English Language B AQA Unit 1

Original post by Selina17

Can you use grammar as a grouping? I really want to but don't know how too..

You can, but try and hone in on some element of grammar that two/three texts display rather exclusively.

For example if one text used the indefinite, gender-neutral pronoun "one" whereas another used the third person "you" might display an interesting linguistic phenomenon. You can then create very richly analytical comparisons between the texts; why was one form chosen over the other? Is the text trying to relate to the audience more personally? Maybe it's an entertainment text, in which case, the text's readership probably want to feel involved, and immersed in the text - you could then talk about Norman Fairclough's notion of synthetic personalisation. Alternatively, it might serve a more formal purpose, maybe advising its readership of a rather serious matter. It might be trying to effect a sense of instrumental power by not directly forging a relationship with its audience and explicitly distancing itself from its audience by using "one", which has a more surreptitious feel to it. Etc.

Do not be too vague or nonspecific, starting a grouping with "Texts A and E can be grouped based upon their usage of grammar" will do nothing more than underwhelme the examiner. A better grouping is "Texts A and E can be grouped based upon their usage of minor sentences to create a sense of excitement." It shows that you're looking at the language in depth and really ripping it apart at a very fine level. The difference between these two groupings grade-wise is probably an A-grade and a C-grade.

I got 118/120 in this exam, so just some tips from someone who knows what the examiners are looking for. :smile:

Reply 62

You don't lose marks by not including texts. The question doesn't state that all texts have to be grouped so it doesn't matter so missing out one doesn't matter :smile:

Reply 63

beth1995x

Original post by Abbiedaniella

You don't lose marks by not including texts. The question doesn't state that all texts have to be grouped so it doesn't matter so missing out one doesn't matter :smile:

I really hope you're right!! Our teacher never mentioned to us whether we should include all of the texts or not :/

Reply 64

chellls

Original post by lilacwanda28

I did the same group with that one! Loads of people have been saying that they didn't write about the novel because they couldn't find anything to go with it. My teacher told us to make sure we write about every text bc our mark will drop significantly she said. I thought the texts were quite nice though and then I did the gender question which I liked as well.
What points did you talk about for gender?

well for gender i wrote some of tannen.. although i think i accidentally wrote tanner instead will i get marked down on it? :frown:

so i just wrote about things to do with competitiveness and also referenced to how tannen talked about how men want solutions and the wellman was a solution to their problems (stress smoking etc) then some male stereotypes and how they represent men as being superior, um i can't remember what else! i wasn't really sure if i was meant to reference women in this text or not? it was a nasty one! what did you do? :smile:

Reply 65

Original post by beth1995x

I really hope you're right!! Our teacher never mentioned to us whether we should include all of the texts or not :/

my teacher marks for AQA and she said it doesn't matter, so don't worry about it!! Missing out one text will be fine :smile:

especially if the examiners notice that a lot of people missed it out, it just shows that it was a text that was avoided and there is usually one of those every year!

Reply 66

Original post by chellls

well for gender i wrote some of tannen.. although i think i accidentally wrote tanner instead will i get marked down on it? :frown:

so i just wrote about things to do with competitiveness and also referenced to how tannen talked about how men want solutions and the wellman was a solution to their problems (stress smoking etc) then some male stereotypes and how they represent men as being superior, um i can't remember what else! i wasn't really sure if i was meant to reference women in this text or not? it was a nasty one! what did you do? :smile:

Did quite similar to you - I wrote about Tannen and how men are interested in finding solutions and factual information which is co-operative with the use of the numbered discourse structure!
I also said about the semantic field of health and specialist lexis and how this is evaluated/ connotes intelligence. I said how Cheshire found that men are more likely to use non-standard grammatical terms in order to seem independent and rebellious, however this text is shown to use overt prestige which may be done in more recent years for men to keep their superiority in the social hierarchy? :smile:

I also said some stuff about the Sex Discrim. Act but can't remember how I fitted that in - think I said how women are in a negative semantic space as there's no female equivalent of 'wellman'. I looked into connotations of wellman and did graphology etc. That's pretty much all I did - ahh!

Reply 67

So annoyed with myself, must have spent an hour and 15 minutes on grouping and didn't even finish it... then had limited time on social contexts. Pooooop :frown:

Reply 68

Original post by beth1995x

I really hope you're right!! Our teacher never mentioned to us whether we should include all of the texts or not :/

I skipped two texts when I did this exam and got 118/120 and in the examiner's comments the only reason I lost marks was because my last point was half-completed and I didn't conclude, not because I skipped texts.

Reply 69

Original post by Abbiedaniella

Did quite similar to you - I wrote about Tannen and how men are interested in finding solutions and factual information which is co-operative with the use of the numbered discourse structure!
I also said about the semantic field of health and specialist lexis and how this is evaluated/ connotes intelligence. I said how Cheshire found that men are more likely to use non-standard grammatical terms in order to seem independent and rebellious, however this text is shown to use overt prestige which may be done in more recent years for men to keep their superiority in the social hierarchy? :smile:

I also said some stuff about the Sex Discrim. Act but can't remember how I fitted that in - think I said how women are in a negative semantic space as there's no female equivalent of 'wellman'. I looked into connotations of wellman and did graphology etc. That's pretty much all I did - ahh!

Cheshire's work was on adolescents. I would be very careful if I were to extrapolate this to adults and would definitely complement it with another theorist whose work is targetted at observing linguistic patterns in adults.

The overt prestige point could be a good one, because Peter Trudgill suggested men are more likely to employ covert prestige, in the form of nonstandard grammatical forms, than their female counterparts at the same class-level. I think you could say that with the recent spike in people who consider themselves "middle class" suggests a convergence towards uniformity across the classes. As a result, the impact of using covert prestige, in the form of nonstandard grammar as per associated to lower, more "working class" groups, is not as strong. This could mean that men are having to use overt prestige and conform to standard grammatical forms as the significance of covert prestige has dissipated alongside the decline in numbers of those who consider themselves "working class".

"Wellman" doesn't force women to occupy negative semantic space. For one, there is a "Wellwoman" so the female equivalent does exist. When you force someone to occupy negative semantic space, you're applying some lexeme to them that isn't necessarily representative of them.

For example, an announcement concerning the police force may employ the term "policemen" to refer to all genders of police. In this instance, policewomen would be considered to occupy negative semantic space.

"Wellman" is targetted at men and refers to men; it's the target audience. Gender exclusivity doesn't necessarily force another gender into negative semantic space. For linguistic simplicity, if we just consider males and females, a leaflet on testicular cancer will be very asymmetric in terms of gender references, and the male pronouns "he" and "him" as well as other male-words will be employed much more affluently, if not absolutely, more than their female or gender-neutral equivalents.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 70

beth1995x

Original post by Jam'

I skipped two texts when I did this exam and got 118/120 and in the examiner's comments the only reason I lost marks was because my last point was half-completed and I didn't conclude, not because I skipped texts.

We're meant to conclude?!?! hahaa :/ but okay thankyou I feel much better now =)

Reply 71