lOMoARcPSD|36199413
9093 Example Candidate Responses Paper 3 (for
examinations from 2021)
English Language- A level (Technisch-Wissenschaftliches Gymnasium)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Cambridge International AS & A Level
English Language 9093
For examination from 2021
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2021 v1
Cambridge Assessment International Education is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. Cambridge
University Press & Assessment is a department of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment retains the copyright on all its publications. Registered centres are
permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use. However, we cannot give permission to centres
to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within a centre.
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................4
Question 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................6
Example Candidate Response – high ...........................................................................................................................6
Example Candidate Response – middle ..................................................................................................................... 11
Example Candidate Response – low ..........................................................................................................................15
Question 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................18
Example Candidate Response – high .........................................................................................................................18
Example Candidate Response – middle .....................................................................................................................23
Example Candidate Response – low ..........................................................................................................................26
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Introduction
The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Cambridge AS & A Level English Language
9093, and to show how different levels of candidates’ performance (high, middle and low) relate to the subject’s
curriculum and assessment objectives.
In this booklet candidate responses have been chosen from the June 2021 exam series to exemplify a range of
answers.
For each question, the response is annotated with a clear explanation of where and why marks were awarded or
omitted. This is followed by Examiner comments on how the answer could have been improved. In this way, it is
possible for you to understand what candidates have done to gain their marks and what they could do to improve their
answers. There is also a list of common mistakes candidates made in their answers for each question.
This document provides illustrative examples of candidate work with examiner commentary. These help teachers
to assess the standard required to achieve marks beyond the guidance of the mark scheme. Therefore, in some
circumstances, such as where exact answers are required, there will not be much comment.
The questions, mark schemes and inserts used here are available to download from the School Support Hub. These
files are:
9093 June 2021 Question Paper 31
9093 June 2021 Paper 31 Mark Scheme
Past exam resources and other teaching and learning resources are available on the School Support Hub:
www.cambridgeinternational.org/support
4
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
How to use this booklet
This booklet goes through the paper one question at a time, showing you the high-, middle- and low-level response for
each question. The candidate answers are set in a table. In the left-hand column are the candidate answers, and in
the right-hand column are the Examiner comments.
Examiner comments are
alongside the answers. These
explain where and why marks
were awarded. This helps you
to interpret the standard of
Cambridge exams so you can
help your learners to refine
their exam technique.
Answers are by real candidates in exam conditions.
These show you the types of answers for each level.
Discuss and analyse the answers with your learners in
the classroom to improve their skills.
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
The candidate’s expression was clear and organised into a fluent sequence of ideas. To improve their answer and
their depth of analysis on the linguistic concept of broadening, the candidate needed to link the three separate
discussions together.
The candidate used all three texts, but their analysis of Texts B and C was weaker with some generalised
comments or assertion. They used Text B briefly and only at the end of the response. To improve their answer, the
candidate needed to select more data from Text B and analyse how, over time, semantic and pragmatic changes
had developed.
This section explains how the candidate could
have improved each answer. This helps you to
interpret the standard of Cambridge exams and
helps your learners to refine their exam technique.
Common mistakes candidates made in this question
•
Many candidates began the analysis with a long discussion presented as a timeline of change in the English
language, which started in the sixteenth century and ended at the present day. Long introductions were
unnecessary in an analytical response and detracted from time candidate’s could spend answering the question.
Some candidate’s conclusions only repeated what had been said previously and offered a discursive, sociological
– rather than analytical, linguistic – standpoint.
Lists the common mistakes candidates made
in answering each question. This will help your
learners to avoid these mistakes and give them
the best chance of achieving the available marks.
Often candidates were not awarded
marks because they misread or
misinterpreted the questions.
5
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Question 1
Example Candidate Response – high
Examiner comments
1
2
2 The candidate gives an
immediate reference to a relevant,
if rather well-known, linguistic
approach.
3
4
1 The candidate begins
their response with a succinct
introduction which identifies the
context of Text A.
3 The candidate provides a
developed commentary on how
Text A demonstrates language
change over time, given its blog
form and its place in 21st century
written language.
4 The candidate uses accurate
linguistic terminology to analyse and
demonstrate semantic change over
time.
5
5 The candidate shows their
conceptual understanding with their
detailed discussion of de Saussure’s
semiotic system. This developed
paragraph contains insightful ideas
which are described using an
effective level of expression.
6
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
Examiner comments
6 The candidate uses incorrect
conceptual labelling.
