Q4 English Language

Well this is next to impossible to write about but I'll do my best.

Q4 is easily the worst question on the language paper. Absolutely horrific. I feel obliged to mention that actually most of these ideas are Miss Griffin's and I'm only repeating it so I don't forget them..

Key Points To Remember:

• Focus on the language and writers techniques, it's a LANGUAGE paper.
• Try to compare the difference in techniques not the same ones
• E.g. "Smith uses this to do this and Frost also uses the same technique to do this." THE EXAMINER DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR THE SAME THING TWICE.
• Oddly enough the examiner LOVES seeing something like this:
• "Smith uses this (named technique and example) to create this effect but Frost uses (different named technique and example) to create the same effect."
• CHOOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEXT
• The examiner will love a reference to this! "In source 1 Smith uses (named technique and example) to create this effect, however Frost uses (different technique and example) to create the same effect. These 2 techniques differ due to the genre of text that is being written.
• REFER TO THE AUDIENCE OR READER
• Why bother using a technique if it's not for the audience to experience? "In source 1 Smith uses (named technique and example) to create this effect on the audience, however Frost uses (different technique and example) to create the same effect. These 2 techniques differ due to the genre of text that is being written. Also they may differ due to the audiences of the two texts being different and so may be influenced by techniques differently.
• PURPOSE IS A BEAUTIFUL WORD
• "In source 1 Smith uses (named technique and example) to create this effect on the audience, however Frost uses (different technique and example) to create the same effect. The purpose of  the writers using (named techniques) is to cause the audience to (effect). These 2 techniques differ due to the genre of text that is being written. Also they may differ due to the audiences of the two texts being different and so may be influenced by techniques differently."
• Act like the audience at first:
• You might be analysing it soon but if you don't react like the audience then you wont know how the writer wanted the audience to react. This helps with the next point:
• Pick the effect then look at the technique
• This way, if you find 2 effects that are the same in the 2 texts. All you have to do is find the techniques used to create these and compare them! If you chose 2 very different genres they are most likely to be differing techniques.

Let me have a try at a paragraph. I am going to try and write it in the above format:

"In Source 1 Haydock uses a list of things to show how horrible it is to stay on the streets at night. She uses a list of bad things that have happened in the one night she was there to show this. She begins to pile up the emotional trauma of staying on the streets on the reader quickly. She uses commas "rats, thugs" to create a fast rythm that causes the reader to get caught up in the situation Haydock is showing homeless people experience. Caine however uses a different techinque to cause the same effect. He uses longer sentences with no commas that seem to the reader to present calm. However as you read on it becomes apparent Caine is slowly piling the emotional trauma he felt onto you relentlessly. From "just plain cruel" that creates a negative effect to the following sentences of "covered in sores and starving" and "living on a tin of pilchards a day". Both writers use differing techniques to cause the reader to experience the emotional trauma that was piled upon them. The techniques are different because the genres and time frames differ. Haydock writes about a current issue, and uses a fast rhythm to convey this to the reader.Whereas Caine writes about a past tense experience that cannot be changed now."

I did not mention the audiences differing in that paragraph however I believe it encompasses all the other points, however I would use more quotes. Also I may have used synonyms for Purpose e.t.c.

A quick summary then:

1. Effect
2. Differing techinques to produce the same effect
3. Why this technique is used (Genre?)
4. Rinse and repeat

 I haven't made any jokes as far as I know so you don't have to put up with that. A huge thank you to Griffin for teaching me what the hell to do! If you managed to read through all that then i'm impressed. Impressed enough to award you an adorabubble picture:

Links to the papers used:

Paper Insert (higher): http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-ENG1H-INS-NOV12.PDF

Paper Booklet (higher):http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-ENG1H-QP-NOV12.PDF

Mark Scheme (higher): http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-ENG1H-WEB-MS-NOV12.PDF

Share

Q1 English Language GCSE Revision

I always lose a few marks on this and after summoning assistance from many people to work out how to get top band marks for this question I hope to consolidate it. If not for you, for me :P

Without sounding obnoxious the best way to approach this question is to act like a total and stupid idiot. You know that exam technique you spent 3 years learning? Yeah, forget it all for now.

