G11 English Language and Literature HL

Part 1: Language in Cultural Context

“The Language of War”

Summer Reading Booklet

Hello! Welcome to IB English A: Language and Literature! During this summer, you will begin to prepare for the course by completing the activities outlined in this packet.

Our first unit of study will come from Part 1—Language in Cultural Context. In this unit, we will be focusing on how language develops in specific contexts, how meaning is determined by context and how people express their identities through language.

The topic for our first unit will focus on the language of war.

In preparation for this unit, you will need to read, annotate, watch, listen and comment on the texts, which have been compiled in this booklet. To see how to make notes and annotate, please visit the following sites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJksh9KGiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrly3EtnT8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf9CTJj9dCM http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/annotating-a-

text.pdf

Our learning outcomes include:

Analyze how audience and purpose affect the structure and content of texts. Analyze the impact of language changes. Demonstrate an awareness of how language and meaning are shaped by culture and context.

AssignmentsThe first assignment you will be expected to produce is a written task; however, you are not required to write this over the summer. The written task will come from what you read, hear or see in this booklet and perhaps over the course of the unit, so it is important that you begin to generate ideas. More information about this assignment can be found at the back of this booklet.

When you come back in August, we will begin writing the first draft in class.

Unit 1 Assessments

Further Oral Activity (FOA) Written task Formative assessments Speaking English in class Effort (class participation, homework etc.)

Assessment Objectives

2

Knowledge and understanding Application and analysis Synthesis and evaluation Selection and use of appropriate presentation and language skills

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of texts– Demonstrate an understanding of the use of language, structure, technique and style– Demonstrate a critical understanding of the various ways in which the reader constructs meaning and of how context influences this constructed meaningDemonstrate an understanding of how different perspectives influence the reading of a text

Demonstrate an ability to choose a text type appropriate to the purpose required– Demonstrate an ability to use terminology relevant to the various text types studied– Demonstrate an ability to analyse the effects of language, structure, technique and style on the reader– Demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which the production and reception of texts contributeto their meanings– Demonstrate an ability to substantiate and justify ideas with relevant examples

Demonstrate an ability to compare and contrast the formal elements, content and context of texts– Discuss the different ways in which language and image may be used in a range of texts– Demonstrate an ability to evaluate conflicting viewpoints within and about a text– At HL only: Produce a critical response evaluating some aspects of text, context and meaning

Demonstrate an ability to express ideas clearly and with fluency in both written and oral communication.– Demonstrate an ability to use the oral and written forms of the language, in a range of styles, registers and situations– Demonstrate an ability to discuss and analyse texts in a focused and logical manner– At HL only: Demonstrate an ability to write a balanced, comparative analysis

If you have any questions about this packet, please do not hesitate to email me at ksang@saintgeorge.do. I will be happy to answer any questions.

I look forward to our time in class.

Ms. Karina Sang IB English: Language and Literature Teacher

3

1. Letters from the Front

Text A

Text B

4

Text C

http://theredanimalproject.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/remembering-the-dead-indiana-war-memorial-plaza/

5

2.War letters

President Dwight D. Eisenhower Letter Concerning Vietnamhttp://herolettersvietnam.blogspot.com/2008/05/president-dwight-d-eisenhower-letter.html

Text A

6

7

8

9

Text B

http://herolettersvietnam.blogspot.com/2009/07/vietnam-war-letter-june-28-1968-lt-in.html

10

Text C

11

Text D

12

3. Propaganda

Print Advertisement

Text A

http://herolettersvietnam.blogspot.com/2009/03/safe-conduct-pass-for-vc-or-north.html

13

Text B.

https://designschool.canva.com/blog/examples-of-propaganda/

4. Watch1. Dirty Secrets of the Vietnam War: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=azm8WeTCleM

2. Hoa Lo Prison (Hanoi Hilton): Vietnam War POW Propaganda (low quality): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mabuZdK-oqU

3. John McCain and the Vietnam War:

POW says John McCain is a lying skunk!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s7kEb6Osqc

14

BBC’s interview with John McCain’s torturer from Vietnam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm-IkMW-lDg

John McCain’s past that he doesn’t want you to know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuDW1hQMfk

5. ListenBelow is a collection of songs either about the Vietnam War or actually from the time period. Some of these songs may be considered pro-war and some anti-war. Many of these songs come with images of war, collated by the person who posted the song; therefore, the video footage should not be seen as the “official” music video of the artist(s).

