A-LEVEL
ENGLISH LANGUAGE A
Unit 1/ENGA1 – Seeing through Language
Report on the Examination
2700
Summer 2014 (6A14)
Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
General
This is the eleventh series of ‘Seeing through Language’ and examiners were pleased to report
that all three questions enabled students to demonstrate an appropriate range and depth of skills,
knowledge and understanding relevant to the unit’s Assessment Objectives.
Question 01 required students to analyse two texts: part of a leaflet advertising a Play Farm and
a transcript of part of a talk given to visitors by Jenny, a member of the Play Farm staff. To
access the higher mark ranges for AO1, students were expected to analyse both texts
systematically by describing and illustrating key features of semantics, grammar, syntax and
discourse. To access the higher mark ranges for AO3i (mode), students were expected to
identify and explore the main mode characteristics of the texts such as channel, synchronicity,
proximity, permanence, immediacy and degrees of planning and interactivity. To access the
higher mark ranges for AO3ii (meaning), students were expected to identify and explore
contextual features such as purposes, functions, participant positioning, self-representations,
topics, topic management and structure. Students were also expected to examine effects of
language features and various meanings and representations, both literal and pragmatic,
constructed by the creators of Text A and the participants in Text B.
Tasks 02 and 04 required students to study a data set related to children’s acquisition of either
speech or writing and comment linguistically on five different features of language which they found
of interest. To access the higher mark ranges for AO1 students were expected to identify these
features precisely and name them linguistically.
Tasks 03 and 05 required students to write an answer on either the extent to which the acquisition
of language depends on children’s interaction with the people and things around them, or the
extent to which learning to write is a creative process. To access the higher mark ranges for AO1,
students were expected to spell and punctuate correctly, write in complete sentences, use an
accurate linguistic register, express their ideas fluently and structure their answers cohesively. To
access the higher mark ranges for AO2, students were expected to demonstrate understanding of
and an ability to integrate and evaluate language issues, theories, research and debates relevant
to the question asked as well as examining appropriate language features and contexts.
There is a lot of information in this paper for students to assimilate and it is recommended that they
spend 30 minutes reading the questions and data in order to prepare and plan their answers
thoroughly. There is a parity of marks between the two sections and students should spend 45
minutes answering each question. It is important for students to realise that the data analysis in
Tasks 02 and 04 of Questions 2 and 3 carries a maximum of 10 marks out of the question total of
45. Given this proportion, students should spend no more than ten minutes analysing the data and
make five precise points.
3 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
SECTION A – Language and Mode
Question 1
Both texts offered a wealth of linguistic, modal and contextual features to enable students to make
purposeful and perceptive comments. Topics were accessible to all and most students recognised
that the primary audience for Text A was parents with some features aimed at the children.
Similarly for Text B, students noted that children were the primary audience but Jenny also invited
the participation of carers: ‘adults you can join in too’. Examiners noted that many students were
identifying meanings and representations in the spoken text (Text B). Treating a text simply as a
paradigm of spoken discourse was identified as a problem in last year’s report and it was pleasing
to see evidence that schools and colleges have actively addressed this issue.
The most successful students identified and described grammatical features such as types of
nouns, adjectives and adverbs as well as verb tenses, aspects and modality. In addition, they
explored syntax by describing sentence types, clause types, clause elements and clause linking.
They also ensured that, rather than identifying features of language use in isolation, they linked the
features to appropriate meanings and mode characteristics.
The most successful students offered a conceptualised overview of mode by discussing elements
of standard and non-standard English, visual and auditory channels, synchronicity, distance, delay,
degrees of interactivity (turns, multiple voices, questions and answers), shared interests and
inclusivity. They also examined visual design in terms of the interrelationships between text and
images in Text A and the direct address and message/expressive orientations of both texts.
The most successful students demonstrated clear understanding of how contexts and situations
shaped the meanings created by and within each text. They explored particular representations
such as children, safety, family, community, pleasure and visitor welfare as well as exploring the
use of solicitation, constructive responses and humour as communicative strategies. In both texts
the most successful students examined the effects of clause types, tenses and modality in creating
representations of individuals, organisations, animals and their treatment. They also explored selfrepresentations of the farm and its staff as exciting, caring and authoritative.
Most students were able to identify some word classes and many described types of nouns and
pronouns. Sentence functions were usually identified accurately but sentence and clause types
less frequently. The description of graphology and semantic fields was generally accurate and
productive. Most students made some clear comments on mode by considering degrees of
planning and organisation, markers of spoken mode, visual design and degrees of permanence.
