ENGB3 AQA 3rd June 2013

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. ..

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. ..

What points did people make for the language acquisition question about Leila? Didn't find that question too bad but language change was awful!

Did Leila and the ofsted question. Though Leila was confusing and the ofsted one was ok. Don't think i've done well at all

Verdict: Part A, loved it. Part B, hated it.

How did you structure them? Part B was a complete free-for-all for me!

Part b I did the reports, which were horrific! Felt like I rambled on about context and political correctness too much..

By the end I was even boring myself, and I found myself just adding bits on the end, which messed up my structure I think.

2 and a half hours definitely wasn't needed for me anyway! Hope it wasn't just me that wrote realms and realms!!

Same. I think the Language Change part is really gunna bring me down; I can tell I talked loads about nothing at all... I was even really boring myself! Haha.

But I spoke about:

My introduction was giving context. I included Brown and Levison's face theory, and how Jan and Leilas lack of politeness features inferred that they were well known to each other (trying to cover giving theorists from last year, don't really know if this bit made much sense)

Then I spoke about Lev Vygosky's Zone of Proximal Development, and how although Jan was not the primary carer, she still was aiding her into independence. Also mentioned Jerome Bruner's scaffolding.

Continued talking about Lev Vygotsky, and how he observed that young children use props to play with and older children use imagination, and since she was using props it was a nice fit I thought.

Then I think I started talking about her early phonological non-standard errors, like the 'cwying' and 'cheeka' (substitution and assimilation) .

Then I pointed out Leila used the wrong tense in text A, and how she was in the telegraphic stage because she could use lexis correctly but her grammar was iffy (pointed out the lack of auxiliary verbs and how she still used only simply sentences, and there was no conjunctions of any kind).

I then talked about CDS, and how both Leila and Jan were influenced heavily about it - but I pointed out Jan still used pronouns (we), which might infer that she doesn't talk to children often (relating back to context for extra marks).

B.F.Skinner came up after that, saying Jan gave Leila positive reinforcement, and that reinforcement a long with CDS inferred that Skinner's behaviorist model could be applied to Leila.

And then I wrote about Michael Halliday's taxonomy; she fullfilled instrumental, regulatory and imaginative criteria

Lastly I brought up Alan Cruttenden, and how his study into paralinguistic effects could be argued because Leila showed some understanding of voice tone (imitating her father, she shouted).

So yeah, that's what I put for question one. It went all down hill when I decided to do the Ofsted report question! I started talking about entirely irrelevant things and sounding like some political speech about how we've lost pride over English language, hahaha. Oh well! Always next year to re-take, if the worst comes to the worst... I'm hoping my language acquisition side can boost my grade to an A though, and they take pity on me and my poor hand for the language change part (seriously felt paralyzed in my hand before I even started writing about language change. What a brutal exam! D: )

Completely messed up in this exam! I thought language change was awful and decided to do the 1700s question. Didn't speak enough about context or ao1 points and babbled on about nothing erghhhh

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