Language

Learning  objec-ve(s)  To  compare  how  writers  use  language  to  achieve  

effects.    To  support  comments  with  textual  references.    

Learning objective •  To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of how writers

use language to achieve effects and engage the reader, supporting your comments with detailed textual references.

Starter

• Which page of your planner helps you compare and contrast?

• Compose a sentence using the right kind of connectives.

Ques-on  4  • Ques-on  4  refers  to  the  third  source  together  with  one  of  the  other  sources  chosen  by  you.  This  tests  your  ability  to  compare  the  effec,veness  of  language  used  by  the  writers  in  the  source  texts.  (16  marks)    

•  24  minutes  (approx)  Compare the different ways in which language is used for effect in the two texts  

In simple terms, you are being asked to do three things: • select actual words, phrases or language features that have been deliberately chosen in order to create an effect on the reader

• comment on the effect on the reader of using these words, phrases or language features

• compare the use of words, phrases or language features in the two texts.

Skill 1 - selection select actual words, phrases or language features that have been deliberately chosen in order to create an effect on the reader.

Skill 2 - commenting The skill of commenting on the effect the selected language has on the reader is the most important part of the response. You need to think about why a writer has chosen to use that particular example of language and how it adds to your understanding of a text. This means the context of the language (i.e. its purpose) is crucial when commenting on the specific effect.

Climbing the ladder – band 2 •  If the explanation of language effects is generic and could

apply to almost any source (eg ‘this interests the reader and makes them want to read on’), then it is deemed to be a ‘generalised effect’ and you are at the 5/6 rung of the ladder, at the bottom of Band 2.

•  If the explanation of language effects is more precise but not yet clearly linked into the context, then it is classed as ‘some effects’ and you are at the 7/8 rung of the ladder, at the top of Band 2.

•  ‘Source 3 uses a metaphor … “The vast expanse of crystal stars glimmering in the flat black sky” … The use of the word “crystal” shows how beautiful and glistening these stars are’

Climbing the ladder – band 3 •  If the explanation of language effects is contextualised

and clearly linked into the ideas within the source you are into band 3.

•  ‘In Source 3 the writer uses a list to present her admiration for the desert, saying that she loved the desert for “its immensity, its silence, save for the wind and the flicking of beasts’ tails”. This list makes her admiration seem endless’

Climbing the ladder – band 4 •  If the explanation as to why the writer has chosen a

particular word, phrase or language feature is perceptive then you have reached the Band 4 rung.

•  ‘She describes the environment as “squalid” and “brittle” and states she can “grind [the brittle air] between [her] teeth”. The adjectives used here invoke a feeling of disgust and the use of the word “brittle” mirrors the aforementioned frustration that Drinkwater feels towards Mohammed; the reader feels their relationship is tense and able to break at any time’

•  The night is described in a very evocative way giving dense colour –flat black sky –and movement, crystal stars glimmering. A simile is also used: like a tarpaulin, as if she felt covered over or enveloped by the sky. The reader has a real sense of the vastness and denseness of the desert night and can imagine the scene as huge and empty, fascinating and suggesting danger – but which the writer loved.

•  Lots of alliteration giving the sense of a harsh, unpleasant, dirty but fascinating place: brittle, belched, butchered, blackened.

•  Emotive phrases: so far from him, so far from my life, pined for him give the reader a sense of longing, of her isolation and an empathy with her missing her husband; pined is especially effective because it evokes the image of a young child or animal abandoned by its mother; the repetition of so far makes it seem even further.

•  shrivelling my skin to an old prune consolidates burning me and drying me up: It suggests that part of her is being worn away or wasted; it relates to her sense of isolation without her husband and the frustration with Muhammad.

•  We get a sense of the country – perhaps poverty and struggle with descriptions like, three sorry-looking, flea-bitten creatures, wearied by the journeys they trod which helps the reader understand that the animals were weak and infested and tired; ‘trod’ sounds lumbering and full of effort.

•  The reader gets a sense of the position of women with descriptions like: enfolded in black – so that they become invisible like the night, and this is emphasised with the words not so much as an eyelash, picking out the covering of a western symbol of glamour.

Skill 3 - comparing • compare the use of words, phrases or language features in the two texts.

• The skill of comparing can be approached in a number of ways (for the purposes of this question, compare means to look at the similarities and/or differences).