Most students had no difficulty in identifying Text A as a written, edited and published leaflet and
Text B as a pre-planned and partly spontaneous presentation. These students showed
understanding of the purposes of the creators of Text A to inform their audience about the play
farm and its activities and to persuade the audience to visit the farm and participate in its activities.
They also identified the purposes of Jenny to educate and entertain.
Less successful students made broad assertions about the texts, often without proof or
exemplification. These students were only able to identify some graphological features, one or two
pronouns or one or two semantic and/or phonological features. Some students offered
paraphrases of the texts, sometimes including unanalysed quotations with little attention to
meanings or effects.
4 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
The most successful students:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
began with an overview of contexts, modes and topics, thus supplying a framework which
informed subsequent analysis
identified clause types such as main and co-ordinate clauses accurately
commented successfully on the functions and effects of these clause types
gave detailed attention to a variety of sentence types by accurately identifying minor, simple,
compound and complex sentences and explaining their effects clearly
made productive observations about the structural features of the texts, commenting on the
use of text boxes, illustrations, adjacency pairs and discourse markers
gave a perceptive account of register focusing on lexical choices and on interactive features
(eg address, synthetic personalisation)
identified a wide range of word class types (eg abstract nouns, adverbs of manner,
comparative adjectives, co-ordinating conjunctions, dynamic and stative verbs)
commented successfully on the strategic use of modality within the texts
noted the erratic punctuation in Text A
identified the loosely co-ordinated clauses in both texts rather than trying to frame them into
sentence types
examined the impact of the use of comic sans font
examined the use of verbs in the creation of the representation of the farm
identified the imperative ‘Don’t forget’ as positioning the reader as already having decided to
visit the farm
conceptualised characteristics of mode in terms of such factors as channel, synchronicity,
immediacy, proximity, permanence and degrees of interactivity and planning
explored interactive features such as turns, overlaps and tag questions
explored the use of politeness and face work in Text B including Jenny’s use of praise
examined the role of Jenny, considering her need for control of the conversation and situation
and her tactics in achieving this in order to avoid face threatening events
recognised elements of interaction in Text A
examined the pauses in Text B as evidence of co-operation with a young audience engaged in
activities
examined the visual features and design as part of the creation of meanings in Text A
examined Jenny’s accommodation towards her audience
differentiated the participants in Text B
considered evidence of partial planning in Text B - the prepared introduction followed by
unpredictable responses which were spontaneous
considered the use and effects of rhetorical devices such as triadic structures, metaphors and
rhetorical questions
explored self-representations of the play farm in Text A and Jenny in Text B
examined safety considerations in both texts, reassurance to parents in Text A and safety of
both animals and children in Text B
talked about the effect of Jenny's use of humour
wrote fluently and articulately, structuring their response carefully and logically.
Less successful students:
•
•
•
•
identified Text A as electronic on the grounds that it had been produced on a computer
identified ‘friendly’ as an adverb
interpreted the presence of the word ‘and’ as a sign of a compound sentence
attempted to use Grice to claim that the speaker in Text B was flouting the maxim of quantity
5 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
•
•
•
•
•
•
identified the speaker’s use of direct address in Text B as synthetic personalisation
took a deterministic approach to mode eg ‘this text is written therefore it is formal’
did not engage with meanings and representations in Text B
only identified graphology, complexity and formality in Text A
named language features without exemplification
focused on competition and dominance in the analysis of Text B.
Advice to students
Do:
•
•
•
•
•
begin your answer with an overview of context, modes and topic
plan and structure your answer systematically using topic paragraphs
identify and exemplify key language features using appropriate linguistic terms
explain how these features contribute to the construction of meanings
explicitly examine and comment on the mode features of the texts.
Don’t:
•
•
•
•
write about only one of the texts
paraphrase the content of the texts
assume that a colourfully designed text is always a webpage
neglect to comment on mode, meanings and effects of language features.
SECTION B – Language Development
Task 02
Examiners reported that many students were very well prepared for this component and were able
to identify a range of features from the data concisely and accurately. The most successful
students:
•
•
•
•
identified accurately five clearly differentiated linguistic features
presented each feature clearly and separately
quoted the example of each feature in the answer rather than giving the line number
gave a brief linguistic description of each feature.
