ENGB3 AQA 3rd June 2013

No way! Looks like I've failed as well.
I did Leila for CLA. I could see speech and '2 years and 5 months' through the paper, and I was jumping for joy! Until AQA decide to give us the curve ball of barely any parental interaction and she's talking like a loony to her goddamn toys!
Everyone in my language class found speech so hard! There was hardly any CDS, I hate Jan she is a bitch. And I'm sorry but all you could really talk about when all the crazy 'iggle piggle' stuff was going on was egocentric speech?!
I found change much easier, I did the ofsted/government report and found it ok, I mainly spoke about prestige, in formalisation and technological factors (like the introduction of 'gramophones' and everyday curriculum of 'ICT').

The only thing that gives me hope is that this exam is only 30% of the overall grade which isn't too bad. I need an A for Belfast but after this exam I will most likely get a B.

The only thing that makes it all better though is the thought of a nice drunken summer before that fatal results day...





Posted from TSR Mobile

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..

Does it sound right?

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?

Don't worry about it, it sounds to me like you've done well- you included the most interesting points where you can link it back to pragmatics and that's what tends to get the higher marks Everyone here is saying it was a hard paper, I think it was a lot more difficult than the past papers I've done. I stared at it blankly for about 5 minutes because both language change questions looked so awful Which question did you do for section A?

Given that the general consensus seems to be that this was a rather tough paper (particularly if you hadn't focused on very old texts before), I imagine that the grade boundaries will be somewhat similar to those of the January 2013 ENGB3 paper:

87/96 = Full UMS, 77 A*, 67 A, 57 B, 47 C, 37 D, 28 E.

Yeah, everyone in my class seemed to find the language change difficult, hopefully the boundaries will be lowered if this is the case! I did question 1, text A was a bit unusual but I managed to come up with plenty of things to talk about, probably too much actually as I kind of ran out of time. I managed to throw in quite a lot of theory but I'm not sure if I covered enough of the context. Which question did you do?

I feel like I might have done too much grammar and not enough lexis, but oh well.

You can never go wrong by writing about and discussing grammar, even if you do go on a bit. If you read the examiner reports for every past exam, you'll find that people tend to shy away from grammar the most. Therefore, the more you can write on it, the better!

Hey do you reckon if you've named the wrong theorist to a technique it will go against you? I think when i mentioned Jans use of recasting in CLA I may have linked it to Skinner not Bruner Other than that I think CLA went alright, there was plently of theorists like Skinner, Halliday, Baccilega and Nelson, a decent amount to write about context as well as syntax, lexis, pragmatics and grammar plus CDS.

Please please can somebody comfort me and say they spoke about the broadening of the word 'club' and pejoration of the word 'cock'? It felt so wrong writing about them in an exam haha! I had a lot to say for language acquisition, but I couldn't tell if the newspaper was English or American so wasn't really sure what angle to take!

Hey do you reckon if you've named the wrong theorist to a technique it will go against you? I think when i mentioned Jans use of recasting in CLA I may have linked it to Skinner not Bruner Other than that I think CLA went alright, there was plently of theorists like Skinner, Halliday, Baccilega and Nelson, a decent amount to write about context as well as syntax, lexis, pragmatics and grammar plus CDS.

One question 1, for context, something i put was that in Text a Leila might not have shown her full linguistic competency because she was in effect 'role playing'? Didn't know whether that was totally valid?