6
7
7 The candidate is careful to
provide the full names of the author
and the theory when they reference
linguistic approaches.
8 Although the candidate’s
8
analysis remains within the linguistic
framework of semantics, they show
cohesion between Texts A and B.
9
9 The candidate accurately
identifies the periods from which
Text B draws its data.
10 The candidate fully discusses
linguistic concepts including
connotation, affixation and
amelioration in their analysis of
‘awe’ and ‘awesome’. They include
details from Text A to develop the
paragraph and provide a cohesive
analysis of data sets.
10
7
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
Examiner comments
11 The candidate gives a clear
interpretation of the graphic
representation of linguistic data,
although this could be more
succinct. They do not offer any
reasons for the increased use of
acronym, however.
11
12
12 The candidate’s reference to
Halliday is relevant and they make
an appropriate development of the
consideration of the data contained
in the n-gram. However, their
register and control of expression
relaxes at this point and becomes
less sophisticated.
8
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
Examiner comments
13 The candidate now turns to
grammar and syntax to analyse
Text A further, selecting contraction
to discuss comparative levels of
formality.
13
14 The candidate refers to Halliday
and Crystal in this paragraph. Both
of these approaches are relevant to
the analysis although there may be
others equally, if not more, relevant
to the topic of levels of formality.
14
15
15 Overall, the candidate presents
a sustained and detailed response
with an effective level of expression.
The candidate logically sequences
their ideas and develops them
with reference to relevant linguistic
concepts, methods and approaches.
At times the candidate applies a
sophisticated level of technical
terminology to the data selected for
analysis.
Total mark awarded =
24 out of 25
9
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
•
•
For most of the response, the candidate effectively maintained their register and level of expression, and at times
they showed sophistication in their answer. To improve their answer, the candidate needed to maintain their
register and level of expression throughout the response.
Most of the answer focused on the linguistic framework of semantics, while grammar and syntax only featured
towards the final section of the answer. To improve their answer, the candidate needed to give a more detailed yet
succinct analysis of semantics, balanced with at least one other linguistic framework.
The candidate selected sufficient data from the texts to achieve a thorough analysis. However, to improve their
answer, the candidate could have used a more varied selection, which corresponded to a wider choice of linguistic
frameworks.
The candidate’s reference to linguistic concepts, methods and approaches was thorough, especially in the
discussion of de Saussure. However, they referred to Crystal and Halliday twice. To improve their answer, the
candidate needed only to refer to these theorists once and then explore the work of other more relevant theorists.
This would have been particularly useful in the later analysis of grammar and syntax, which was shorter than the
analysis of semantics.
The candidate analysed all three texts in relation to one another. Although they interpreted Text C well, to improve
their answer the candidate needed to offer some ideas about how and why it evidenced the acronym reaching its
height in the 1980s, or suggested how the acronym may fall out of favour in the future.
10
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle
Examiner comments
1
1 Instead of providing a general
introduction, the candidate begins
an immediate lexical analysis. They
develop the analytical comments
with a discussion on how use of the
adjective ‘sharp’ may have changed
over time.
2
2 The linguistic concept of
broadening is applied to a clear
analysis.
3 The candidate begins to select
data from Text A. Their expression
is clear although they do not
accurately punctuate their quotes
from the text.
3
4
4 Further data is selected from
Text A with a discussion relating
to how technological change may
have affected language used in the
electronic mode.
5 The lexical analysis is clear but
the candidate does not use linguistic
terminology to describe the data,
which lowers the register of their
response.
5
11
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle (continued)
Examiner comments
6 The candidate recognises the
form of Text A but does not discuss
how the blog form represents
change and development in
language.
6
7 Although the candidate attempts
to describe change over time
of ‘dress better’, the comments
are assertive with no supporting
reference.
7
8
8 The candidate loses linguistic
focus here, as the discussion
has turned to fashion rather than
language.
9 The candidate’s description
here is clear and their data selection
is relevant. A deeper analysis of
‘rock’ in terms of its use as a verb
would be useful.
9
12
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle (continued)
Examiner comments
10 The candidate returns to the
concept of broadening. Although the
data considered under broadening
is different at this point in the
response, it could have been better
used to deepen the original analysis
of the concept.
10
11 The candidate’s analysis
introduces Text C to demonstrate
growth in the use of the acronym
seen in Text A, which provides some
cohesion.
11
12 At the conclusion of this
paragraph, the candidate gives
an interpretation of the graphic
representation of the data. However,
they do not offer a comment on why
the increase of the use of acronyms
may have come about.