Many students clearly identified features such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
imperative – “go in there and have a little sleep”
declarative – “Minnie Mouse will play this song”
interrogative – “shall I read a story”
syntactic parallelism – “see you later (.) bye bye sheep (.) see you later (.) bye bye donkey”
role play of domestic routine – “go to sleep”
echoing of adult speech – “have a little sleep”
private speech – “Minnie Mouse will play this song”
interaction with toys – “bye bye cow”
regulatory function – “go in there and have a little sleep”
imaginative function – “Minnie will play the piano”
modal verb – “will”
6 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
•
•
•
•
•
connective – “and”
preposition – “in”
clause – “shall I read a Maisy story (.) Granddad”
address – “Granddad”, “Minnie Mouse”
role of care-giver (reformulation) – “yes (.) let’s read a story (.) Isobel”.
Less successful students:
•
•
•
•
•
treated the data as a text for analysis
took a deficit approach and explained what the speaker has yet to develop
commented on what the speaker does not do eg over-extend
wrongly labelled Isobel as being at the telegraphic stage in spite of describing her use of
function words
wrote only about perceived errors.
Task 03
Examiners noted that this question produced some highly knowledgeable, detailed and sustained
answers. The most successful students explicitly explored the extent to which acquisition of
language depends on children’s interaction with the people and things around them. They
accomplished this by offering a balanced and evaluative view of acquisition as an active and
deductive rule-governed process in response to various stimuli as well as discussing the limitations
of supporting only one theory as an explanation of how children develop language. These students
evaluated a range of well-selected theory and examples of children’s language to support
interactionist theory such as patterns of semantic acquisition, accent development, child directed
speech, private speech, pragmatics, correction and its effects. They also evaluated a range of wellselected theory and examples of children’s language to challenge interactionist theory such as
overgeneralisation, poverty of stimulus, regression, overextension and the absence of child
directed speech in certain cultures. These most successful students supported their answers by
referring to the theories and research of Bruner, Snow, Vygotsky, Halliday, Brown, Nelson and
Berko as well as discussing the importance and variability of adult input.
Most students demonstrated some knowledge of key theories of language acquisition but often
without evaluation of their relative merits and with insufficient focus on children’s interaction with
the people and things around them. Many students offered only one or two examples of children’s
language although examiners commented that it was pleasing to see some students making
productive use of examples from Task 02 in their answers.
Less successful students struggled to address the question at all and tended to offer a brief and
often confused summary of behaviourism, innatism, cognition and social interaction.
The most successful students:
•
•
•
•
•
•
explored the extent to which acquisition of language depends on children’s interaction with the
people and things around them
examined a range of well-selected theory and examples of children’s language
evaluated the ideas of academics such as Brown, Bruner, Vygotsky and Berko
examined derivational morphology, often using “I jammed my bread” as an example
used the highly popular Wugs research to discuss plurality and to evaluate theory
evolved a balanced and evaluative view of language development as an active and deductive
process in response to various stimuli
7 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
discussed the limitations of supporting only one theory as an explanation of how children
develop their language
drew on personal experiences (eg siblings, cousins) and linked them to the question
discussed the stages of child language acquisition with a focus on how children interact with
carers and their environment at each stage
took an exploratory approach to the theory and integrated evaluation throughout
used Katherine Nelson's research into the first 50 words to demonstrate the importance of
objects in a child's environment
considered differences between language reception and production
evaluated the role of reading and play in language development
discussed evidence for the importance and variability of input
examined the importance of a critical learning period
considered innateness as a challenge to interaction
examined rules and principles applied by children eg plurality and tense
explored a range of different contexts such as bi-lingualism, digital media, people and things
such as toys
used the data set as an example of a child interacting with her toys
wrote well-structured answers which had a logical line of argument, debated the various
theories, and gave a clear overview of the student’s own perspectives.
Less successful students:
•
wrote general essays outlining theories about child language acquisition without specific
attention to children’s interaction with the people and things around them
identified very few features of children’s language
gave disproportionate attention to feral children
simply listed stages of acquisition without exemplification or evaluation
confused the ideas of different researchers and theorists
made frequent errors, with the worst of these impeding communication.
•
•
•
•
•
Advice to students
Do:
•
•
•
•
read the question carefully and identify the issues to which it refers
plan and structure an answer which clearly addresses these issues
examine a range of appropriate features of children’s language
examine and evaluate research findings and theory, evolving a balanced and clear line of
argument.
Don’t:
•
•
•
•
make sweeping and unsupported assertions
summarise a range of research superficially with no reference to the question
agree with contradictory theories
neglect to include examples of children’s language.
8 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
Task 04
Most students were able to identify a range of features from the data concisely and accurately. The
most successful students identified accurately five clearly differentiated linguistic features,
presented each feature clearly and separately in the layout of their answer, quoted the example of
each feature in the answer rather than giving the line number and gave a brief linguistic description
of each feature.
Many students clearly identified features such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
clause – “meg is a witc”
declarative function – “She has acat and a Owt.”
subordinate clause – “When ever she does a spel….”
third person narrative – “she does a spel”
non-standard spelling – “witc”
standard spelling – “spell”
non-standard determiner – “a Owt”
adjectives – “Big Pointed”
non-standard capitalisation – “Big Pointed hat.”
standard capitalisation – “Meg and Mog”
correct punctuation – “She has acat and a Owt.”
spatial dimensions of early writing – “acat”, “Itgoes”
present tense – “meg is a witc”
aspects of narrative – linear, sequential, imaginative
drawing linked to narrative – “witc”, “acat”, “Owt”
title convention – “Meg and Mog”.
Less successful students:
•
•
•
•
wasted time and effort by writing an essay-length answer
took a deficit approach and explained what the speaker had yet to develop
wrote only about perceived errors
failed to give examples of features they were identifying.
Task 05
The most successful students explicitly explored the extent to which learning to write is a creative
process. They accomplished this by exploring a range of different contexts in the acquisition of
creative writing skills such as narrative, reading, exposure to a range of writing models, writing
technology and learning styles. They also examined a range of well-selected examples to support
a model of written language development as an active, creative and deductive process, such as
experimentation, correction and its effects, the use of different registers according to contexts and
cultural values of language. These most successful students also explored a range of well-selected
theory and examples of children’s language to challenge a model of written language development
as a wholly creative process, for example looking at communicative clarity and rules and principles
applied by children, such as word order, negation, agreement of word classes, tense and
sentence boundaries. They were thus able to offer a balanced and evaluative view of acquisition
as an active and deductive as well as a rule-governed process in response to various stimuli, whilst
also recognising the limitations of supporting only one theory as an explanation of how children
develop written language skills. They critically examined the stages of acquisition of writing using
9 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
evidence to evaluate, eg Kroll’s preparatory, consolidation, differentiation and integration stages,
and Barclay’s stages of scribbling, mock letters, conventional letters and phonetic/correct spelling.
Most students showed some awareness of the importance of creativity and rules in
children’s acquisition of writing skills, and examined features of handwriting, spelling and
punctuation as well as giving a general account of one or two stages of written acquisition.
Less successful students found difficulty in relating the issues specified in the question to anything
within their knowledge or experience. These students either applied generic theory models from
spoken language acquisition or discussed, very narrowly, the imitation model.
The most successful students:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
explored the range of knowledge and skills that children need to learn in order to write
creatively
examined links between speech and writing eg phoneme/grapheme correspondence
explored the use of different registers according to contexts
considered writing as representing imaginative and communicative power
explored a substantial and varied range of examples of genres of children’s writing including
various narrative forms as exemplified in Data Set 2
considered the impact of new technologies eg keyboards
discussed the roles of primary/secondary care-givers
critically evaluated research and theories about stages of acquisition of writing skills such as
those posited by Kroll and Barclay
evolved a view of the nature of written language acquisition as an interactive, developmental
and inventive process
examined motor skills such as handwriting and formation of graphemes
examined the need for communicative clarity in terms of spelling and punctuation
discussed the acquisition of writing as a rule governed process by considering syntax and
semantic relations
wrote fluently and articulately, structuring their response carefully and logically and offering a
well-crafted line of argument.
Less successful students:
•
•
•
•
demonstrated little or no understanding of the process of written language acquisition
drew only on theories of spoken language development
offered few examples of children’s writing or in some cases none at all
made frequent errors, with the worst of these impeding communication.
Advice to students
Do:
•
•
•
•
read the question carefully and identify the issues to which it refers
plan and structure an answer which clearly addresses these issues
examine some key relevant features of children’s written language
evaluate research findings and theory by evolving a balanced and clear line of argument.
10 of 11
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE A – ENGA1 – SUMMER 14 (6A14)
Don’t:
•
•
•
make sweeping and unsupported assertions
use research and theory about the acquisition of speech
discount the importance of individual learning in the context of stages of written acquisition.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion
11 of 11