1. Country Joe’s Anti-Vietnam War Song Woodstock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y0ekr-3So

2. Johnny Wright-Hello Vietnam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bubvAt-gusk&list=PL9pVLrnh-PSY14_vuDlFWs27m30p82dVd

3. Creedence Clearwater Revival “Run Through the Jungle” (Warning: this does contain some sensitive footage): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UfmWpxZz6c&list=PL29529C976021D66D

6. Website article

Text A

The Medal.... In a Shoe Box? By Carl Sandburg

The True Story of How Peter Lemon Became a Medal of Honor Recipient

Fire Support Base IllingsworthRepublic of VietnamApril 1, 1970

Peter Lemon was 19 years old, exhausted, scared, and fighting for his life.  His body was bleeding from numerous shrapnel wounds in his head, back, and neck.  These had been inflicted by an enemy mortar that had exploded near him earlier.  Specialist Four Lemon was fortunate.  That same mortar round had literally vaporized one of his close friends and fellow soldiers.

For more than three hours the battle had raged at Fire Support Base Illingsworth, one of two small American outposts in Tay Ninh Province.  Pete and his 18-man  platoon had just returned from another recon patrol hoping to get a good night's rest.  But on this night there was no sleep to be found.   Close to 400 enemy soldiers swarmed the small American outpost,

15

and they had chosen the area of the perimeter defended by Pete's Platoon as their point of attack.   Already the young soldier had successfully fought back two waves of enemy soldiers, survived the mortar attack, watched three friends die, and carried another wounded comrade to safety.  Each time the enemy had come Pete Lemon had fought with fury, determined that if he could survive THIS assault, the worst would be over.  Wounded a second time, when a third wave appeared poised to over run the perimeter it seemed that all hope for survival was lost.  "I said to myself, 'You're not going to make it through this one'," Pete later recalled.  Determined to godown fighting the intrepid soldier found a working machine gun and jumped to the top of the berm (dirt pile surrounding the base camp) and, ina fully exposed position, continued to fire at the enemy. 

Wounded yet a third time in that final assault, and reduced to having to fendoff the enemy in hand-to-hand combat, somehow the fearless Army Rangersurvived the night.  In the days that followed he surveyed the impact of thatnight from his hospital bed.  Every man in the platoon had been wounded.Dead were three of his closest friends, Casey Waller, Nathan Mann and Brent Street.  His own wounds would require more than a month of hospitalization, yet he had refused to be evacuated until the other woundedhad been flown to a field hospital.  Peter Lemon's war was over and withinsix months he had returned to his hometown in the state of Michigan as acivilian to try and forget an event that would forever haunt his dreams.   When word arrived the following spring that President Nixon would presentthe Medal of Honor to him at the White House, Pete Lemon seriously considered turning down the award.  There had been EIGHTEEN heroes onhis section of the perimeter that night, three of whom had died.  The Medal, if there was to be one, belonged to them...not to Pete Lemon.

Eventually the Army prevailed upon the young man from Michigan to accepthis Country's highest award.  Ten days after his 21st birthday President Nixongreeted him at the White House and proclaimed him a "hero".  Pete Lemon, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen at the age of twelve, was the only Canadian-born Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam War and the first since World War II.  It was not a role he had either sought or desired.   Shortlyafter receiving the award he moved to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.  There he returned to college where he received Bachelors and Masters Degrees,and quietly built several successful businesses.  Few people, including his closest friends from his college days or even his next door neighbors, knew thatPeter Lemon was a recipient of the Medal of Honor. 