12
13
13 The candidate returns to the
idea of broadening. Their analysis
is clear but would have been better
placed to deepen the analysis on
broadening seen earlier.
14
14 Text B is now introduced as
the candidate begins an analysis of
‘awesome’ and the lemma ‘awe’, so
all three texts are explored.
15 The candidate’s interpretation
of Text B is clear; they show a clear
understanding of the concepts of
positive and negative connotation,
and narrowing.
15
16 Overall, the candidate’s
expression is clear, with clear
sequencing of ideas. However,
the candidate could have linked
the analysis together under the
concept of broadening to provide
a more logical response. They
choose a clear selection of data for
analysis, comprising items from all
three texts. However, they make a
limited conceptual reference with no
mention of theoretical approaches.
16
Total mark awarded =
14 out of 25
13
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
•
The candidate’s expression was clear and organised into a fluent sequence of ideas. To improve their answer and
their depth of analysis on the linguistic concept of broadening, the candidate needed to link the three separate
discussions together.
The candidate used all three texts, but their analysis of Texts B and C was weaker with some generalised
comments or assertion. They used Text B briefly and only at the end of the response. To improve their answer, the
candidate needed to select more data from Text B and analyse how, over time, semantic and pragmatic changes
had developed.
The candidate discussed the linguistic concepts of broadening and narrowing. To improve their answer and their
analysis of Text C, the candidate needed to include the concept of amelioration to develop their ideas and to
demonstrate an increased use of technical terminology.
To improve their answer, the candidate needed to refer to theoretical methods or approaches. Crystal or
McCulloch, for example, both offered ideas on the ways in which technological developments have led to the
changing use of English. The candidate could have used Text A, in its blog form, to provide a springboard for this
analysis.
14
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – low
Examiner comments
1
1 The candidate begins with a
succinct introduction which gives
a brief overview of the influence
of technological changes on the
development of language.
2 The description of the
conversational style of the text is
plausible. However, the candidate
refers to ‘they’ instead of ‘the
writer’ or his name which lowers
the register of the response and
detracts from their control of
expression.
2
3
3 The candidate incorrectly
applies the term ‘jargon’ to the data
selected.
4
4 The candidate begins a
discussion on ‘FYI’ as seen in Texts
A and C. They use a generalised
rather than a specific audience
identification as a springboard for
this. They develop their comments
in part with reference to character
limitation in the electronic mode
but they need to add depth to their
analysis.
5
6
5 The candidate does not include
a paragraph break to separate their
ideas and the response now begins
to discuss Text B. Although this
means that the candidate attempts
to analyse all three texts, their ideas
are presented in one long paragraph
rather than a logically organised
sequence.
6 The candidate offers an
interpretation of the change over
time of the noun ‘awe’, using
Text B. The discussion is
generalised and would benefit from
a reference to amelioration. Not all
of the candidate’s interpretation of
the semantic meaning of ‘awe’ is
accurate.
15
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – low (continued)
Examiner comments
7
7 Although this list is taken from
Text A, the comments are not fully
relevant to the question.
8
8 Some graphological features
of Text A are discussed in general
terms but the candidate does not
select any evidence from the text to
support their claims.
9 The candidate discusses
jargon but does not include an
example so their discussion is weak.
They briefly describe the PIDC
model (Potential-ImplementationDiffusion-Codification) but they
do not mention Aitchison, nor why
this model is relevant to the data
presented.
9
10 The candidate’s conclusion
contains relevant comments but
would beneft from some examples
of data to support them.
10
11
11 Overall, the response is
brief, which indicates a lack of
development. The candidate’s
expression is generally clear,
although some ideas are not
presented in logically sequenced
paragraphs. They provide some
generalised discussion on the ways
in which technological developments
have influenced language change
and a very brief reference to one
linguistic approach. The candidate’s
selection of data for analysis is
limited which in turn has limited the
analytical depth of the response.
Total mark awarded =
11 out of 25
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
Although the candidate’s expression was generally clear, to improve their answer, they needed to separate their
analysis into logically sequenced paragraphs and use a series of linguistic frameworks to organise the work.
The candidate’s answer was quite short, which indicated a lack of development of their ideas. To improve their
answer, the candidate needed to use a greater selection of data from each of the three texts. This would have
extended the discussion and provided a more linguistic, rather than generalised, viewpoint. In particular, they used
a limited selection of data from Text A, which would have provided a good opportunity for the candidate to analyse
graphology, lexis, grammar, syntax, pragmatics and semantics.
