english language paper 2 question 4
Hi, I wrote this answer to the November 2021 paper 2 question 4 of english language and would really really appreciate it if someone could mark it and let me know how to improve as it is the question i struggle most with. Thank you!!
Compare how the writers convey their different attitudes to sweets.
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint.
This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two.
In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere.
Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work.
Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets.
On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents.
This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
Compare how the writers convey their different attitudes to sweets.
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint.
This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two.
In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere.
Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work.
Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets.
On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents.
This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
Hi,
Your language analysis here is absolutely spot on. The only thing which is slightly confusing is the structure. At the bottom of this I will show you how I personally would structure the same response you did. It's undoubtedly a level 4 response. The comparison in the first paragraph was much stronger than in the second due to the fact that you "in contrast to this." Of course, a comparison can include a similarity or a difference. In your second point, you portray source A and B quite negatively but then claim that they're different. This could be a lack of understanding of the extract on my behalf as I haven't read it, however going forward it is an important thing to consider.
However, overall this is a great response. You tick every box on the level 4 mark scheme. I would like to see another paragraph if you have time in the exam, however, as this is a 16 mark question.
For this question: 13/16
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint. This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two. In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work. Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets. On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents. This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
Your language analysis here is absolutely spot on. The only thing which is slightly confusing is the structure. At the bottom of this I will show you how I personally would structure the same response you did. It's undoubtedly a level 4 response. The comparison in the first paragraph was much stronger than in the second due to the fact that you "in contrast to this." Of course, a comparison can include a similarity or a difference. In your second point, you portray source A and B quite negatively but then claim that they're different. This could be a lack of understanding of the extract on my behalf as I haven't read it, however going forward it is an important thing to consider.
However, overall this is a great response. You tick every box on the level 4 mark scheme. I would like to see another paragraph if you have time in the exam, however, as this is a 16 mark question.
For this question: 13/16
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint. This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two. In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work. Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets. On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents. This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
(edited 10 months ago)
Original post by Georgeallen
Hi,
Your language analysis here is absolutely spot on. The only thing which is slightly confusing is the structure. At the bottom of this I will show you how I personally would structure the same response you did. It's undoubtedly a level 4 response. The comparison in the first paragraph was much stronger than in the second due to the fact that you "in contrast to this." Of course, a comparison can include a similarity or a difference. In your second point, you portray source A and B quite negatively but then claim that they're different. This could be a lack of understanding of the extract on my behalf as I haven't read it, however going forward it is an important thing to consider.
However, overall this is a great response. You tick every box on the level 4 mark scheme. I would like to see another paragraph if you have time in the exam, however, as this is a 16 mark question.
For this question: 13/16
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint. This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two. In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work. Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets. On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents. This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
Your language analysis here is absolutely spot on. The only thing which is slightly confusing is the structure. At the bottom of this I will show you how I personally would structure the same response you did. It's undoubtedly a level 4 response. The comparison in the first paragraph was much stronger than in the second due to the fact that you "in contrast to this." Of course, a comparison can include a similarity or a difference. In your second point, you portray source A and B quite negatively but then claim that they're different. This could be a lack of understanding of the extract on my behalf as I haven't read it, however going forward it is an important thing to consider.
However, overall this is a great response. You tick every box on the level 4 mark scheme. I would like to see another paragraph if you have time in the exam, however, as this is a 16 mark question.
For this question: 13/16
In Source A, the attitude of James is one of child-like wonder and infatuation; 'a sublime, majestic inevitability', the idolising adjectives 'sublime' and 'majestic' exaggerate the wonder and 'allure' of the sweets, elevating their status to a worshipped level, implying a degree of romanticism and memory is affecting his viewpoint. This is reinforced by 'stunning explosion', the destructive noun 'explosion' implies a clear gravity to the effects of sweets and enhances their importance in the lives of children, which would be fitting due to the 1940s setting, where sweets would be considered a luxurious and more expensive novelty following Word War Two. In contrast to this, Source B adopts a detached and mechanical perspective to the sweets, 'confectionery was adorned contained copper toxins' the use of alliteration of the harsh plosives implies a more isolated approach to sweets than James by creating a cold and distant atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of the adjective 'petty' in 'petty pilfering' highlights a sense of immaturity and unnecessariness in regards to the actions of the girls, suggesting that the writer does not fully comprehend the attraction of the sweets, due to the lack of emotional connection exhibited in Source A.
