i love english language

Top Band Answers – AO1 & AO3

Posted in Uncategorized by aggslanguage on November 30, 2010

Top Band AO1?

15 minute reading (& annotating) time for each question:

  1. sentences
  2. clauses
  3. phrases
  4. specific word classes

Top Band AO3?

It is essential that in first paragraph of each answer, students should tackle P/A/C – purpose, audience, context of the text – including social values, theory, attitudes, genre, mode etc. – this overview should be established on reading both texts

Chief Examiner’s 3D Functional Analysis (c.f. handout) – essential for Section B – students have to tackle the 3 functions…

–       Experiential – Representation of Content

–       Expressive – Construction of writer’s persona

–       Relational – Positioning of Reader

… irony, self-deprecating, hyperbole – essential that understand author’s strategy in texts

e.g.

What language barrier? – Deborah Cameron The Guardian, Oct ’07

Do men and women speak the same language? Can they ever really communicate? These questions are not new, but since the early 1990s there has been a new surge of interest in them. Countless self-help and popular psychology books have been written portraying men and women as alien beings, and conversation between them as a catalogue of misunderstandings.

The most successful exponents of this formula, such as Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don’t Understand, and John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, have topped the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic. Advice on how to bridge the communication gulf between the sexes has grown into a flourishing multimedia industry. Gray’s official website, for instance, promotes not only his various Mars and Venus books, but also seminars, residential retreats, a telephone helpline and a dating service.

Readers who prefer something a little harder-edged can turn to a genre of popular science books with titles such as Brain Sex, Sex on the Brain, The Essential Difference, and Why Men Don’t Iron. These explain that the gulf between men and women is a product of nature, not nurture. The sexes communicate differently (and women do it better) because of the way their brains are wired. The female brain excels in verbal tasks whereas the male brain is better adapted to visual-spatial and mathematical tasks. Women like to talk; men prefer action to words.

Writers in this vein are fond of presenting themselves as latter-day Galileos, braving the wrath of the political correctness lobby by daring to challenge the feminist orthodoxy that denies that men and women are by nature profoundly different. Simon Baron-Cohen, the author of The Essential Difference, explains in his introduction that he put the book aside for several years because “the topic was just too politically sensitive”. In the chapter on male-female differences in his book about human nature, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker congratulates himself on having the courage to say what has long been “unsayable in polite company”. Both writers stress that they have no political axe to grind: they are simply following the evidence where it leads, and trying to put scientific facts in place of politically correct dogma.

Yet before we applaud, we should perhaps pause to ask ourselves: since when has silence reigned about the differences between men and women? Certainly not since the early 1990s, when the previous steady trickle of books began to develop into a raging torrent. By now, a writer who announces that sex-differences are natural is not “saying the unsayable”: he or she is stating the obvious. The proposition that men and women communicate differently is particularly uncontroversial, with cliches such as “men never listen” and “women find it easier to talk about their feelings” referenced constantly in everything from women’s magazines to humorous greeting cards.

The idea that men and women “speak different languages” has itself become a dogma, treated not as a hypothesis to be investigated or as a claim to be adjudicated, but as an unquestioned article of faith. Our faith in it is misplaced. Like the scientists I have mentioned, I believe in following the evidence where it leads. But in this case, the evidence does not lead where most people think it does. If we examine the findings of more than 30 years of research on language, communication and the sexes, we will discover that they tell a different, and more complicated, story.

 

 

 

What language barrier? – Deborah Cameron The Guardian, Oct ’07

Do men and women speak the same language? Can they ever really communicate? These questions are not new, but since the early 1990s there has been a new surge of interest in them. Countless self-help and popular psychology books have been written portraying men and women as alien beings, and conversation between them as a catalogue of misunderstandings.

The most successful exponents of this formula, such as Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don’t Understand, and John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, have topped the bestseller lists on both sides of the Atlantic. Advice on how to bridge the communication gulf between the sexes has grown into a flourishing multimedia industry. Gray’s official website, for instance, promotes not only his various Mars and Venus books, but also seminars, residential retreats, a telephone helpline and a dating service.

Readers who prefer something a little harder-edged can turn to a genre of popular science books with titles such as Brain Sex, Sex on the Brain, The Essential Difference, and Why Men Don’t Iron. These explain that the gulf between men and women is a product of nature, not nurture. The sexes communicate differently (and women do it better) because of the way their brains are wired. The female brain excels in verbal tasks whereas the male brain is better adapted to visual-spatial and mathematical tasks. Women like to talk; men prefer action to words.

Writers in this vein are fond of presenting themselves as latter-day Galileos, braving the wrath of the political correctness lobby by daring to challenge the feminist orthodoxy that denies that men and women are by nature profoundly different. Simon Baron-Cohen, the author of The Essential Difference, explains in his introduction that he put the book aside for several years because “the topic was just too politically sensitive”. In the chapter on male-female differences in his book about human nature, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker congratulates himself on having the courage to say what has long been “unsayable in polite company”. Both writers stress that they have no political axe to grind: they are simply following the evidence where it leads, and trying to put scientific facts in place of politically correct dogma.