One of Pete's fellow Medal of Honor recipients had once said, "It's easierto EARN the Medal than to WEAR it."  Pete didn't even try.  But while heshunned public recognition of his military heroism, he never forgot the menwho had been with him on that night.  The survivors of the April Fools Dayassault on FSB Illingsworth had tried to stay in touch through the years,attempted to support each other through the tough times of "survivor's guilt"and "what if?" questions.  While visiting by phone with one of those comradesone night almost thirteen years after his moment of valor, Pete was asked abouthis Medal of Honor.

16

"Oh, I have it," Pete Replied."Where is it?  Asked his friend."In a shoebox in my closet.""You don't wear it?""No!""Why not?""It isn't mine," Pete quickly answered.  "It belongs to Casey Waller, Nathan Mann,Brent Street, and the guys in the unit."

In the weeks that followed Pete thought often of that conversation.  From timeto time he would look at the Medal and his name engraved on its back side, then put it away in the realization that it belonged to other men.  More yearspassed.   Then one night while visiting with yet another of the men from hisunit, his former comrade in arms put it into perspective.   "Look Pete,"he told the reluctant hero, "Casey, Nathan and Brent are gone!  If you really feel like that Medal belongs to them, you need to wear it.   Every timeyou wear that Medal you are reminding people about guys like them who fought....and died."

The transition from "reluctant hero" to "Medal of Honor Recipient" would take time, and simple steps like the one Pete had taken that day in 1993 at my son's middle school.  Pete did attend the Medal of Honor functions, he had a responsibility to his fellow Medal Recipients to do so, and he had never been a man to shy away from responsibility.  Returning from one such reunion in 1996 Pete was confronted by a question that would give him a newperspective on the award.  After several days of mingling with heroes of the lastthree wars Pete's children asked, "Dad, who are these guys".

The answer was not so simple, for Pete understood it from his children'sperspective.  Everyone KNEW these men were heroes, Medal of Honor recipients.  But his own children had looked past the Medals around their necks, read the lines in their faces and the scars they wore, and wondered about the men themselves.  Pete himself had to admit that, beyond the Medal he shared in common with them, there were many he knew very little about personally.  And so, for perhaps the first time in thehistory of the award, someone began asking the question "Beyond the Medalyou wear, just WHO are you and WHAT do you want to tell America?"

http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_lemon.html

7. Language of War

17

Text 1.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

Walter Cronkite

http://www.thinkib.net/englishalanglit/page/12267/language-of-war

Text 2.

On November 21, ___ the Government of Cambodia issued a statement once again rejecting resolutely U.S. slanderous allegations against Cambodia.

The slander campaign has been intensified over the past months. The U.S. press, radio, State Department and War Department have been coordinating their efforts to this effect. Of course, the Saigon puppet administration and the Thai reactionary ruling clique, lackeys of the American imperialists, have taken an active part in it. As expected, masters and valets have been harping on shop-worn themes. Recently, on November 10, AP and the Voice of America spread the news that some American correspondents had ‘discovered’ a ‘Viet Cong base’ in Cambodia. That same day, a spokesman of the U.S. State Department threateningly express the U.S. Government’s concern about Cambodia being used as a base for the ‘Viet Cong’. On November 14, ____, on U.S. orders, the Saigon puppet administration then circulated a note in the U.S. reporting so-called Cambodian forms of support to the ‘Viet Cong.’

18

It must be pointed out that the present slander campaign is a new U.S. manoeuvre to expand the aggressive war to Cambodia. The November 21 statement of the Cambodian Government has stressed that this sustained U.S. campaign against Cambodia’s neutrality proves that the United States still plans to expand its aggression to Cambodia. The truth is that the U.S. propaganda machine has overtly spoken of destroying peaceful and neutral Cambodia. In its August 29, ____ statement, the Cambodian Government energetically denounced the U.S. rulers for having let the U.S. New and the World Report carry on August 28, ____ an article revealing their scheme to turn Cambodia into a “new theatre of operations” with a map showing Cambodia territory left of the Mekong river to be annexed by the United States. In its November 11, ____ statement, the Cambodian Government once again condemned the brazen scheme for aggression by the American imperialists against Cambodia as revealed in the New York Times of November 6, ____. The United States, the paper wrote, cannot guarantee that U.S. troops or Saigon puppet troops do not encroach on Cambodian borders. There is not a shred of doubt that the slander campaign against Cambodia is part of the plan to prepare world opinion for eventual U.S. armed aggression against this country and expansion of the aggressive war in Indo-China