Let's take a statement from this insert from the June 2012 paper:

For those without super magnification in their eyes:

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-ENG1H-INS-JUN12.PDF

First let's take the mark scheme example. It states "The Beach to City programme is run by the RNLI to bring awareness to young people about being safe when near water." as a named example. All they do here is take what the article is about and say it. For the first few points: 

1. Quote
2. State the obvious, no matter how stupid you feel

So "first up, sun protection". This shows the RNLI teach the children how to avoid becoming sun-burnt. Simple. As. That.

Normally I only get about 6 marks.. I know! What an idiot. And doing about 7 of these points should get you that. But I doubt you want that! You wouldn't have bothered clicking on this if you didn't want 7 or 8 marks. So, I went on a journey of self fulfillment and knowledge. Or more to the point, I asked my full marks on everything ever friend. She, I can see the surprise that I have female contact already, said that to get the marks you should include a statement such as "I think it is good that they are doing this as it educates and protects children". FINALLY! The mark scheme makes sense! It states for a band 5 you should "show a detailed engagement with the text". How do I do that I thought? Shove my opinion in. I do with everything else! So let's make an amendment for a few of your points:

1. Quote
2. State the obvious, no matter how stupid you feel.
3. Shove your opinion in

I hope this helped! As always comments greatly appreciated and responded to :)

Share

Useful History Dates for GCSE Unit 4... I think... Well 1919- 1969

Maybe it'll help, it helps me because i'm typing it out!

The Wall Street Crash - October 1929

-Manchurian Crisis – 1931-33

-Mukden Railway bombed - 18^th September

-Lytton Commission reported back – September 1932

Abyssinia – 1935-36

Italian soldiers killed in border clash – December  1934

Italian forces invade Abyssinia – October 1935

Hoare- Lavel pact - 1935

Rome-Berlin Axis – October 1936

 Treaty Of Versailles -May 1919

Hitler introduced conscription – 1935

The Saar votes to return to German Rule – 1935

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland – 7^th March 1936

Anschluss in Austria – 10^th April 1938

German troops enter the Sudetenland – 1^st October 1938

Nazi Soviet Pact – 23^rd August 1939

Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Pact – 24^th August 1939

Germany invades Poland – 1^st September 1939

 The Tehran Conference – November 1943

The Yalta Conference – February 1945

The Potsdam Conference – May 1945

Truman receives “ The Long Telegram” – 1946

Stalin receives the Novikov Telegram – 1946

Truman Doctrine- 1947

Marshall Plan – 1947

Cominform – October 1947

Comecon – 1949

The Berlin Blockade – June 1948

 Berlin Airlift- 1948

NATO Formed – 1949

The Warsaw Pact Formed – 1955

Both countries had developed Hydrogen Bombs – 1960

Rakosi becomes Dictator – 1949 to 1956

Stalin dies – 1953

 Paris Conference – 1960

Geneva Conference – 1961

Berlin wall erected – 1961

The Cuban Revolution – 1959

The Bay of Pigs – April 1961

The 13 Days – 1962

Kennedy informed of Kruschev’s plan to place nukes in Cuba – 16^th October 1962

Kennedy imposes Naval Blockade – 20^th October 1962

Kennedy calls on Krushchev to recall his ships – 21^st October 1962

A letter to Kennedy stating soviet ships would break through – 23^rd October 1962

USSR Threaten to use nukes in a war – 24^th October 1962

US and Soviet armed forces told to prepare for war – 25^th October 1962

USSR say they will withdraw missiles if US agrees not to invade Cuba – 26^th October 1962

US Spy Plane shot down by USSR – 27^th October 1962

Krushchev accepts the secret deal – 28^th October 1962

The hotline crated – June 1963

Limited Test Ban Treaty – July 1963

 Any mistakes or want to add any just leave a comment! :)

Share

Q2 English Language on whatever exam board i'm on...

For me the question 2 is the best. Well, as good as a question can be when it's on an exam... I'll explain it best I can by typing.

I will focus on the title, I believe it offers the most marks available.

"Nuclear power plant attacked by giant jellyfish"

 First thing first, don't analyse. Just react to it as a reader would. You've woken up at 7am and picked up your paper, preferably not the daily mail... that's just a joke. Flicking through half asleep, and then suddenly "giant jellyfish". Bound to get anyones attention. Suddenly the words nuclear becomes so much more dangerous than it already was, that's saying something.

So analysis starts now, no more easy stuff. "Nuclear" is a word that is already often linked to danger, something that can devastate entire cities and even cause cancer. This intrigues the reader. The next word is "power". What do you need to read this article? Light, computer and internet. All powered by what? Power. Another way to take the word power is how it represents importance.

