Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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. ..
    I didn't but some of my friends did, wish I'd realised and wrote that too, sounds good!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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. ..
    I talked about the intialism of HMI, compounds, technology with gramophone, weakening of 'sir', 'more healthily' because there is more emphasis on health, 'whom' being used in the 2008 text. did everyone link to theorists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What points did people make for the language acquisition question about Leila? Didn't find that question too bad but language change was awful!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IRP)
    What points did people make for the language acquisition question about Leila? Didn't find that question too bad but language change was awful!
    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: )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was resitting this for a solid A after getting a B in the Jan paper..

    I did question 2 (Lizzie) on CLA & I'm a bit nervous about the structure of my essay as there were two texts. But kept systematic with my frameworks so hopefully it'll be okay! I can't really remember what I wrote for it.. :P
    I did question 3 (the 1770 text) for Language Change and wrote about the (possible) perjoration of 'affair', a bit on Lowth, the role of religion ('G-d') and things like that.
    I have a good feeling, just happy that it's over now and I can start stressing over my English Lit exam on Thursday..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kieran1502)
    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
    I also did Leila and Ofsted.. found Leila really good but had hardly anything to say about Ofsted!!! Anyone else!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thatstudentdude)
    Verdict: Part A, loved it. Part B, hated it.

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

    Ditto!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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..

    what you guys think,,?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought this exam was pretty decent.

    I did the writing by children question, which was good because I'd been praying for a writing because I didn't want to go anywhere near a spoken piece.

    Then I did the first 1770 text for language change. Considering the amount I thought I could write for that compared to the other question. I'd never done just 1 text on it's own before so I found it quite lengthy. Writing for such a long amount of time on just one text. 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!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SJH128)
    Part b I did the reports, which were horrific! Felt like I rambled on about context and political correctness too much..
    I feel the same, I don't think I got a very good AO1 mark for that because other than lexical and semantic change, which I had a lot of individual examples for, I couldn't really fit much linguistic knowledge in there I also feel like I rambled, and therefore my essay wasn't very "coherent".. I probably lost a lot of marks on that question so hopefully I made it up on the CLA question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlotteD1)
    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!!
    Yep, I'm worried about the language change question because I found so little to say and finished so quickly that I feel like I must have missed some of the "perceptive" marks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    that exam was awful ! WHO AGREES? does anyone know the lowest grade boundaries they've ever done?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    for part B of the language change question I used Romaine as my conclusion saying that the text have been affected by both internal and external choices and said that the language change in the future will be inevitable.. and so on..
    But throughout I said about fairclough-informalisation due to the mixture of speech and written texts and used Aithison..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelB6)
    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: )

    Sounds like you did well!! I wrote very similar points, but I did question 3 for language change about the Boston massacre and I hated it!! at one point I just stopped and couldn't write anymore, I found it very hard to analyse..well done looks like you did well!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emily017)
    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
    I feel the same errghhh!!!! I feel more stressed about it now than I did before doing it!!!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Just going to reassure myself now

    For Question One I wrote:

    - The use of network building (Aitchson) in Text B, and the egocentric language in Text A. I discussed the theories of social interaction and innatism, and compared the role of the toys and the caregiver in relation to this.

    - The use of voices in Text A, showing phonological development and ritualistic behaviour. I also calculated the mean length utterance. I then talked about the pragmatics within Text B, talking about theorists such as Katherine Nelson/Halliday/Brown/S B Heath.

    - The basic linguistic methods in both texts, such as the word classes and the sentence construction and syntax, including what stage the child was at.

    - Language and power (the caregiver, the fact the child had total control over the direction of the conversation in Text A), and the concept of abstract thought and scaffolding.


    For Question Three (TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE) I wrote:

    - The similarities between the Early Modern English and Late Modern English in reference to features of the text.

    - The semantic fields such as religion and the military, and how the audience were positioned. I also included the purpose of the text.

    - The differences between the media at that time and the media now.

    - The Early Modern English features of the text, such as the long 's', and the influence of Shakespeare and romanticism on the emotive language. I also argued the text conformed to prescriptivist attitudes, especially the censoring of 'god' and 'damned'

    - The use of loan words and compound words.

    Ahh, and to think I need an A* for this! Language Change was just awful. I got 46/48 for my mock, but there's no way I performed that well today!


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    CLA went fantastically (I did question 2) and thoroughly enjoyed comparing the writing and reading aspects of language development. Great way to bring in lots of theory and compare/contrast. The language change wasn't as good as my CLA in my opinion, although I wrote more. I did question 4 and I had a hard time talking about much after I discussed lexis and grammar. I went on to talk about context, social attitudes and graphology a little bit while trying to be as perceptive as possible. Hopefully I did enough for an A.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    (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
    Only thing I said about the bazaar was that it was an uncommon event today so would therefore not likely even be mentioned! Gosh, where is the language point to be found in that explanation?

    I mainly wrote about use of jargon and lexical fields (i.e Key Stages, Curriculum) and how technology has shaped language (abbreviations such as ICT compared to simple tech like Gramophones in 1933), quick point about diachronic change (arithmetic to maths) and then just about how lively and energetic the verbs make the 2008 report sound compared to 1933, because in 1933 children weren't really respected as individuals and there was less passion in school (sitting in silent rows, reciting sums on chalkboards, you know the type LOL) so, who knows?!.... I was really scraping the barrel for this question!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So basically I failed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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.