As a close neighbour and comrade-in-arms of Cambodia, the D.R.V.N. Government people remotely condemn the American imperialists and the henchmen’s repeated violations of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Indo-China, gross infringement of the sacred national rights of the Khmer people. The D.R.V.N. Government and people fully support the November 21, ____ statement of the Cambodian government rejecting the slanderous allegations against its country and laying bare the U.S. scheme to expand its aggressive war from South VietNam to Cambodia. United with the Khmer people in the Indo-Chinese Peoples’ Front, the Vietnamese people consistently and thoroughly support the just struggle of the Khmer people against the American imperialists and their stooges in order to defend Cambodia’s independence, sovereignty, neutrality and territorial integrity. The Vietnamese people determinedly side with the fraternal Khmer people to defeat the U.S. imperialist aggressors, the common enemy of the Indo-Chinese peoples. As Samdech Head of State Norodom Sihanouk point out in his message of thanks to President Ho Chi Minh and Prime Minister Pham Van Dong on November 2, ____, “Victory will certainly belong to the nations like ours which are determined to check any foreign attempt to enslave us once more.”

http://www.thinkib.net/englishalanglit/page/12267/language-of-war

Text 3

19

The war of the wordsHow Republicans and Democrats use languageJul 13th 2013 | From the print edition

“POLITICAL language”, wrote George Orwell, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” No leader will admit to having had people tortured, but Dick Cheney did say: “I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation programme”—which means the same thing. Notice how, as Orwell put it, “A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details.”

Wars sound horrible in plain English, so they have always generated a smokescreen of euphemism. “Kinetic action” means “killing people”. “Collateral damage” means “killing people accidentally”. Politicians typically use the word “kill” only to describe what our enemies do to us; not what we do to them. In a speech in May explaining his drone warfare policy, for example, Barack Obama spoke of “lethal, targeted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces”. As Orwell said, when “certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract”.

Orwell worried that sloppy language disguised bad ideas. Some influential Democrats today have a different complaint: that Republicans use words more skilfully to win political battles. Conservatives are shameless and simplistic, they grumble, and it works. When Mr Obama was struggling to explain the circumstances under which doctors might discuss end-of-life provisions with Medicare patients, Sarah Palin yelled “Death panels!” and spooked a huge chunk of the electorate.

“[C]onservatives use language more effectively than liberals in communicating their deepest values,” writes George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley, in “The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic”. Liberals “present the facts and offer policies”, he claims. Republicans,

20

by contrast, go straight for the gut. Newt Gingrich, while Speaker of the House in the 1990s, encouraged his footsoldiers to repeat focus-group-tested words like “sick”, “pathetic” and “coercion” when talking about Democrats, while parroting “family”, “children” and “liberty” as Republican values.

When Republicans and Democrats use different terms for the same thing, the Republican phrase is nearly always shorter and more concrete, observes Joseph Romm, the author of “Language Intelligence”. He has a point. When arguing about abortion, Republicans favour “life” (evocative) while Democrats talk about “choice” (abstract). Republicans talk about “taxes” and “spending” while Democrats want to raise “revenue” for “investment”. George W. Bush had the “Patriot Act”, whereas Mr Obama has the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. The former is an awful law that is hard to oppose; the latter an awful mouthful that is hard to remember.

Mr Lakoff urges Democrats to be more concrete. “Have I seen it with my own eyes?” he asks. “Can I take a pen and draw a picture of it?” “Air”, “water” and “soil” are better than the “environment”, for example, which is perhaps why the “Clean Air Act” is the law of the land but the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (a cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse-gas emissions) crashed to ignominious defeat.