 "You ever tried going mad without power? It's boring. No one listens to you!"  

A point you may wish to mention is the inbuilt human reaction the reader will experience. The endangerment of something vital in their life creates an importance to the article. After all if someone said that all the food was running out, wouldn't you want to know why?

The word "plant" is oddly not that important however you could comment on it's link to nature and consequently the "giant jelly fish".

The verb "attacked". Probably gonna be the most important thing to comment on in the title. It's a negative verb, being attacked is rarely a positive thing. It's a verb that can trigger a fight or flee instinct in the reader. This fear is later amplified by the word giant jellyfish. This is due to the word breaking the seemingly peaceful nature of the picture (see below) :

 Picture shown in the article

The final part of the title, bar the word "by" but no one loves that word anyway... sorry...., is "giant jellyfish". These two words work together. "Jellyfish" instantly triggers a flee instinct within the reader. And the word giant is an amplification adjective. From  dangerous "Jellyfish" to dangerous "Jellyfish". This impacts the reader in many ways.

Hopefully including something as short as that would get you at least 5 or 6 marks. I'll leave the link at the bottom of the article because I simply scratched the surface of the available points to make and didn't even link it to the text, what a rebel eh? I leave the rest to you. Any comments will be answered, with as much help as I can give. 

One key thing to remember is that the examiner LOVES to be pointed in the right way. It's not "this word causes this". A simple change to "this word causes the reader to" can be the difference between a B and an A grade.

http://www.ngpowereu.com/news/Nuclear-power-plant-attacked-by-giant-jellyfish/

Share

A small point on Fanatics

1st Post:

With 11 weeks of holiday or something stupid like that I decided that I would do some writing. It breaks up revision at least. Maybe someone will read this.

1. I like to make strong points and they may seem against general opinion, Hey ho.
2. I STRONGLY DISPROVE of the actions of the BNP and the EDL if violent or offensive. Nonsensical violence gets us nowhere.
3. I might get a bit carried away... that's just me to be honest...

Fanaticism

Woolwich murder suspect (above)

The recent Woolwich murder has started off that fierce debate that is present in society. Stereotypes, wrong or right? It would take a million pages of writing, perhaps a small over exaggeration... , to cover all stereotypes so for sake of the times I would like to speak briefly about Muslims. And more to the point, Muslim extremists. From 9/11 to the recent murder Muslim's are portrayed in a bad light. Many say this is due to a few "bad apples". The words "racist" and "intolerant" are thrown around in vicious tones. "It's not all of them!" is said often.

Acts like this split the community. And often lead to acts of retaliation. The recent attack sparked violence towards mosques and a feeling of resentment from many towards Muslims, extremists or not. But among this argument and the hurling of words and insults to each other, sometimes a voice of reason becomes present. In this case I believe this voice of reason is not the people who tell not to stereotype or the people who say that all Muslims are terrorists. This voice belongs to Dr Emanuel Tanya. 

"A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people..
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
Now Islamic prayers have been introduced into Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa too while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?) The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.
In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem (see the attachment), just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.
In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.
As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late."

I believe that none a truer word on the matter have been spoken. Out of a 100 people of the same race, if one becomes violent and the others stay quiet, the natural reaction is to assume they approve of this and given the right circumstance would do such a thing. I can already hear a voice saying "but some speak out". Well yes, and I applaud them for this. However I, taking a point from Dr Tanya, rarely hear of the people that stood against the Nazi rule. When Nazis are mentioned it is rare your general public will state of any heroic acts. The fanatics will always be the danger and if we allow the slow infiltration, perhaps even a political and cultural invasion, of our country any longer then we will lose to them.

I would also like to add a point of Sharia law. Many Muslims come to this country as "refugees" as back in their country they would be killed. Often this is due to the Sharia law. If you move away from a problem to a better situation, why would you re-introduce what the original problem was? That simply defies reason.

I am aware I have not covered: The benefit system, many of the points raised in my quote and in fact most of the points I could have done. But, this is simply the start and I hope to write more. Please leave a comment and I'll get back to you.

I leave you with a point I believe should stay in our heads when considering equality of minorities: You allow a man into your house to stay, eat your food, drink your water and sleep in your beds. This is a guest. But once that man begins to change the room around, tell you what you can and cannot do. He is no longer a guest, but an intruder into your house, your life and your culture. If you allow him to change what you do in your house, it is no longer your house.

Share