The candidate made some general references to the influence of technological development on language change,
but their discussion on linguistic concepts, methods or approaches was limited. The candidate briefly mentioned
the PIDC model but did not assign it to an author and did not describe its relevance to the data so marks could not
be awarded for AO4. To improve their answer, the candidate needed to give a fuller conceptual discussion which
could have included Chen’s S-Curve in relation to Text B and amelioration in relation to Text C.
16
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Common mistakes candidates made in this question
•
•
•
•
Many candidates began the analysis with a long discussion presented as a timeline of change in the English
language, which started in the sixteenth century and ended at the present day. Long introductions were
unnecessary in an analytical response and detracted from time candidate’s could have spent answering the
question. Some candidates’ conclusions only repeated what had been said previously and offered a discursive,
sociological – rather than analytical, linguistic – standpoint.
AO2 marks were awarded both for control of expression and development of ideas. Many candidates spotted
features, particularly in Text A, but then did not follow this up with a deeper analysis of how and why such features
might have represented language change. This was seen in shorter answers, or those which analysed only one or
two (instead of all three) texts.
Many candidates worked through the three texts one by one, but they needed to select ideas from Text A which
could be considered alongside at least one of the remaining Texts B and C. This resulted in a lack of cohesion; the
texts were presented as standalone items but should have been analysed in relation to one another.
Many candidates’ interpretations of Text C were generally sound, although some just described the data when
they should have presented the analytical findings. This gave the effect of paraphrasing, which limited the depth of
analysis.
17
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Question 2
Example Candidate Response – high
Examiner comments
1
1 The candidate immediately
identifies a stage of linguistic
competence for the youngest
child in the transcription. Although
the candidate’s assertion may be
arguable, they provide supporting
evidence of characteristic features
which make this statement
plausible.
2 The candidate explains in detail
2
their second example and includes
evidence using clear examples from
the transcription.
3
4
3 The candidate accurately
linguistically labels the data.
4 The candidate ties the
phonological analysis to a relevant
linguistic approach, with a detailed
explanation.
18
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
5
Examiner comments
5 The candidate’s selection of
data provides sound evidence.
However, the linguistic register is
lower here, and the candidate does
not explore the consonant cluster
fully.
6 The candidate makes an
appropriate reference to Halliday
as the transcription offers a variety
of linguistic functions. However, a
greater selection of data to evidence
ideas rather than a description of
the approach would provide greater
depth to the analysis.
6
19
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
Examiner comments
7
7 The candidate analyses the
father’s utterances and details his
characteristic use of child directed
speech. To improve the accuracy
of their ideas, the candidate could
have given a fuller explanation of
Antipodean speech patterns (high
rising terminals). The candidate’s
discussion here leads naturally into
a reference to Bruner which makes
this a well-developed paragraph.
8 The candidate applies Piaget’s
stage of cognitive development
with accuracy to Rui’s utterances,
although they do not provide
evidence for this.
8
9
9 The candidate refers to Halliday,
although as this section of the
response discusses Piaget, the
reference is a little out of place. The
candidate could take the opportunity
to contrast the evidences of
Carmini’s preoperational utterances
and Rui’s concrete operational
utterances more fully.
20
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
Examiner comments
10
11
10 The candidate needs to explain
low modality and why it could have
been expected.
11 The candidate’s positive
approach is evident here in
their discussion of negation and
causation. They support the
response with an appropriate
selection of evidence.
12 The candidate shows some
12
confusion in terms used here.
The clipped ‘cause’ should not
necessarily be seen as a virtuous
error, rather more as a linguistic
competence gained possibly by
Brunerian means, or by imitation
(Skinner).
13
13 The candidate’s explanation of
Chomsky’s LAD is clear, although
they could select slightly more
relevant evidence from the text to
support this.
21
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – high (continued)
14
Examiner comments
14 The candidate’s analysis of the
use of deixis is clear and relevant.
15 The candidate needs to give a
further explanation of this concept.
15
16 The candidate finishes
the response in a seemingly
hurried fashion. They identify the
characteristic features but don't
include any developed comments.
The candidate doesn’t include a
conclusion to the response, which
could have provided cohesion to the
analysis.
16
17 Overall, in this sustained
17
response the candidate
demonstrates a detailed
understanding of the transcription.