Republicans are also better, Democrats fear, at agreeing on a message and sticking to it. Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, once said: “There’s a simple rule. You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”

Democrats sigh that they are too sophisticated to feel comfortable reducing complex ideas to pithy two-word phrases. And they struggle to unite around a slogan because their base includes disparate groups (blacks, Latinos, unions, educated urbanites) who do not, themselves, speak the same way. The Republican base is varied too, including both small-government types and devout Christians, but they unite around slogans such as “liberty”, whether freedom from taxes or the freedom to pray in schools. If only Democrats could “frame” issues better (in Mr Lakoff’s phrase), they would win more battles.

Not all weasels are RepublicanBut hold on. Democrats have won four of the past six presidential elections, so they can’t be doing everything wrong. And many of them use short words deftly. Barack Obama’s 2008 slogan, “Yes we can”, whipped crowds into a frenzy of approval (though one of Mr Obama’s speechwriters is said to have hated it). Bill Clinton’s formula “safe, legal and rare” helped bolster support for legal abortion. Democrats invoke “working families” to remind voters that “poor” and “scrounger” do not mean the same thing.

Democrats can be shameless, too: the campaign ad showing Paul Ryan tossing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff was not exactly nuanced. They repeat messages aggressively: Mr Obama in 2012 never stopped reminding voters that Mitt Romney was rich. And their rhetoric is often misleading. When arguing about budgets, for example, they use the word “cut” to mean “spend less than was previously planned”.

21

So a “savage cut” can actually be a large increase. This is such a potent subterfuge that Republicans use it too, at least when talking about military spending.

Politicians will never use language the way Orwell did, marrying clarity of thought with precision. A politician has to win elections, which means convincing lots of people with widely varying interests and opinions that he is on their side. Alas, that requires waffle, fudge and snappy slogans. These are hard to coin, as Mr Lakoff inadvertently proves. He has urged Democrats to refer to taxes as “membership fees” and to argue that “Patriotism requires Medicare for all.” Somehow, neither has caught on.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21581745-how-republicans-and-democrats-use-language-war-words

Text 4

The Language of War: Does Jargon Conceal the True Nature of Conflict?

Jonathan Dowdall, November 2 2011

In a recent BBC op-ed, journalist Will Self argues that euphemism and jargon are used by political “spin doctors” and arms manufacturers alike to conceal the true, dark nature of armed conflict. Terms such a “defense,” "surges,” "operations," and "tactical strikes" are, in Self’s opinion, an attempt at active deception, designed to misinform and sanitize perceptions of war.

I disagree. If armed conflict and its related policy affairs have a distinct vocabulary, the reasons are primarily historical. Mankind has always endowed the technically complex and dangerous business of war with distinctive language. Self is allowing an obvious anti-war rhetoric to distort why we use special terms to describe armed conflict.

As long as you are capable of comprehending the real life implications of those terms, they are not inherently deceptive.                                                       

Self’s argument is that there is a certain category of “highly-toxic euphemisms” employed to hide the true face of military activity. To Self, this is a highly modern phenomena — the deliberate use of jargon as part of a wider process of deceit, or “spin,” as a journalist would call it.

I think this perspective lacks appropriate historical context.

For a start, many of the terms Self attacks are in fact technical. If policy makers turn to the phrase “tactical strike,” for instance, it is because that term is used by air force personnel to

22

describe their technically complex actions. “Dropping explosives from the sky” just isn’t short enough.

More importantly, the use of jargon to describe war is not new. As John Keegan persuasively outlined in his seminal work The Face of Battle, you cannot begin to read a description of combat in history without stumbling into euphemisms and jargon.

For instance, when one reads Thucydides or Caesar, do the terms “advance,” “fall back,” and “occupy ground” not belie the meeting and killing of men armed with sharpened metal weapons? When we read of musketeers’ “opening fire” or Napoleonic cavalry “turning a flank,” is it not obvious that both actions involve death on a large scale?

In Keegan’s perspective, there is nothing modern or conspiratorial about using jargon to describe military affairs at all. It is as old as the written word; part of a society-accepted code by which a complex and emotionally charged action – such as “working through the enemy stabbing them to death” — becomes “penetrated the enemy line.” It is simply how warriors and historians alike describe the activity of war.

So where does this historical perspective leave us?

