Analysis
Over time language has changed drastically and in this excerpt from an uncle to his nephew by Edward Berens we see the language used in 1832. We get to see the language used among an adult to a child which has changed very much in recent years. The purpose of this text is the uncle who is the author giving advice and guidance on life to their nephew. We can see this through the lexis as it is also in the second tense by using words like ‘you.’ This makes the text seem more personalized and set during the 1800s as letters were the only way to communicate over long distances so we can see what one of those letters looked like. In modern days we do not see these long written letters as families can communicate in seconds over their phones so it is very unlikely that they would write all of this to their nephew.
The language used throughout the text is how we see this as well as the text from 1832 uses language such as “apt to be,” which according to the ngram chart from text c had peaked in the 1800s and since decreased and been replaced by other wordings such as “tend to be” and “are likely to be.” The text also uses words like shun in the text which is very infrequent in today's day and age and other words like ‘push away’ or ‘hide.’ The text uses this form in order to describe the text and would have appeared to have normal text in the 1800s as it is a basic letter of advice in the 1800s.
The changes in language over time also shows different theories that prove the changes throughout time. The first theory I will be discussing is the crumbling castle theory which states that people had once treated language as a complete building but over time they start to believe that the building is crumbling. This is used in this text as the complete building that was once their language may be viewed as falling apart because of the changes that have occurred and the lack of use of the language that was used in the 1800s. An example of this is yet again “apt to be” which the author had used but has grown out of use and been replaced throughout recent years.
Another theory that relates to this topic is the infectious disease assumption which states that the language used spreads onto the people around you and can spread throughout time this way. This relates to the text as the words that have been used to describe ‘judgment’ have stayed and spread throughout time through the usage of the word and the adjective to describe them. The most used words to describe judgment include clinical, professional, dissenting, better and final. These words have been picked up throughout time and changed into the language we know today.
The last theory is the damp spoon syndrome which states that language has changed over time through the laziness of people where the language they have used sticks to them as they are too lazy to not use it. An example of this is the language that is used to describe taste as the adjectives used include bad, good,bitter, first, and personal, which are all picked up through the laziness of the people. The language used to describe taste is used frequently in today's day and age and will continue to be used based upon this theory.
There is also a social change that has occurred that affects the language used in this text drastically. As the rise of technology has caused this and the digital language has shaped all writing in the modern era. Many other social changes have also impacted the language that we know today as the clashing of multiple languages and cultures has given some into the English that we know today and shaped it the way it is.
ReplyDeleteHi Colbert!
For AO2, you received a level 2(2 marks) since you did have some clear expressions when explaining why Text A exemplifies how language changed, the structure is out of order which confused me when reading this. As it should be Text A, Text B, and Text C in that order. An example of this is when you said, ‘In modern days we do not see these long written letters as families can communicate in seconds over their phones’ which seems like a good point but where did you get the information from? Your content is in a limited manner as you could’ve explained more about your points like when you said, ‘ “apt to be,” which according to the ngram chart from text c had peaked in the 1800s and since decreased and been replaced by other wordings such as “tend to be” ‘ which seems like a clear idea but could have some more evidence on why with broadening your evidence.
For AO4, you received a level 2 as well since you didn’t use buzz words in your blog like you could’ve replaced words as lexis or explain your point about the theories.
For AO5, you received a level 2 as you had a limited selection of language data like when you said, ‘relates to the text as the words that have been used to describe ‘judgment’ have stayed and spread throughout time’ which you could’ve replaced ‘stayed and spread’ with broaden. Like you do have some synthesized evidence from the source when you said, ‘ “apt to be” which the author had used but has grown out of use and been replaced throughout recent years’ which could’ve been better with you explaining why and with a quote.
9/25
Colby,
ReplyDeleteFor AO2,
Your blog utilizes clear expression however it does not flow very well and has multiple grammatical errors that occasionally impede communication. You could’ve improved your response by mentioning the N-gram and stating the specific frequency of usage of the phrases.
Your content is vague but is still mostly relevant to the texts. You introduce your supporting theories by stating that they ‘relate to the topic’. This is unclear and doesn’t provide the audience with a reason or evidence that shows that the theory described supports the changes in language over time. You also have a flaw in stating what the ‘topic’ is and explaining that there have been changes in languages since the publication of the texts.