They analyse the utterances of each
of the three interlocutors, although
further contrastive comment would
have been helpful. They make
a detailed relevant and effective
reference to the linguistic methods
and approaches used.
Total mark awarded =
22 out of 25
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
•
The candidate provided a sustained, focused response and analysed the utterances of each of the three
interlocutors, although not all to the same extent. To improve their answer, the candidate needed to give a more
thorough exploration of the technique used by the father as caretaker language, fatherese or child-directed speech.
They also needed to include more detailed comments to contrast the utterances of the two children in order to
outline the differences in competencies demonstrated in the transcription.
Although the candidate made a thorough selection of data, to improve their response they needed to include a
wider selection from the text. This was particularly so in the section of the response given to phonological analysis.
In this section, the candidate did not use enough linguistic terminology, even though the transcription gave
sufficient evidence for an in-depth analysis of Carmini’s emerging linguistic competence and confidence.
The candidate gave a thorough identification of characteristic features, however, towards the end of the response
they evidenced some features without including a developed discussion. To improve their answer, the candidate
needed to analyse these features earlier in the response whilst analysing Carmini’s utterances and use key points
to provide a sound conclusion to the whole of the writing instead of only mentioning them towards the end.
At times, the candidate spent too long on their explanation of linguistic methods and approaches which
overshadowed their discussion on characteristic features and their evidence. To improve their answer, the
candidate needed to include more detail on the key points. The answer needed to provide a wide variety of
evidence and then support fully evidenced key points with theoretical examples, rather than the other way round.
22
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle
Examiner comments
1
1 This succinct introduction sets
the response into context.
2 The candidate begins
2
the analysis with the correct
identification of the children’s
developmental stages according
to Piaget. However, they include
some irrelevant comments on the
sensorimotor and formal operational
stages.
3 In this paragraph, the candidate
attempts a phonological analysis.
The candidate gives the correct
information but it lacks detail and
does not include much technical
terminology, which leads to a
weakened linguistic register for this
section.
3
4
4 The candidate takes a deficit
5
approach, and comments on
what the child is yet unable to do,
rather than detail her linguistic
competencies.
5 The candidate takes a deficit
approach to describe the father’s
response to the child. Although the
candidate recognises the father's
questioning technique which
scaffolds the child’s language, it is
not fully explored.
23
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle (continued)
Examiner comments
6
7
6 This section of the response is
generalised. The candidate does
not include a linguistic analysis of
the child’s sentence construction,
which contained many characteristic
features of child language
acquisition.
7 Here, the candidate recognises
the positive signs of development
in the child using relevant data
from the transcription, but their
descriptions are general and not
technical.
8
8 The candidate’s reference
to Vygotsky is relevant to the
discussion and they contrast his
approach with that of Piaget, but
their comments are limited. The
candidate needed to include data
from the transcription to complete
the analytical commentary.
9
9 The candidate uses data from
Carmini’s utterances but none
from Rui’s, so the comparison of
the language of the two children is
incomplete.
10
10 The candidate recognises the
use of emphasis as a characteristic
feature although they need to give
more details for prosody.
24
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – middle (continued)
Examiner comments
11 The candidate gives a further
analysis in relation to Piaget’s
theory of cognitive development.
The candidate’s comments here
are correct and reasonably welldeveloped. However, rather than
making a sporadic reference to one
particular approach, the candidate
could group their ideas relating
to that approach together before
moving on to consider additional
approaches, to form a more logical
response.
11
12
12 Overall, the response is focused
and sustained. The candidate
makes a clear selection of data
for analysis but they don’t always
use technical terminology to label
the data as characteristic features
of child language acquisition. The
candidate demonstrates their
conceptual knowledge when they
refer to two theoretical approaches.
Total mark awarded =
12 out of 25
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
•
The candidate provided a reasonably well-focused and sustained response. They provided data from the
transcription to support their ideas but only described it in a limited manner in terms of use of linguistic terminology.
To improve their answer, the candidate needed to analyse sentence construction, use of tense, paralanguage,
prosody, use of pronoun and pluralisation with accurate linguistic labelling.
The age group was wide in terms of the timescale of child language acquisition, so to improve their answer, the
candidate needed to provide a more developed commentary on the interaction between the two children.
To improve their response, the candidate needed to give a fuller analysis of the father’s utterances, as there were
many features of child-directed speech in the transcription. The candidate could have expanded on their comment
about the father’s questioning technique and explored the ways in which his speech altered in the presence of
each of his children.