It behooves us to use the complex language of war correctly. If we allow terms such as “target” or “collateral damage” to become attached to inappropriate subjects — such as civilian lives, for example — then this long established code is being abused. Self is right to query how language is used, and to dig deeper in the true meaning of “targeted bombardment” or “humanitarian intervention” if the outcome will be widespread suffering. 

But the overall conclusion is that, as with all language, as long as the true meaning is understood, there can be no deception. Self thinks that war’s jargon is used to lie to us. That is only true if we let it. As long as we do not turn a blind eye to the real-world outcomes of “civilian casualty” or “blue-on-blue,” then there is no conspiracy.

So whilst armed conflict’s serious ramifications deserve scrutiny, language is not the primary obstacle.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2238/the-language-of-war-does-jargon-conceal-the-true-nature-of-conflict

8. Poetry

Text ATired of the Rain and Pain

Through the black night I lie In a muddy foxhole

As the rain soaks my bones, Beyond tired.

23

But I dare not shut my eyes, For this is Charlie's weather,

When you can.t hear or see him coming! POP my twenty-five-foot trip flare goes off!

I spray the silhouettes with the 16 And AK fire cracks in the dark.

I lay down over 100 rounds in a panic And toss 2 frags between the bamboo!

Then an eerie quiet fell And I could hear my heart beating in the mud. That morning we found a lifeless NVA soldier. The guys put Airborne patches all over him.

I looked in his wallet And there was a picture of him and his little boy together.

I slid down a tree and sat in the pouring rain Staring at the picture,

Thinking, I took away the little boy's dad, And though it wasn.t supposed to, it hurt!

At that moment a soldier said, Good kill, Greek. And I said, looking at the picture,

There.s no such thing! I.m tired of the rain and tired of the pain!- Pete "the Greek" Agriostathes - B/1/501

Text BI Corps, Tet 1968

We are the walkers. We are the sloggers.

Bandaged and blur-eyed we are the dwellers in the rain.

Filthy and forgotten, we are the Infantry.

Our names compose a roll of honor – in the casualty reports.

Our bodies torn by shards of steel write history – in pools of blood.

We live, we die

in mud and sweat and rain. We are the Infantry.

Do you know death. We greet it every day in the sniper's flash,

24

the rage of guns with fear that rises from our guts

like clammy mist.

Remembering things that are no more, that shall not be

we trudge, red-eyed

in twisted file, filthy and forgotten. We are the Infantry.

- Robert S. (Mac) McGowan - A/1/501

http://lzsally.com/popage.html

9. Watch Vietnam war-combat footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3zNJ9yTdJY U.S. Army Massacred by Viet Cong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=q1cig3PDeQ0

10. Optional texts (you are not required to watch these)

Good Morning Vietnam (1987) Born on the Fourth of July (1989) Apocalypse Now (1979) Platoon (1986) **Sensitive The Green Berets (1968) Forrest Gump (1994) Hamburger Hill (1987) Full Metal Jacket (1987) **Sensitive

Written Task 1

One of your assessments in August will be a written task (a creative writing piece). The response should explore an aspect of one of the topic areas in this pack, such as disillusionment or nationalism, but does not necessarily have to focus on the Vietnam War; for example, it could be an opinion column about the power of persuasion in advertising. During the first few weeks of school you will be planning, writing, proofreading and editing this task.

What is a Written Task 1?

25

Written task 1 is an opportunity for students to demonstrate understanding and explore issues in language and literature in an imaginative way. By “imaginative”, we do not necessarily mean creative writing- as with all reading and writing in this course, you are expected to demonstrate an intellectual engagement and understanding of the texts studied. Students may find themselves opting to write a more familiar kind of writing such as an editorial, a blog or a pamphlet to a more creative text such as a pastiche, a short story or a dramatic script.

Note: A written task 1 is a creative piece of writing, which requires you to use your own imagination; therefore, it is highly unusual to see quotations and citations from other sources in your work. This needs to be 100% you!

What are the rules and formal requirements?

