Sample

 A-­‐level  Answer  
 
1. What  do  you  like  about  it?    
2. What  would  you  suggest  to  improve  it?  
 
Focus  on  style  as  well  as  content.  
 
June  2008:  Language  Development:    
Text  E  =  Extract  from  Daily  Telegraph  and  Text  F  =  OED  (crunk  &  chav).    
 
Referring  to  both  texts,  discuss  what  the  texts  show  about  language  change.  You  
may  wish  to  comment  on:  
 
• Factors  affecting  language  change  
• Lexical  and  semantic  change  
• Prescriptive  and  desriptive  attitudes  to  language  
 
 
The  two  texts  demonstrate  the  difference  
between  prescriptivist  and  descriptive  attitudes  
to  language.  Neil  Tweedie’s  article  gives  the  
impressin  that  he  disapproves  of  linguistic  
change.  He  pokes  fun  at  the  way  we  tend  to  use  
elevated  language,  using  the  example  of  
“superhero”  and  suggesting  that  in  the  past  the  
word  “hero”  would  have  done.  His  example,  and  
the  tone  of  his  comment,  suggests  that  he  thinks  
we  now  use  elevated  language  in  a  way  which  is  
unnecessary.  
 
His  text  is  in  contrast  with  the  OED  entry  which  
expresses  neither  approval  nor  disapproval.  It  
demonstrates  a  descriptive  view  of  language  
change.    
 
These  two  contrasting  attitudes  to  language  have  
been  in  force  for  several  centuries.  The  key  
moment  in  the  standardization  of  English  was  the  
arrival  of  the  printing  press  in  1476.  This  was  a  
vital  ingredient  in  our  historical  development  
because  an  earlier  tolerance  of  linguistic  variance  
now  began  to  halt.  Decisions  had  to  be  made  in  
particular  about  spellig  and  word  order,  and  the  
process  of  standardization  began.  
 
Added  to  this  was  an  element  of  wishing  to  
educate  people  –  especially  children  –  in  what  the  
standard  forms  were,  which  led  to  an  emphasis  

  1  
 on  prestige  forms,  most  importantly  standard  
English  itself.  
 
This  idea  that  there  are  some  forms  of  English  
that  are  more  important  than  others  comes  
through  in  Text  E.  Just  as  the  Tudors  desired  
more  elevated  language  to  assert  their  national  
dominance,  so  Neil  Tweedie  seems  to  suggest  we  
now  use  ‘fancy  language’  to  make  boring  jobs  
seem  more  interesting:  a  postal  worker  becomes  
“a  dispatch  service  facilitator”.    
 
He  describes  this  process  as  “inflation”  and  uses  
lots  of  examples.  Some  of  these  demonstrate  
linguistic  practices  that  have  long  been  in  force  –  
such  as  the  habit  of  English  to  borrow  words  
from  other  languages.  He  uses  the  example  of  a  
“tsar”  –  someone  who  is  appointed  by  
Government  to  oversee  a  policy  idea.  Borrowings  
from  other  languages  are  very  common  in  English  
–  table  (from  French)  rather  than  board  (Anglo-­‐
Saxon);  bungalow  from  Indian  which  described  
the  type  of  flats  houses  Bengalis  lived  in;  and  
many  others.  
 
Neil  Tweedie  does  not  seem  to  be  against  the  idea  
of  borrowing  words.  Rather,  he  is  concerned  that  
the  word  is  pretentious.  He  makes  a  similar  point  
about  the  influence  of  advertising  language  
which,  once  again,  he  believes  makes  our  lexis  
pretentious  –  such  as  “dew-­‐fresh”.  This  illustrates  
the  way  English  creates  meanings  through  a  
process  of  compounding  words,  and  it  is  
especially  frequent  in  the  20th  century  onwards  
as  advertisers  try  to  make  products  memorable  
and  attractive.  
 
In  contrast,  Text  F  demonstrates  the  inevitability  
of  language  change.  It  shows  a  number  of  factors  
in  lexical  and  semantic  change.  It  especially  
shows  the  way  in  which  slang  –  the  most  
colloquial  and  colourful  forms  of  language  –  can  
enter  into  the  standardized  lexicon  and  then  
disappear.  This  is  because  slang  is  a  form  of  
linguistic  fashion.  Words  come  and  go,  gaining  
brief  prestige  with  certain  groups.  The  word  
“chav”  for  example  …    
 
 

  2  
www.geoffbarton.co.uk    
October  2010  
 

  3