Task: comparing Read Source 1: Will turning vegetarian save the planet? by Alex Renton. • How does it compare to source 3? • Purpose? • What kind of language does it use? • Similarities? • Differences?

•  The language is used for a different purpose than Source 3 - to inform us of facts and persuade.

• Both include personal, first person writing.

Task: selecting Which words, phrases or language features would you select to compare with Source 3? If you’re stuck, look out for: •  Lists • Hyperbole •  Facts / statistics • Colloquialisms • Rhetorical questions • Humour •  Informal / casual language

•  every train, truck, car and aeroplane put together: list as device, piles on evidence, engages/convinces, is a hyperbole/ emphasis.

•  9.2 billion / 40 years and other stats. in the article: the language of facts and stats. emphasise/surprise/engage the reader.

•  usual guzzlers of cheap mass-produced meat: guzzlers is almost slang, engages the reader, evokes an image of greed or bad table manners, is pictorial. The word cheap suggests it’s not very tasty or healthy; mass-produced meat is alliterative, realistic, evokes an un-appetising idea, is deliberately negative.

•  So, it's better for the planet if you're a vegetarian, right? rhetorical question, involves the reader, requires an answer whilst begging the question. Right? sets up the idea to be knocked down.

•  all this animal munching cannot go on –humour, munching, like guzzling juxtaposes a complex issue with every-day, idiomatic, slang words for effect.

•  One day off the red stuff: casual language used, the red stuff gives a picture in the mind of the colour of meat, raw, possibly negative in effect.

•  rainforest- fed burgers: compound adjective denoting the wider issue of destroying rainforests, acts as a negative, shameful connotation to dissuade readers.

Structuring  your  q.4  response  Compare  the  different  ways  in  which  language  is  used  for  effect  in  the  two  texts.    Give  some  examples  and  analyse  what  the  effects  are.  (16  marks)  ●  How many points are we seeking to make about each text? ●  Text  A  vs  Text  B  would  work,  as  would A/B,  A/B,  A/B  or  constant  

cross-­‐comparison.  ●  The most effective way is for you to analyse a language

feature in Source 3, compare it with a language feature in the other source (similar or different) and then repeat this process with another example or two of effective language.

●  Start with a sentence making an overall comparative judgement about the texts.

●  Then develop three to four points in detail about each text.

Compare  the  different  ways  in  which  language  is  used  for  effect  in  the  two  texts.   The language used in Source 1 and Source 3 reflects their very different purposes. Whilst both include personal, first person writing, Source 1 is descriptive and reflective whereas Source 3 is designed to inform us of facts and persuade. In source 1, the night is described in a very evocative way giving dense colour –’flat black sky’ –and movement, ‘crystal stars glimmering’. A simile is also used: ‘like a tarpaulin’, as if she felt covered over or enveloped by the sky. The reader has a real sense of the vastness and denseness of the desert night and can imagine the scene as huge and empty, fascinating and suggesting danger – but which the writer ‘loved’. Contrastingly, source 3 uses colloquial, casual language in order to engage the reader: ‘usual guzzlers of cheap mass-produced meat.’ ‘Guzzlers’ is almost slang, evoking an image of greed or bad table manners in a pictorial style. The word ‘cheap’ suggests it’s not very tasty or healthy; ‘mass-produced meat’ is alliterative and evokes an un-appetising idea; it is deliberately negative.

Band  and  marks   Skills  

Band 4 ‘perceptive’ ‘detailed’ 13 - 16 marks

•  offers a full and detailed understanding of the texts in relation to language

•  analyses how the writers have used language to achieve their effects

•  offers appropriate quotations in support of ideas with perceptive comments

•  focuses on comparison and cross-referencing in relation to language between the texts

Band 3 ‘clear’ ’relevant’ 9 - 12 marks

•  shows clear evidence that the texts are understood in relation to language

•  offers clear explanations of the effect of words and phrases in the different contexts

•  offers relevant quotations or references to support ideas •  offers clear comparisons and cross references in relation to

language between the two texts Band 2 ‘some’ ‘attempts’ 5 - 8 marks

•  shows some evidence that the texts are understood in relation to language

•  shows some appreciation of the effect of words and phrases in the different contexts

•  attempts to support responses with usually appropriate quotations or references

•  attempts to compare language use and make cross references

Homework •  Finish writing a full response (3 - 4 paragraphs), based on

source 3 and source 1.