Exam-style question 15.1

Exam-style question 15.1


Text A is an excerpt written by Edward Berens. Written in 1832, the excerpt is associated with the Late Modern English period as it ranges from 1700-1900. The text is a letter of advice from an uncle, or Edward Berens, to his nephew. It includes advice to a young man upon ‘First Going to Oxford’. It can be assumed that Berens is the Uncle speaking to his nephew as the text is written in the first person. The text is very conversational and personal as readers are opened into Berens feelings towards his nephew. For example, ‘himself’ and ‘home’ and ‘you’ are italicized, showing an emphasis on the words by the Berens to allow readers to feel what he is also feeling. 

The language used in Text A is very similar to Modern English that is currently used today. For example, Berens uses the word ‘Profanation’ to describe the mentioning of things about ‘their home’ as ‘a sort of profanation’, or in other words, debasement. Here, the Theory of lexical Gaps can be seen. This theory is based on the idea that a word will be invented, converted or borrowed in order to fill a gap in usage as well as a phonological gap in our language. The word ‘Profanation’ was once referred to as an ‘act of violating sacred things or treating them with contempt or irreverence’ in the 1550s. This is from the French profanation, or directly from Late Latin profanationem meaning ‘render’, ‘unholy’, or ‘deprive of sanctity’.  Berens usage of the word was during the 1800’s; therefore, a clear language change of the word ‘profanation’ can be seen. This is because today, its meaning is ‘the act of profaning; desecration; defilement; debasement.’

Text B is a collocate chart that shows the top five collocates of adjectives for ‘taste’ and ‘judgment’ from the British National Corpus between the 1980’s through 1993. The chart shows that ‘taste’ was associated with bad, good, bitter, first, and personal, while ‘judgment’ with clinical, professional, dissenting, better, and final. These are in relation to Text A as they are similar to the 21st century language used today, yet there are still some clear differences. For example, the word ‘coxcomb’ from Text A originated in the mid 16th century, being a variant of cockscomb. Its original meaning was ‘the crest or comb of a rooster’. However, it's descendant ‘coxcomb’ means ‘fool’ or a ‘jester’. This is used in text A to describe Berens nephew if he were to talk about himself too much. ‘Coxcomb’ has undergone a semantic change as the original variant was spelled ‘cockscomb’, the change in language can clearly be seen here. While this word may not be used as relevantly today, it had a much greater usage in the late 1800’s. Compared to text B, the adjectives used to describe ‘taste’ and ‘judgment’ are from the late 1900’s; therefore, the words would most likely be identical today as the chart. 

Text C is an n-gram for the phrases ‘are apt to be’, ‘are likely to be’ and ‘tend to be’ from (1800-2008). The phrase ‘are apt to be’ was used in text A to describe young men having a tendency to be guilty. The n-gram shows that its peak was between 1900 to the beginning of its decline in 1950. In text A, are ‘apt to be’ is being used in 1832. Text C shows the usage of the phrase as practically zero percent during this time period. Therefore, Berens is using language ahead of his time. Text C also involves the phrases ‘are likely to be’ and ‘tend to be’. The n-gram shows both of these phrases experiencing an increase around 1920 and progressively becoming used more frequently. During the years around 1940, the graph shows these two phrases to be almost head to head in usage, while ‘are apt to be’ is beginning to decline. It can be argued that the words ‘likely’ and ‘tend’ in place of ‘apt’ are much easier and quicker for one to say. While the word ‘likely’ may be more known amongst the population, ‘tend to be’ succeeds ‘are likely to be’ in 1950 and on. This may be due to the fact that ‘are likely to be’ includes more syllables for one to say, while the word ‘tent’ practically combines the words ‘are’ and ‘likely’. This can also be argued as part of the Functional Theory by Michael Halliday as the language changes are according to its user needs.

Text A demonstrates several changes in grammar and syntax. Berens uses commas in the entirety of the excerpt. In the opening sentence, there are five commas in total that are used within the single sentence. Today’s grammar would not include as long of sentences or so many commas within a text. While this contributes to the syntax of the text, Present Day English is much more formal and includes more compound and complex sentences rather than ongoing sentences.


Comments

  1. Hi Caitlyn! I thought you did a great job on your response.
    Scores- AO2: 5 AO4: 3 AO5: 10
    Regarding the AO2 section, I could not find any grammatical errors within your response. I thought it was well put together and followed a logical flow. I thought the topics that you discussed, including the “italicized” words, the reference to “coxcomb,” and various other aspects contributed to a well rounded response. With the AO4 section, I thought that you succeeded in using various buzzwords like “Late Modern English” and “Functional Theory by Michael Halliday.” I am not sure if the “Theory of Lexical Gaps” lines up exactly with the word “profanation,” as the theory has to do with nonsense and made-up words. However, I completely understand the point you are trying to make and your idea would still get you points. With the AO5 section, I thought you had a “detailed” analysis of the language data, especially during your discussion of Text C where you described the n-gram “peaks” and areas of “decline.” I thought that you kept relating your ideas back to the original text, which showed “effective synthesis of evidence.” Within your third paragraph, you began talking about Text B regarding the words “judgment” and “taste,” but then switched over to talking about “coxcomb.” Your coxcomb analysis was nicely developed. I would be really interested to learn more about your interpretation of Text B, as I thought it was cut short. Overall, I thought your blog was interesting, and I learned new ideas from your response!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Caitlyn,

    AO2,
    I would give you a level 4/5. You had effective expression, with few to no grammatical errors. Your content was relevant to the prompt and your ideas flowed very well. I was able to tell that you had a plan before you started writing. I noticed that every time you made a point, you were able to support it with evidence. Only negative thing I noticed was that you focused on way too many words, maybe try to stick to one or two words so you can be a lot more detailed.


    AO4,
    I would give you a level 3/5. You had a clear understanding of the three texts. You used a few buzzwords such as ¨semantic,¨ I also noticed that you referred to the author by his name, which is a good thing. The only negative thing I noticed was that you said the word ¨profanation¨ ties back to the ¨Functional Theory by Michael Halliday¨ but you did not really go in-depth.

    AO5,
    I would give you 11/15. You had effective and appropriate selection of language data from all three texts, as well as detailed and effective analysis. For example, you took the time to analyse each text. In text C, you showed detailed understanding of the data. For example, you stated ¨ the n-gram shows that its peak was between 1900 to the beginning of its decline in 1950¨

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts