ENGB3 AQA 3rd June 2013

How did people find question 3, the testimony from the boston massacre? Could only find a few points to talk about? Can anybody tell me what they wrote?

I wrote about Althusser and audience positioning- the person giving the testimony wanted to position the audience to believe he was innocent, and he did that by using negative lexis about the Americans, and by making references to "protecting the King's money" to show that he believed he was acting in the best interests of the country. I briefly linked it in to the struggle for American independence because that was happening around that time.

I wrote about how the phrase "God damn" appeared to have been censored because it would have been considered blasphemous and religion was a lot more important back then.

I wrote about the way it was represented in a newspaper, ie just one long transcript showing exactly what one person had said, whereas nowadays newspaper articles are more like objective statements with a select few quotes and paraphrases.

Formal lexis, adverbials, declaratives because he was in court.

That's all I can remember writing :s-smilie:

I wasn't overly sure about this question, it just looked a lot better than the Ofsted one.

Reply 161

lidiya

People who did the written CLA question.. did you say anything about text C or only talked about text D

Reply 162

philippa26804

6

Original post by lidiya

People who did the written CLA question.. did you say anything about text C or only talked about text D

I wrote briefly on how Text C had been written with the intended audience in mind - short declaratives, boxes = visual differentiation etc and how the child may have taken influence from the handout and incorporated them into her own writing eg: subtitles.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 163

lidiya

Yeah... talked about declaratives too.. :smile:

and said that text C uses abstract sentences whereas text D only refers to concrete nouns.. and so on.. though it was alright question.

Original post by philippa26804

I wrote briefly on how Text C had been written with the intended audience in mind - short declaratives, boxes = visual differentiation etc and how the child may have taken influence from the handout and incorporated them into her own writing eg: subtitles.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 164

philippa26804

6

Original post by lidiya

Yeah... talked about declaratives too.. :smile:

and said that text C uses abstract sentences whereas text D only refers to concrete nouns.. and so on.. though it was alright question.

Didn't mention any of that.. Haha whoops!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 165

IRP

Original post by dreadpiraterach

I wrote about Althusser and audience positioning- the person giving the testimony wanted to position the audience to believe he was innocent, and he did that by using negative lexis about the Americans, and by making references to "protecting the King's money" to show that he believed he was acting in the best interests of the country. I briefly linked it in to the struggle for American independence because that was happening around that time.

I wrote about how the phrase "God damn" appeared to have been censored because it would have been considered blasphemous and religion was a lot more important back then.

I wrote about the way it was represented in a newspaper, ie just one long transcript showing exactly what one person had said, whereas nowadays newspaper articles are more like objective statements with a select few quotes and paraphrases.

Formal lexis, adverbials, declaratives because he was in court.

That's all I can remember writing :s-smilie:

I wasn't overly sure about this question, it just looked a lot better than the Ofsted one.

Sounds like you did very well! I made hardly any of these good points, I panicked and only noticed the obvious and less impressive points like the capitilisation of nouns and sentence structures..felt awful when I came out of the exam!

Reply 166

Wbez

Compared to January, I found that pretty damn difficult. From what I've been reading, pretty sure that was one of the toughest ENGB3 exams that's been put forward.

Section A - I did Lizzie (C&D) after 5 minutes of to and froing over which one to do, regretted it immediately, but soldiered on. Wrote about the readability of text C (parallel sentences basically), simple syntax, diectic reference modelling pronouns (got in Bellugi here), the use of Polysyllabic lexis for historical terms (context), and how other polysyllabic lexis is stuff they're likely to have come across before (gentleman, gigantic - linked this to Piaget), and how it being in sections pragmatically modelled paragraphs for them. Then for her writing (god she was awful) I wrote about her lack of mechanical control but decent linearity, phonetic spelling (Okay biggest mistake, said she was in Phonetic stage of Kroll and head-desked immediately after), ability to use past tense if even spelt phonetically (showd), good use of copular at times, but only when copied from handout (were). Last paragraph was all on Skinner/Bruner with the teacher's corrections. Seems alright now I've written it down :') Key context I reckoned was the fact it was a HISTORY lesson with no focus on literacy, so real skills being encouraged was the conveying

Section B - Okay this one was a bit of a O.O as I studied the American Colonies last year in History and thought the description of it as a "massacre" was a little unfair, Preston's testimony is largely considered fact by British historians...I digress :P Right for this I thought the key was to remember it was essentially an old fashioned transcript. Many of the things you could say that were language change (key one being adaptation of the indefinite - "an") could also be said to be spoken elements, e.g. dropping the h in "hundred" so "an 'undred" would have been correct. Also wrote about semantic field of military and how this would have commanded more respect, linked this to Romaine & ELC. How "bayonet" is essentially archaic now, resigned to the semantic field of history by the effect of technological advancement, showing technology's effect. How he was attempting to convince the jury of his innocence, and thus some of the more now-ameliorated lexical choices such as "melancholy event" for a massacre may have been because he was attempting to convince them he was innocent. Use of complex syntax to show he was educated also helping with the persuasion. All those weird compounds with "theTowns-people" etc I said was due to it being pre-Lowth. Amelioration around the euphemism "expired" for died. Lots of standardisation thrown in here and there (although less Johnson than I'd have hoped for :frown:

) and of course our old favourites the ct digraph and medial s grapheme.

