AS/A2 WJEC English Language LG1/LG4 24-May &amp; 3-June 2013

Original post by Nerd2

There was interaction between the commentators in text B? :eek:

I'm also certain the commentary was done by one person, Huw Edwards. They said he commentated in the text description, there was no other commentator apart from him in text B.

I think I should get at least 35/40 marks for section A, I mentioned just about everything you could, I even mentioned the somewhat patriotic views of the commentators, like they used the term "Her Majesty" and they also said something like "the greatest queen of all the nations ' or something like.

I don't think I will get beyond a C though completely ran out of time again, I can't seem to time these exams well, to be honest I don't think I could have worked any faster than that. I might switch the LG1/LG4 units with other units from another exam-board that doesn't have 2hr30 exams.

No it said in the description both texts contain two commentaries, text A had it layered out like "commentator 1, commentator 2" i also mentioned patriotism, lexical set of royal vocab etc

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 83

Original post by beccaxheapes

Text A was Early Modern English wasn't it? :frown:

No they were all Late Modern English Texts as the first was from 1701 and The LME period is 1700-present

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 84

Original post by Nerd2

There was interaction between the commentators in text B? :eek:

I'm also certain the commentary was done by one person, Huw Edwards. They said he commentated in the text description, there was no other commentator apart from him in text B.

I think I should get at least 35/40 marks for section A, I mentioned just about everything you could, I even mentioned the somewhat patriotic views of the commentators, like they used the term "Her Majesty" and they also said something like "the greatest queen of all the nations ' or something like.

I don't think I will get beyond a C though completely ran out of time again, I can't seem to time these exams well, to be honest I don't think I could have worked any faster than that. I might switch the LG1/LG4 units with other units from another exam-board that doesn't have 2hr30 exams.

i completely agree, text b was only one commentator and that was Huw Edwards

Reply 85

although i messed up section b as the only things i talked about were contractions, direct address, language change, borrowing, and conjunction and asyndetic listing and graphology and sentence moods

Reply 86

otherwise it would say two commentators and commentator a and b like text a. another thing is that text b was the one in the studio while text a was on road side

Reply 87

Oh well i didn't actually mention that cause its what people put after we left the exam! Never mind! Just praying I get at least a C, anything higher would be a bonus

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 88

Converse Rocker

16

Original post by mkhan9035

No it said in the description both texts contain two commentaries, text A had it layered out like "commentator 1, commentator 2"

Text A did have two commentators, but as you said there was no conversation between them. Text B was just by Edwards. :smile:

I was surprised that neither text had any interaction between speakers, I would have thought it would feature in at least one. As for Section B and the language periods I wouldn't worry about it guys, multiple sources have slightly different years for each.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 89

Enamored

Original post by Nerd2

I think I should get at least 35/40 marks for section A, I mentioned just about everything you could, I even mentioned the somewhat patriotic views of the commentators, like they used the term "Her Majesty" and they also said something like "the greatest queen of all the nations ' or something like.

when talking about "her majesty" i mentioned about pragmatics. would that be acceptable too or? ~_~

also in section a, text b, there was only one commentator. i remember 100% and was disappointed about not having any interactions in either text. :frown:

Reply 90

Original post by Enamored

when talking about "her majesty" i mentioned about pragmatics. would that be acceptable too or? ~_~

anything that would make reasonable sense is acceptable, i stated that her majesty is a vocative that shows the speakers respect towards the queen

Reply 91

although researching now thats not what vocative is ****

Reply 92

Original post by Enamored

when talking about "her majesty" i mentioned about pragmatics. would that be acceptable too or? ~_~

also in section a, text b, there was only one commentator. i remember 100% and was disappointed about not having any interactions in either text. :frown:

Yeah that was so bloody annoying! It was just a lone commetary -.- bloody wjec t***s

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 93

oh wait that is what a vocative is :biggrin:

Reply 94

Original post by johnjorgell

oh wait that is what a vocative is :biggrin:

A vocative is exchange between 2 or more people "IN A CONVERSATION" the Queen wasn't in the conversation, and in that context it would be a proper noun! :/

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 95