GCSE
ENGLISH/
FOUNDATION TIER
UNIT 1 ENGLISH IN THE DAILY WORLD (READING)
SPECIMEN PAPER 1
1 hour
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Resource Material.
A 12 page answer book.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES
Answer all questions.
Write your answers in the separate answer book provided.
INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES
The number of marks is given in brackets at the end of each question or part-question.
GCSE Specimen Unit 1 Foundation Tier Exam Paper
Answer all the following questions.
The newspaper article on the opposite page was written by John Humphreys.
The Resource Material is an article entitled "2b or not 2b" written by David Crystal and
appeared on the internet.
Look at the newspaper article by John Humphreys ("I h8 txt msgs: How texting is
wrecking our language”) on the opposite page.
1. List ten reasons why John Humphries thinks that texting is damaging the English language?
[10]
2. How does John Humphreys try to persuade the reader that texting is bad for the English
language?
[10]
Now look at the internet article in the separate Resource Material.
3. What are the writer's thoughts and feelings about texting?
You should include:
• what he thinks about people who use it;
• the positive effect on the English language;
• his opinion about abbreviations.
[10]
You should now use details and information from both texts to answer the following
question:
4. Both of these texts are about texting. Compare and contrast them, using the
following headings:
• how each writer talks to the reader;
• the arguments they use to back up their opinion.
2
I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language
By JOHN HUMPHRYS
As the Oxford English dictionary ditches the hyphen, John Humphrys explains why texting is
wrecking our language.
The eye falls on a word you've never seen before or one whose meaning you have always wanted
to check, and you close the dictionary just a little bit richer for the experience. But my lifetime love
affair with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is at risk. The sixth edition has just been published
and - I feel a small shudder as I write these words - it has fallen victim to fashion.
It has removed the hyphen from no fewer than 16,000 words. So in future we are required to spell
pigeon-hole, for instance, as pigeonhole and leap-frog as leapfrog. In other cases we have two
words instead of one. Pot-belly shall henceforth be pot belly.
3
You may very well say: so what? Indeed, you may well have functioned perfectly well until now
spelling leapfrog without a hyphen. The spell-check (sorry: spellcheck) on my computer is happy
with both. But that's not why I feel betrayed by my precious OED. It's because of the reason for this
change. It has happened because we are changing the way we communicate with each other,
which means, says the OED editor Angus Stevenson, that we no longer have time to reach for the
hyphen key. Have you ever heard anything quite so daft? No time to make one tiny key-stroke
(sorry: key stroke). Has it really come to this? Are our lives really so pressured, every minute
occupied in so many vital tasks, every second accounted for, that we cannot afford the millisecond
(no hyphen) it takes to tap that key?
Obviously not. No, there's another reason - and it's far more sinister and deeply troubling. It is the
relentless onward march of the texters, the SMS (Short Message Service) vandals. They are
destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they
must be stopped. This, I grant you, is a tall order. Ridicule is one of them. "What! You don't text?
What century are you living in then, granddad? Need me to sharpen your quill pen for you?"
The texters also have economy on their side. It costs almost nothing to send a text message
compared with a voice message. That's perfectly true. But can there be anything more irritating
than those absurd little smiley faces with which texters litter their messages? It is 25 years since
the emoticon (that's the posh word) was born. It started with the smiley face and the gloomy face
and now there are 16 pages of them in the texters' A-Z. It has now reached the stage where my
computer will not allow me to type the colon, dash and bracket without automatically turning it into
a picture of a smiling face. Aargh!
Even worse are the grotesque abbreviations. It is interesting, in a masochistic sort of way, to look
at how text language has changed over the years. It began with some fairly obvious and relatively
inoffensive abbreviations: 'tks' for 'thanks'; 'u' for 'you'; 4 for 'for'. But as it has developed its users
have sought out increasingly obscure ways of expressing themselves which, when you think about
it, entirely defeats the purpose. If the recipient of the message has to spend ten minutes trying to
translate it, those precious minutes are being wasted. And isn't the whole point to 'save' time?
Then there's the problem of ambiguity. With my vast knowledge of text language I had assumed
LOL meant 'lots of love', but now I discover it means 'laugh out loud'. Or at least it did the last time
I asked. But how would you know? Instead of aiding communication it can be a barrier. I can work
out BTW (by the way) but I was baffled by IMHO U R GR8. It means: "In my humble opinion you
are great." But, once again, how would you know? The danger - for young people especially - is
that they will come to dominate. Our written language may end up as a series of ridiculous
emoticons and everchanging abbreviations. To the editor of the OED I will simply say: For many
years you've been GR8. Don't spoil it now. Tks.
4
2b or not 2b?
Despite doom-laden prophecies, texting has not been the disaster for language many
feared, argues linguistics professor David Crystal. On the contrary, it improves children's
writing and spelling
Vandalism? Teenager texting on a mobile phone. Photograph: Martin Godwin
Last year, in a newspaper article headed "I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our
language", John Humphrys argued that texters are "vandals who are doing to our language
what Genghis Khan did to his neighbours 800 years ago. They are destroying it: pillaging our
punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary. And they must be stopped."
Although many texters enjoy breaking linguistic rules, they also know they need to be
understood. There is no point in paying to send a message if it breaks so many rules that no
one can understand it. When messages are longer, containing more information, the amount
of standard English increases. Many texters alter just the grammatical words (such as "you"
and "be"). Some texters refuse to depart at all from traditional writing. And conventional
spelling and punctuation is the norm when institutions send out information messages, as in
this university text to students: "Weather Alert! No classes today due to snow storm", or in the
texts which radio listeners are invited to send in to programmes. These messages now form
the majority of texts in cyberspace - and several organisations forbid the use of abbreviations,
knowing that many readers will not understand them.
People seem to have swallowed whole the stories that youngsters use nothing else but
abbreviations when they text, such as the reports in 2003 that a teenager had written an essay
so full of textspeak that her teacher was unable to understand it. An extract was posted online,
and quoted incessantly, but as no one was ever able to track down the entire essay, it was
probably a hoax.
Many features of texts were being used in chatroom interactions that predated the arrival of
mobile phones. Some can be found in pre-computer informal writing, dating back a hundred
years or more.
The most noticeable feature is the use of single letters, numerals, and symbols to represent
words or parts of words, as with b "be" and 2 "to". They are called rebuses, and they go back
centuries.
Similarly, the use of initial letters for whole words (n for "no", gf for "girlfriend", cmb "call me
back") is not at all new. People have been initialising common phrases for ages. IOU is known
from 1618. There is no difference, apart from the medium of communication, between a
modern kid's "lol" ("laughing out loud") and an earlier generation's "Swalk" ("sealed with a
loving kiss").
5
There are also individual differences in texting. In 2002, Stuart Campbell was found guilty of
the murder of his 15-year-old niece after his text message alibi was shown to be a forgery. He
had claimed that certain texts sent by the girl showed he was innocent. But a detailed
comparison of the vocabulary and other stylistic features of his own text messages and those
of his niece showed that he had written the messages himself.
The need to save time and energy is by no means the whole story of texting. When we look at
some texts, they are quite complex. There are an extraordinary number of ways in which
people play with language - creating riddles, solving crosswords, playing Scrabble, inventing
new words. Professional writers do the same - providing catchy copy for advertising slogans,
thinking up puns in newspaper headlines, and writing poems, novels and plays. Children
quickly learn that one of the most enjoyable things you can do with language is to play with its
sounds, words, grammar - and spelling.
The drive to be playful is there when we text, and it is hugely powerful. To celebrate World
Poetry day in 2007, T-Mobile tried to find the UK's first "Txt laureate" in a competition for the
best romantic poem in SMS. They had 200 entrants, and as with previous competitions, the
entries were a mixture of unabbreviated and abbreviated texts.
The winner, Ben Ziman-Bright, wrote conventionally:
The wet rustle of rain
can dampen today. Your text
buoys me above oil-rainbow puddles
like a paper boat, so that even
soaked to the skin
I am grinning.
The runner-up did not:
O hart tht sorz
My luv adorz
He mAks me liv
He mAks me giv
Myslf 2 him
As my luv porz
(The author was, incidentally, in her late 60s.)
In Japan, an author known as Yoshi has had a huge success with his text-messaging novel
Deep Love. Readers sent feedback as the story unfolded, and some of their ideas were
incorporated into it. He went on to make a film of the novel.
An extraordinary number of doom-laden prophecies have been made about the supposed
linguistic evils unleashed by texting. Sadly, its creative potential has been virtually ignored. But
years of research has at last begun to dispel the myths. The most important finding is that
texting does not erode children's ability to read and write. On the contrary, literacy improves.
6
The latest studies (from a team at Coventry University) have found strong positive links
between the use of text language and the skills underlying success in standard English in preteenage children. The more abbreviations in their messages, the higher they scored on tests
of reading and vocabulary. The children who were better at spelling and writing used the most
abbreviated text messages. And the younger they received their first phone, the higher their
scores.
Children could not be good at texting if they had not already developed considerable literacy
awareness. Before you can write and play with abbreviated forms, you need to have a sense
of how the sounds of your language relate to the letters. You need to know that there are such
things as alternative spellings. If you are aware that your texting behaviour is different, you
must have already learned that there is such a thing as standard English.
Some people dislike texting. Some are bemused by it. But it is merely the latest example of the
human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt language to suit the demands of diverse
settings. We will not see a new generation of adults growing up unable to write proper English.
The language as a whole will not decline. In texting what we are seeing, in a small way, is
language in evolution.
7