1. First and foremost, this is not an essay. Beyond this, you will be looking to find an appropriate text type to use as a model (to imitate). Again, this is not meant to imply unlimited creative opportunity. It might not be appropriate to convey an overview of the effects of an Internet usage policy in your school, for example, in the form of an epic poem. It may be appropriate, however, to approach the topic by writing a blog, informational pamphlet or newspaper editorial depending on your critical intention.

2. The written task must be between 800 and 1000 words only.

3. Written task 1 must include a rationale. The rationale must be between 200 and 300 words, which do not count towards the written task word count. The rationale should explain the nature of the chosen written task including purpose, formal conventions, relationships to aspects of the course and any other pertinent information as to the aims and objectives of the task.

4. You can handwrite or type the first draft but the final must be typed. Only one draft will be accepted and after that, if you hand in another version that will be considered your final.

5. Saving and sending the written task. When saving your typed written task you must be professional and save it under an appropriate name, for example, ‘S.Rodriguez WT1 Final’.

6. The final must be typed: size 12 font, Arial, double-spaced and justified.

7. Information that should appear on the first page, at the top left:

Name (your IB candidate number)Saint George School 00849Written task 1Word count: 867

Note: Page numbers should appear at the bottom right of every page.

26

8. Any research carried out, quotations; definitions or paraphrasing of ideas used must be cited correctly and included in a bibliography.

When is it done?

Written task 1 is likely to be part of your ongoing assessment. Formally, you will be completing at least four (at higher level) written tasks, and submitting two for external moderation. You should be completing written tasks for different parts of the course with at least one referring to the language component of the course (parts 1 and 2) and one referring to the literature component of the course (part 3 and 4).

How is it marked?

Very simply, there are four criteria used to assess written task 1:

Rationale: Does the rationale for the written task explain how the task is linked to the course being investigated? 1 mark will be deducted if you go over the rationale word count*.

Task and content: To what extent does the task show understanding of the topic(s) or text(s) to which it refers? How appropriate is the content to the task chosen? To what extent does the task show an understanding of the conventions of the text type chosen?

Organisation: How well organized is the task? How coherent is the structure?

Language: How effective is the use of language and style? How appropriate to the task is the choice of register and style?

Note: If you go over your written task word count, points will not be deducted but examiners will stop reading after 1000 words.

Total marks available: 20Worth: 15% of your IB grade.

Suggestions for topics

Topics to explore in the written task 1 are unlimited and will be largely focused through the particular units you study. You may be exploring issues of gender, for instance, and comparing writings and speeches about the issue by women over time in a particular culture. If such a topic were to be of particular interest to you, it could be appropriate to write your own speech in the style of some of the works you have studied or a series of diary entries exploring different challenges and perspectives you have encountered in the texts you have studied.

27

Deciding on a particular text type may be a challenge. You will want to select a text type that is of interest to you but that also matches the topic selected. You will need to articulate why you have selected a particular text type (in your rationale) and then demonstrate your mastery of that text type. Below are some examples of text types you can produce:

Editorial Letter Opinion column Biography

Guide book Memoir Screenplay Blog

Interview Diary entry Speech Travel writing

Short story Opening to a novel Police report Pamphlet

It is important that you research the elements or conventions of your text type before you begin writing. Some sites to help you include:

Police report: http://www.samplestemplates.org/police-report-template/

Editorials: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/editorials/index.htmlhttp://www.geneseo.edu/~bennett/EdWrite.htmhttp://www.learner.org/workshops/middlewriting/images/pdf/jb-cell%20phones.pdfhttp://www.studentnewsdaily.com/archive/editorials-for-students/

Opinion Column:http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Columnhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EZ1trCRbOMUJ:westmount.koumbit.org/files/Writing%2520an%2520Editorial%2520or%2520Opinion%2520Column.doc+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari or http://westmount.koumbit.org/files/Writing%20an%20Editorial%20or%20Opinion%20Column.doc

Diary entry: http://www.learnnext.com/CBSE-Class-IX-English%20Writing%20Skills/Email-Writing-and-Diary-Entry/Lesson-Diary-Entry---Format-and-Sample.htmhttp://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Diary

Good luck!

28