The candidate referred to two linguistic approaches and made multiple references to Piaget. To improve their
answer, the candidate needed to select further characteristic features such as the scaffolding by the father to
reference Bruner. This would have been a logical complement to the reference to Vygotsky.
25
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – low
Examiner comments
1 The candidate uses incorrect
technical terminology, but this is an
otherwise succinct introduction.
1
2 The candidate describes the
features of child directed speech but
the descriptions supplied, although
reasonably full, are not technical nor
sufficiently analytical to be awarded
higher level marks.
2
3
3 The candidate uses incorrect
technical terminology.
4 Although the candidate
comments on features of the
conversation, they do not support
these comments with extracts
from the transcription, so there is a
general lack of development.
4
5 The candidate does not
explain or sufficiently support their
theoretical references with evidence
from the transcript, so cannot
demonstrate their appropriateness
to the analysis.
5
6 The candidate attempts a
phonological analysis of the child’s
utterance which is commendable
but they use incorrect technical
terminology.
6
7 The candidate uses incorrect
terminology.
7
26
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – low (continued)
Examiner comments
8
8 The candidate makes assertions
throughout their response.
Although this section of the essay is
sustained, the candidate gives very
little evidence from the transcription
to support their statements.
9 The candidate’s response
begins to lose focus because there
is no evidence in the transcription to
support this statement.
9
10
10 There is no direct evidence
in the transcription to support this
statement.
11
11 The candidate attempts to
describe prosodic features but does
not present any evidence to support
their ideas.
27
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Example Candidate Responses – Paper 3
Example Candidate Response – low (continued)
Examiner comments
12 Overall, the candidate
demonstrates a reasonable
understanding of the text provided.
However, their ideas are not
generally supported by evidence
from the text which means that
although the linguistic features
have been described, they are
not analysed fully. They use some
incorrect linguistic terminology
which weakens the response.
The candidate makes some minor
reference to linguistic theory but this
is undeveloped and its relevance is
therefore unclear.
12
Total mark awarded =
6 out of 25
How the candidate could have improved their answer
•
•
•
Overall, the candidate demonstrated a clear understanding of the text and they identified the characteristic
features. To improve their answer, they needed to use supporting evidence from the text to extend their ideas,
which comprised only short, undeveloped statements. To further improve their answer, they needed to use a
careful selection of evidence to detail ideas more fully, and improve cohesion between the characteristic features
spotted and analysis of the language data.
The candidate attempted to apply linguistic terminology, but they encountered errors in labelling them. This led to
inaccuracies which weakened the answer. To improve their answer, the candidate needed to use technical terms
more frequently and accurately – in general, linguistic features were described in a generalised manner.
Where the candidate referenced linguistic concepts and approaches, the comments were very brief. To improve
their answer, the candidate needed to describe and select sufficient evidence from the transcription to demonstrate
how the theories were relevant to the analysis. To improve their answer further, the candidate needed to include a
wider theoretical discussion about the ways the father scaffolded the child using child-directed speech (Bruner or
Vygotsky) or used Skinner’s approach to reinforce, for example.
Common mistakes candidates made in this question
•
•
•
•
Many candidates only used the child interlocutors’ ages to determine the stage of language acquisition, without
deep reading of the transcription to gain insight into linguistic competencies. Many candidates assumed Carmini
was at the telegraphic stage because it was indicated that she was four years old, but in the transcription she
demonstrated many instances of utterances of post-telegraphic speech.
Many candidates chronologically paraphrased the transcription, but candidates should be aware that a re-telling
of the data would not constitute analysis. Candidates needed to identify characteristic features from each of the
interlocutors and discuss each in a developed, technical, analytical manner.
The candidates’ discussions needed to be supported with clear and succinct items of data, such as those
representing tense, plurals, or phonemic substitution, for example. Candidates commonly identified and discussed
features found in the transcription. They did not always present the supporting data so the response was
generalised or unconvincing because they needed to include evidence.
Many candidates used the name of a theorist but did not include a developed comment about how or why such an
approach was relevant to the analysis. Some candidates used multiple names of theorists with no reference to the
data. Although this sort of discussion demonstrated the candidates’ conceptual learning, they needed to apply that
learning to the data in hand. These candidates lost focus on the question and in some cases provided irrelevant
material.
28
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|36199413
Cambridge Assessment International Education
The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
t: +44 1223 553554
e: info@cambridgeinternational.org www.cambridgeinternational.org
© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2021 v1
Downloaded by Fathima (fathima.mihsanullah@gmail.com)