To be fair, it could have been a lot worse. But I think the grade boundaries will be really low for this, considering all the curve balls they've thrown us!

Reply 167

Chocre

2

I did the Leila question too, I think it was alright, I found a lot to talk about and added in Bruner, skinner and Halliday's. Part b I did the reports, which were horrific! Felt like I rambled on about context and political correctness too much.. Plus I only really did two solid frameworks; grammar and lexis but did a really short extra paragraph on the audiences at the end which probably won't have got me any more marks.. :/

Does anyone know how much only doing two frameworks will count against me? I did them in a lot of detail, previously my teachers said its alright but I'm not so sure :frown:

Reply 168

lidiya

Did Lizzie which is question 2 for CLA.. talked about:
1. genre, audience, purpose, said it was in the preparation stage of Kroll, Britton's- mainly expressive style of writing revealing personal conventions and activities.
2. grammar- we/our- inclusive pronouns therefore aware of genre. concrete nouns only- talked about Piaget here saying that she doesn't understand abstracts that is why she hasn't used them, declarative sentences, lack of subjunctive/coordinative conjunction, homophones, lack of adjectives, correc utilisation on past tense like we saw- irregular past tense verbs- Brown..
3. Spelling- most are correctly spelt- phonologically viable, some errors like transposition, omission, insertion (because of the dialect maybe) and so on..

Hows that?

Reply 169

hazeey

Omg why did no one do the language change on the reports? i am stressing out now, i thought i had done alright when i came out of it but i now ive realised that ive written about the wrong context (thinking that not all children went to school in 1933!!) and saying that words changed meanings when they really havent (saying bazaar had changed meanings, but i was refering to biazzre, not bazaar:|) messed it up completely

Reply 170

lidiya

Original post by hazeey

Omg why did no one do the language change on the reports? i am stressing out now, i thought i had done alright when i came out of it but i now ive realised that ive written about the wrong context (thinking that not all children went to school in 1933!!) and saying that words changed meanings when they really havent (saying bazaar had changed meanings, but i was refering to biazzre, not bazaar:|) messed it up completely

I did that one..and talked about the 1870 mass literacy..and the reference to mistress- political correctness.

Reply 171

kieran1502

Original post by hazeey

Omg why did no one do the language change on the reports? i am stressing out now, i thought i had done alright when i came out of it but i now ive realised that ive written about the wrong context (thinking that not all children went to school in 1933!!) and saying that words changed meanings when they really havent (saying bazaar had changed meanings, but i was refering to biazzre, not bazaar:|) messed it up completely

I wrote about bazaar changing meaning too :/ I wrote about things like the focus on results in the 2008 one and the fact that the money raised section in 1933 would likely today be seen in a newsletter. I really haven't done well on that section

Reply 172

lidiya

Original post by kieran1502

I wrote about bazaar changing meaning too :/ I wrote about things like the focus on results in the 2008 one and the fact that the money raised section in 1933 would likely today be seen in a newsletter. I really haven't done well on that section

through bazzar is borrowed words.. opppsss..;D

Reply 173

kieran1502

Original post by lidiya

through bazzar is borrowed words.. opppsss..;D

That was a pretty horrid paper though in my opinion, just hope the boundaries are low

Reply 174

sarahjames123

omg literally done terrible!!! do you think it would be easy to get a d?!

Reply 175

Leighash

Original post by dreadpiraterach

I wrote about Althusser and audience positioning- the person giving the testimony wanted to position the audience to believe he was innocent, and he did that by using negative lexis about the Americans, and by making references to "protecting the King's money" to show that he believed he was acting in the best interests of the country. I briefly linked it in to the struggle for American independence because that was happening around that time.

I wrote about how the phrase "God damn" appeared to have been censored because it would have been considered blasphemous and religion was a lot more important back then.

I wrote about the way it was represented in a newspaper, ie just one long transcript showing exactly what one person had said, whereas nowadays newspaper articles are more like objective statements with a select few quotes and paraphrases.

Formal lexis, adverbials, declaratives because he was in court.

That's all I can remember writing :s-smilie:

I wasn't overly sure about this question, it just looked a lot better than the Ofsted one.

Wow sounds like you've done well! I wrote about him wanting to make the court believe he was innocent, about the importance of religion and how God was censored and the formal lexis. I considered writing about declaratives but I didn't have time & I completely blanked out with what to write for discourse so just ended up saying it was typical of a newspaper and that it was in chronological order - argh! I did so poorly on section B. Section A wasn't really too great either. :frown:

Reply 176

hazeey

Original post by kieran1502

I wrote about bazaar changing meaning too :/ I wrote about things like the focus on results in the 2008 one and the fact that the money raised section in 1933 would likely today be seen in a newsletter. I really haven't done well on that section

i wrote about compoundings were used more in the 2008 and that there were more superlatives in 2008 and more comparatives in 1933. Cant even believe how badly i have done now, damnnnn

Reply 177

hazeey

Original post by lidiya

through bazzar is borrowed words.. opppsss..;D

it is a borrowed word i just googled it, so youll have done fine!

Reply 178

lidiya

for the language change second question.. did any of you talked about like lexis-ICT(initialisms), compounds coming up because of the lazy way for creating new words.. and like now texts are more politically correct and will not discriminate like in the newer text there was some reference to children with independent needs and so on. ..