used the second bullet point as a convenient dumping ground for all the theories and research which they had not used elsewhere, however unhelpful. This included Grice, Bernstein, closed networks, political correctness, attitudes to RP, and prescriptivism and descriptivism. Better answers were those that were able to root their response in the ideas in the texts. There was some evidence of pre-prepared responses that needed adaptation to these texts in particular. Only a small number of students looked in real detail at context as a determining factor, or addressed the idea of gender as performance. The most successful answers: accurately identified the genre of the texts and categorised them along with other self-help books on gender differences, showing knowledge of this discourse identified the writer as female identified and analysed the tone and humour of the texts analysed carefully how men and women are represented at different points in the texts identified the elements of deficit, dominance and difference views implied by Alices responses in Text D, exploring the use of stereotypes analysed the presentation of the scenarios, directness/indirectness, brevity/verbosity examined how womens indirect style and mens direct style were characterised through the examples given analysed the positioning of the reader analysed the modality of the texts and how they constructed generalised and unchallengeable pictures of male and female behaviour commented on the generalising and polarising created by phrases like For women and the use of the nouns women and men discussed the biological essentialism suggested by the adjective innate explored the implications of the words Himglish and Femalese and code looking at how they represented male and female language analysed the use of present tense and copular verbs that created certainty in the presentation of views: the way women talk looked at the certainty created by modal auxiliaries like will explored the narrative structure of the scenarios examined the use of imperatives to address the reader and introduce a scenario explored the tone and representations created by poor boys and elite group explored the rejection of the ridiculous princess role for women analysed the humorous effect of the short minor sentence Poor boys and the parallel coordinate clauses at the end of Text D articulated the ironic tone of a big sparkly gift from a magical deity analysed the mockery in tyrannised, rejoiced, collectively and bravely
11 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

explored the humour created by Edelsteins list of short simple and minor sentences representing the interpretations and doubt created by the message oh-K analysed the uses of sentence structures in the representation of the womans hoped for response in her male reader at the end of Text E explored Edelsteins self-presentation as a reader and writer of texts and her use of inclusive first person pronouns to align the reader with her identified the writers approach as following the difference model carefully identified views in the texts, showed the academic traditions they drew on and then challenged them accurately described different theories about language and gender and the associated research in detail evaluated different approaches to gender and interaction and used them to construct a compelling argument against the ideas presented in the texts described the ideas of Lakoff, identifying accurately the elements of the Womens Language Hypothesis and Lakoffs interpretation of their significance mentioned the research of OBarr and Atkins and their rebranding of so-called womens language as powerless language, noting the impact of other variables cited a range of research to illustrate Dominance interpretations of male and female linguistic behaviour criticised the methodology of the work of Lakoff, Zimmerman and West and others illustrated a range of Difference ideas, often drawing on Jennifer Coates and Deborah Tannen, using binary oppositions such as report vs rapport, competitive vs co-operative criticised the treatment of men and women as homogenous groups used the gender similarities hypothesis and meta-analysis of Janet Hyde to challenge ideas of Difference identified and evaluated variables other than gender which affect language use were able to discuss the nature of popular psychology/folklinguistic discourses about difference and hypothesise about their appeal and marketability conceptualised ideas about diversity, gender scripts and ideas about performance as more recent ideas in the area of research had a clear, critical narrative arc for this topic, seeing the development of ideas over time and the social contexts that produced them.

Less successful answers: wrote disorganised analyses of the texts with disconnected, decontextualised points about relatively random features of the language wrote answers that were led by showing off their range of AO1 knowledge rather than using it to illuminate an analysis of the representation of ideas and the construction of meaning in the texts assumed the texts were intended for academics misread the writer as male misread the tone and attitudes of the texts paraphrased the texts, particularly the accounts of the scenarios

12 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

used no linguistic descriptions in answering this question misread Alices motivation and ideas explained research findings which supported the texts ideas rather than adopting a critical view claimed the texts supported particular research and theories described details of research and ideas without evaluative comment explained that Janet Holmes looked at tag questions of different types without explaining what she found and how this might be interpreted relied on learned and formulaic accounts of ideas and positions without demonstrating an argument and understanding of the issues confused theorists and their ideas were uncertain about the historical sequence of ideas and approaches confused Deborah Tannen and Deborah Cameron gave inaccurate accounts of research and ideas tended to move too far beyond the focus of ideas in the texts, eg moving on to gender research on accents and thence to an essay on attitudes to accents used theories and research which had little or no relevance to the topic of gender language variation did not address the second bullet point very fully.

Advice to students To improve performance on this unit, students need to: be accurate in their analysis of 1st, 2nd and 3rd person pronouns clarify the difference between simple and minor sentences identify the clause or phrase which they are analysing precisely omitting words from other clauses/phrases treat AO1 as a toolkit to enable AO3, and less as an end in itself pay attention to what the texts are saying, as well as identifying language features pay attention to questions worded to what extent and evaluate and enter into appropriate discussion explore all aspects of texts, especially internet sources, to examine the nature of language change practise analysing and making use of graphical data spend time clarifying the meanings, attitudes and arguments in section B texts know how to link the data used in questions with their wider knowledge in answering the second bullet point explore the significance of research findings as well as being able to cite them use theories and research findings to argue a case about language.

13 of 14

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A ENGA3 JUNE 13 (6A13)

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades

Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website.

Converting Marks into UMS marks

Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion

14 of 14