2/5
For AO4,
Your blog demonstrates that you have little to no understanding of the ‘linguistic issues, concepts, methods, and approaches’. Your inclusion of the three nonspecific theories without satiated theorists does little to explain the changes in language over time and your blog neglects to take specific examples of linguistics and describe their significance to the change in language over time. In your blog you neglect to discuss specific aspects of Text A. Your response shows ‘basic understanding of, and minimal reference to, linguistic issues, concepts, methods and approaches’. You could improve your response by discussing the formality, structure, social implications, linguistics, or relation of the texts in your response.
1/5
For AO5,
Your blog has ‘basic and minimal analysis of language data’ and the textual concepts of the excerpt aren’t addressed in your response. Your blog lacks the ability to analyze the text in depth and you make ‘minimal attempt to synthesize evidence from sources of language data’. Your response lacks in terms of synthesis of language data and analysis of the texts. You could improve your response by taking data from the sources and discussing their evidence of linguistic change.
3/15
Hi Colby,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job for the first time writing this paper but it needs some work. In the first few sentences, there were a couple of punctuation errors that interrupted the flow of the paper. For example, in the first sentence of your paper after the words, “Over time” there would be a comma.
AO2 - 3 marks : Clear expression, with occasional errors which do not impede communication. An example of a spelling error is in the third paragraph. You use the word “shows” rather than “show” when talking about the changes in language over time. Content is relevant and ideas are developed clearly.
AO4 - 2 marks : Limited understanding of, but generally appropriate reference to, linguistic issues, concepts, methods and/or approaches. You listed three theories and explained what they were but when you tried to tie them back to the text they didn’t really match up. For example, you said the different adjectives for judgment were an example of infectious disease but there is no way to prove that. If you are going to use that theory it should be directed towards the n-gram rather than the chart.
AO5 - 5 marks: Clear and appropriate selection of language data from more than two sources. Limited analysis of language data. Some attempt to synthesize evidence from sources of language data.
You had the right ideas but just didn’t explain them right. It's not a huge problem, just reread some of the theories and how they work and you’ll be set.
For AO2 I would give you a 1. So many sentences and ideas did not make sense at all and I would have to read them over and over to try to get somewhat of an understanding or they are just circling and saying nothing. A lot of sentences I am still unclear on what you are trying to say. For example the sentence ‘The language used throughout the text is how we see this as well as the text from 1832 uses language such as “apt to be’. Some of the content is also irrelevant, for example when the first paragraph talks about the use of second person and the word ‘you’ which relates more to language meaning discussed in papers 1 and 2, rather than language change that paper 3 focuses on.
ReplyDeleteFor AO4 I would give you a 2. None of the different kinds of etymology and semantic changes were discussed, and only 3 theories (all from the same theorist whose name was failed to be mentioned) were talked about. A lack of full understanding of these theories were shown through not properly explaining the connection between the change in language and said theories. Or the theories were misused and applied to a phrase where it should not. For example, you said, ‘An example of this is yet again “apt to be” which the author had used but has grown out of use and been replaced throughout recent years’ when explaining the crumbling castle theory. This ‘explanation’ only says that the phrase had grown out of use and been replaced which does not directly support the crumbling castle theory that says a language is falling apart. Growing out of a phrase is not considered ‘falling apart’ and language change is all based around new phrases and words coming in and replacing/ altering older ones. So this statement you made can be applied to any theory and proves nothing.
For AO5 I would give you a 1. The different texts are rarely mentioned. Most of the time out of the one’s present, you were referring to the same phrase of ‘apt to be’ which does not show a wide selection of language data. A specific text to make it clear of where you were referring to was only mentioned once. For the most part you just say ‘the text’. The analysis of the language data is limited due to the general statements made and lack of specific changes made. These statements do not have evidence supporting them. For example, when explaining how the damp spoon theory applies, you said, ‘language that is used to describe taste as the adjectives used include bad, good,bitter, first, and personal, which are all picked up through the laziness of the people.’ There is no explanation as to why these words are considered ‘lazy’. There is a very minal connection between the different texts to support a claim of language change present.
Total: 6/25