Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellls)
    Yeah, I thought gender was a small struggle but I did manage to pick quite a few points.. I hope!

    For the novel I just grouped it in simple/minor sentences!
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    I really wanted to do one on spontaneous speech too but 1. I wouldn't have had enough time and 2. My teacher said that grouping transcripts together isn't one of the best groups you can make because when people do it they don't talk about it in a lot of detail. I'm sure though if you talked about it correctly and included other texts apart from the two transcripts that it'll be fine xD
    oh lord haha! The more I think about this exam, the more my potential result goes down haha! Oh, just remembered I did a grouping on colloquial language too, because of text B saying 'mates' and 'buddies' etc, and A 'oh gosh' :-)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    I really hope you're right!! Our teacher never mentioned to us whether we should include all of the texts or not :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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? 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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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? 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?
    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?
    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!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 =)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beth1995x)
    We're meant to conclude?!?! hahaa :/ but okay thankyou I feel much better now =)
    Apparently due to my "unconventional approach to the question [...] a conclusion would have suitably aided the cohesion of the anaylsis which is why AO2 marks were dedcuted"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellls)
    Oh okay good! Yeah that would be great! I might look on that marked by teachers or whatever.

    Is transcripts just the conversations? I quite like these best and I don't like representations haha!
    I'm so sorry I didn't get any for you! My internet's been down for the past two days annoyingly.

    How did it go?

    Section A was fine for me - I thought it was going really well as I wrote it, but when I read it back I'm not sure it was actually that good so who knows. I panicked and messed up B though :sad: I'm resitting, so we've only done gender revision in class... I looked at that gender text and it was just like, no ****ing way. I was praying for a transcript, it's been representations for ages, but still, none as bad as that one! Ended up doing Power and just blagging my way through it cos I've not revised it in absolutely ages, only managed to bring in Wareing, Fairclough ad a tiny bit of power behind discourse. I mentioned Sapir Whorf (wrongly though unfortunately), Lakoff, O'Barr and Atkins briefly too.

    Proper shame though that I messed it up. Needed an A in it for my A* overall... still, an A overall is good and what I need for uni so it's fine
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Also I didn't conclude Section A, never been taught to do that before! Read so many sample A answers without conclusions too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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 :/

    The examiners reports from previous exams clearly says students aren't expected to include all the texts, and those that do tend not to analyse each text in enough detail!

    i also didn't bother grouping the novel extract with any of the other texts!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the exam went good. The first part for categorising texts was good and i thought i did well (around 3/4 pages) but the power text was hard. I only did 3 paragraphs (Imperatives, Synthetic Personalisation and Formality) although they were detailed - will this be enough for around 30+ marks?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did four groups- they spanned over five of the pages of the booklet that AQA give us for the exam.

    - epistemic modal verbs
    - third person (which was how I included the novel)
    - spoken mode
    - Fairclough theory


    I spoke quite a lot about the texts individually, so fingers crossed I did alright.

    My main concern is with section B! I looked at past papers before the exam and noted that they haven't done spoken discourse for language and power- I immediately thought that I bet they'll do it this year. And they did.

    I spoke about Wareings, Fairclough, purposes... I did mention some features of spoken discourse too but I would have been so much more comfortable with written mode. Nervous!!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HannahBanana1995)
    The examiners reports from previous exams clearly says students aren't expected to include all the texts, and those that do tend not to analyse each text in enough detail!

    i also didn't bother grouping the novel extract with any of the other texts!
    God I wish I'd known that! I had to spend the last 10 mins on a rushed spontaneous speech group, panicking that I hadn't included them anywhere else.

    Sighhhh, feeling more and more like this exam was a total disaster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beth1995x)
    Hmmm it probably doesn't matter who you said was more powerful as long as you could justify why I didn't write anything about politness, I included some bits on fairclough, goffman, grice and then wrote a bit about convergence
    ah okay
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    OMAM

    Ultimate Of Mice And Men Thread

    Plot, context, character analysis and everything in between.

    Notes

    Revision Hub

    All our revision materials in one place

    Love books

    Common grammar and vocabulary problems

    Get your questions asked and answered

    Useful literary websitesStudy help rules and posting guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.