The writer of Source A also utilises hyperbole to illicit a darkly sardonic perspective on sweets, 'a lot of strangled crying in the dark', the violent adjective 'strangled' connotes a physical constriction of the throat - a clear exaggeration of the negative effects of sweets on the children, potentially undermining opposition to confectionery in order to create humour within his work. Furthermore, the semantic field of war 'bullets', 'ammunition', 'skull' creates the implication that the sweets themselves have caused violent outbursts, reinforcing the novelty and humour of the piece by creating an overly sarcastic attitude to the impacts of sweets. On the other hand, Source B conveys a more cautious and wary attitude to sweets, 'I bid parents beware', the imploring verb 'bid' implies a hesitancy of the writer when buying sweets by demonstrating the urgent tone the writer adopts to warn other parents. This is reinforced by 'for the good of our little ones', the infantilising adjective 'little' depicts a vulnerable and fragile aspect of the children, perhaps implying the sweet manufacturers are taking advantage of their naivety and innocence, hence the writer's reproachful outlook. Furthermore, the noun 'good' utilises the common dichotomy of good and bad between the children and sweets, highlighting how the writer views sweets as carrying an inherently harmful effect, potentially due to the real negative effects too many sweets have on the health of children, showing how she is hesitant to endorsing them.
This is really helpful thank you so much!! I get what you mean about the second similarity/ difference, i was trying to discuss how Source A's negative portrayal was sarcastic and unauthentic whereas Source B has a genuine hesitance and reproachful attitude but looking back I completely see how this isn't clear. Do you think it would have been better if i had said something along the lines of:
'A similarity between both extracts is their negative perspective on the impacts of sweets, however where Source B takes a hesitant and reproachful attitude in an attempt to warn parents of the dangers of the sweets, Source A uses hyperbole to create a darkly sardonic perspective to provide humour within his work, potentially to create a more engaging anecdote for his readers.'
Thank you!!
Yes, that sounds good. Some of the best responses to this question have similarities within their differences or vice versa.
If you have any last minute questions or would like anything marking then feel free to email me: [email protected] as I may not see it on here!
If not, I wish you all the best for tomorrow's exam!
If you have any last minute questions or would like anything marking then feel free to email me: [email protected] as I may not see it on here!
If not, I wish you all the best for tomorrow's exam!
Original post by Georgeallen
Yes, that sounds good. Some of the best responses to this question have similarities within their differences or vice versa.
If you have any last minute questions or would like anything marking then feel free to email me: [email protected] as I may not see it on here!
If not, I wish you all the best for tomorrow's exam!
If you have any last minute questions or would like anything marking then feel free to email me: [email protected] as I may not see it on here!
If not, I wish you all the best for tomorrow's exam!
That's all the questions I have for now but thank you so much for your help, it's really appreciated!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- AQA English Language Paper 1 and 2
- gyg gcse 2024!
- AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How much can I improve a grade in 2 months?
- GCSE AQA English Language marks - REMARK?
- GCSE English Language Paper 1 Question 2 RESPONSE
- AQA English Language Paper 2 Question 2 Exemplar Answer
- How can I go from a grade 2 to a grade 8 to 9 in english language paper 2 in days
- 74 days left
- is it possible for me to go from a 4 to 5 or 6 at english lan ?
- My story on how I failed English Language!
- GCSE English Language Study Group 2023-2024
- Will I lose all marks in a question in english language because of this?
- Revision Struggles?! Join the 2023 TSR All Day Revision Thread!
- AQA English Language Paper 1 Question 3&4 help
- Edexcel English Language Paper 2 advice
- AQA GCSE English Language Paper 2 (8700/2) - 9th November 2023 [Exam Chat]
- english language paper 2 mock tomorrow - a question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
WJEC Eduqas English Literature prediction 2024Last reply 10 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 12 hours ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 21 minutes ago
WJEC Eduqas English Literature prediction 2024Last reply 10 hours ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 12 hours ago
AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 1 (7702/1) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 2 (H472/02) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Please mark my gcse english language paper 2 question 5!!!Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