Yet before we applaud, we should perhaps pause to ask ourselves: since when has silence reigned about the differences between men and women? Certainly not since the early 1990s, when the previous steady trickle of books began to develop into a raging torrent. By now, a writer who announces that sex-differences are natural is not “saying the unsayable”: he or she is stating the obvious. The proposition that men and women communicate differently is particularly uncontroversial, with clichés such as “men never listen” and “women find it easier to talk about their feelings” referenced constantly in everything from women’s magazines to humorous greeting cards.

The idea that men and women “speak different languages” has itself become a dogma, treated not as a hypothesis to be investigated or as a claim to be adjudicated, but as an unquestioned article of faith. Our faith in it is misplaced. Like the scientists I have mentioned, I believe in following the evidence where it leads. But in this case, the evidence does not lead where most people think it does. If we examine the findings of more than 30 years of research on language, communication and the sexes, we will discover that they tell a different, and more complicated, story.

  1. Do men and women speak the same language? – interrogative sentence
  2. Can they ever really communicate? – interrogative sentence
  3. These questions are not new – declarative sentence – the first: clear cut in answer to the opening questions
  4. since the early 1990s – prepositional phrase
  5. surge – dynamic verb
  6. Countless – hyperbolic descriptive adjective
  7. as alien beings – prepositional phrase / simile
  8. a catalogue of misunderstandings – noun phrase / metaphor
  9. of this formula – prepositional phrase

10.topped – dynamic verb / metaphor

11.the communication gulf – noun phrase / metaphor

12.a flourishing multimedia industry – noun phrase / metaphor

13.for instance – prepositional phrase

14.something a little harder-edged – noun phrase / metaphor

15.a genre of popular science books – noun phrase

16. the gulf between men and women – noun phrase / metaphor

17.(and women do it better) – parenthetic clause / conversational aside

18.Women like to talk; men prefer action to words. – two short clauses separated by a semi-colon

19.in this vein – prepositional phrase

20.fond – verb with connotations

21.themselves – reflexive third person plural pronoun

22.latter-day Galileos – noun phrase / metaphor

23.braving the wrath of the political correctness lobby – non-finite clause

24.daring – verb with connotations

25.the feminist orthodoxy – noun phrase

26.profoundly – adverb of degree / manner

27.“the topic was just too politically sensitive”. – quoted clause

28.congratulates himself – emotive verb & reflexive third person pronoun

29.on having the courage – non-finite clause

30.“unsayable in polite company” – quoted clause

31.political axe to grind – noun phrase / cliché

32.simply- adverb of manner

33.politically correct dogma – noun phrase

34.Yet before we applaud – front-focused subordinate clause & inclusive first person plural pronoun

35.Perhaps – modal adverb

36.Ourselves – reflexive third person plural pronoun

37.since when has silence reigned about the differences between men and women? – interrogative / subordinate clause / rhetorical question /

38.Certainly – adverb of modality

39.steady trickle of books – noun phrase / metaphor

40.a raging torrent – noun phrase / metaphor

41.proposition – abstract noun

42.clichés – abstract noun

43.“men never listen” – quoted clause

44.“women find it easier to talk about their feelings” – quoted clause

45.constantly – adverb of frequency

46.in everything from women’s magazines to humorous greeting cards – prepositional phrase

47.a dogma – noun phrase – religious semantic-field

48.an unquestioned article of faith – noun phrase – religious semantic-field

49.Our faith in it is misplaced. – simple declarative sentence & religious semantic-field

50.But in this case ­– front-focused prepositional phrase after the coordinator

51.most people – noun phrase

52.If we examine the findings of more than 30 years of research on language – conditional clause

53.we will discover – main clause & inclusive first person plural pronoun & modal verb

54.a different, and more complicated, story – noun phrase

AO1 & AO3 – How analysis must focus on what the author is doing to position themselves, their reader and their subject within their text:

a)   The opening two interrogative questions (1&2) sharply frame the text’s argument. The simplification of issue into the almost ridiculous “speak the same language” clearly shows where the author stands. This is made clearer in the second question where the adverb of degree “really” is used together with the adverb of time “ever” to make the question’s answer all but certain in the reader’s mind.

b)   The noun phrase “latter-day Galileos” (22) is a caustic remark wholly undercutting these writer’s pretensions to be battling against the consensus, when in fact they are themselves part of the mob painted by Cameron with the emotive noun “wrath” and their “daring” is shown for what it really is.

c)   The front-focused subordinate clause “Yet before we applaud” (34) is clearly sarcastic in the light of the criticism it follows. Cameron’s use of the inclusive first person plural pronoun “we” is clearly an attempt, not only to get the reader on side, but to get the reader to join in the mockery of the theoretical position of which she writes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: