(AQA AS/A Level English Language) 19/20 Question 3 Comparison for Paper 1
4715 views 4 purchases
Course
Unit 2 ENGA2 - Representation and Language
Institution
AQA
This Essay scored 19/20 for Section A Question 3 for the AQA AS level English Language in paper 1.
Written by an Oxford University Offer Holder.
The essay can easily be used as a template for any type of texts you might receive in the AS exam. Template is also transferable for A Level Paper 1.
...
In text A, sergeant Blackman is represented as being a victim which juxtaposes with the
portrayal in B that he is guilty. This is achieved in A by the ending statement being given to
Blackman (giving his word a sense of finality and truthfulness because it cannot be disputed)
in which he uses the adverb ‘villainously’ to describe the court. ‘Villainously’ is associated
with the semantic field of ‘hero[s] and heroine[s]’, where Blackman is presented as the hero.
In the title, the noun phrase ‘Royal marine’ gives Blackman prestige and an authority to his
actions, suggesting that he did the right thing by shooting the ‘taliban fighter’. Article A is
clearly biased in favour of Blackman’s innocence, particularly because it contains no
quotations from Blackman’s anti-supporters, and instead focuses on the generalised and
perceived popular opinion that ‘everyone wanted [the taliban fighter]dead’.
The noun ‘Taliban’ is also included to elicit fear in the implied audience (supporters of
Blackman) because it reminds people of terrorism. This contrasts with ‘Royal Marine’ and
automatically puts Blackman in a righteous position.
Conversely, Article B implies the opposite, particularly demonstrated in terms of public
opinion of Blackman because he is viewed as ‘some kind of victim’, the quantifier ‘some’ in
this noun phrase adding cynicism. The article attains a somewhat unbiased view in that he is
referred to as ‘guilty’ in the ‘eyes of the law’. In this sense, A and B are similar because their
text producers are attempting to relay their biased views through others, as A showed
support for Blackman through his cheering supporters. Both texts have the same primary
purpose: to appear to report the news impartially, though their secondary purpose betrays
their views about Blackman through their choices of witness.
However article B shows even less support for Blackman: the final word is given to the
Ministry of Defence spokesman who says they ‘respect the court’s decision’ and further
comment would be ‘inappropriate’. At a first glance this statement appears innocuously
impartial, but since the implied audience for B are his opponents, it is likely to be included to
suggest that the court’s decision is wrong and Blackman should be charged guilty; surely if
the spokesperson was supporting Blackman, his response could have been more
personalised. Including this as the final word, the reader will feel uncertainty about the
dropped charges, especially if such an esteemed individual (Ministry of Defence spokesman)
is not completely in support of Blackman’s release.
Though the implied audiences for both texts may be different concerning their views on
Blackman, they are similar because their audiences are represented as readers of internet
articles. Both articles share the sans serif but formal typography and the text is presented in
small paragraphs. This structure follows the genre conventions of having small ‘bites’ of
information and direct language--’Blackman shot an insurgent’--to appeal to the online
community who are busy, multitasking or skim reading quickly.
Claire blackman in text A is represented as an essential part of blackman’s ordeal. She is
portrayed as a loving wife and a ‘heroine’, and the inclusion of her first name, Claire, adds a
sense of familiarity and therefore sympathy for her. Text B, however, neglects to mention her
as much (almost representing her as insignificant), instead focusing more on the trial and the
details of Blackman’s offense. Text B could be represented as being less legitimate than A
as it contains no quotations from Mrs Blackman or anyone else apart from the Ministry of
Defense Spokesperson. However by not including Claire Blackman and focusing on relaying
the facts, B could also be represented as being more trustworthy; people will give quotes
that support their own views.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Alevelnoteskw. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.30. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
