'English A Language And Literature Essay\r'

'These notes to examiners atomic number 18 think only as guidelines to assist marking. They be not offered as an exhaustive and obstinate set of responses or approaches to which solely answers essential rigidly adhere. Good ideas or angles not offered here should be acknowledged and rewarded as distinguish. Similarly, answers which do not include all the ideas or approaches suggested here should be rewarded appropriately.\r\n component part A\r\nCandidates are postulate to correspond a garner from illusion Steinbeck to his first son Thom with an â€Å"advice” comic strip by Ken Cursoe, both of which explore the virtues (or not) of macrocosm in love. An adequate to good epitome will:\r\n• note the commonalities of the both textbooks, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as Thom and Luke both seeking advice closely love, the â€Å"expert’s” opinion about love, staminate/female distinctions, etc • note close to of the differences amidst the both texts, such as father / Tiny Sepuku, sincerity / humor, garner / advice column/cartoon, etc\r\n• mention on the diametric text causes, noting some characteristics of severally. (For example, the letter observes the conventions of the function and responds to a letter on a personal level and addresses the issues it raises in a net and logical fashion. The cartoon, posing as an advice column, opens with a brief letter of 2 questions answered by Tiny in a â€Å"tongue-in-cheek” fashion by means of septet vignettes of the â€Å"super powers” that love gives to either the male or female in the relationship)\r\n• stimulant on the differences of context as deduced from the times and situations in which the texts were generated and from issues and references made within the texts themselves, such as the vignettes of the cartoon, the implications of the gestures and language of the cartoon characters, as well as the relationships revealed in the l etter and the attitudes expressed by Steinbeck\r\n• comment on the differences of audience and purpose as deduced from the two text types. A good to fine compend may also:\r\n• experience further the differences in the attitudes to â€Å"love”\r\n• carry more than closely the purposes of the hold openrs as viewed finished their choice of text types, considering closely the differences amid seriousness and humour • offer a more in-depth abridgment of both the letter and the cartoon, looking closely at the stylistic features and showing some familiarity with terms appropriate to each\r\n• offer a more careful stipulation of audience and purpose, for example, the reliable recipient of the letter and, now, the wider audience fire in the life and writings of John Steinbeck, and, for the cartoon, those who follow the comic strip (and write in) or the general public who are am handlingd by the cartoonist’s sermon of the subject.\r\ nâ€4â€\r\nN13/1/AYENG/HP1/ENG/TZ0/XX/M\r\nSECTION B\r\nCandidates are required to compare the poem Eyepiece by Judith Beveridge with a message from the Yahoo assemblage Microscope †Microscopy as a hobby or profession, which present, respectively, figurative and material views of the world seen by means of a microscope. An adequate to good analysis will:\r\n• note the commonalities of the two texts: the backwash of the world through a microscope, the acknowledgment of what is being looked at in each case\r\n• comment on the two text types exploring some characteristics of each (the decease of personal and scientific comments in the message, as well as the nature of observation, both general and specific, the use of scientific language, the world(a) nature of the â€Å"group,” etc as opposed to the more refined qualities of the poem: stanzas, lines, enjambment, simile, extended metaphor, alliteration, etc)\r\n• comment on the â€Å"view of t he world” that is offered by these writers and how distinctions between their purposes, contexts and audience shape their use of language, style and technique • offer a recognition of the distinction between literal and figurative. A good to excellent analysis may also:\r\n• offer a more in-depth analysis of both text types, showing how choice of text type influences both the structure and style of the case\r\n• offer a careful consideration of the world view that is presented in each text: looking at the distinctions between describing an evening as though it were a vision seen through a microscope compared with the human beings of looking at water through a microscope and the impact (such as â€Å" absorbing”, â€Å"shocked and horrified”) on the reviewer\r\n• consider more closely the two speaking voices (the scientist and the persona of the poem), how they are characterized and to what final result\r\n• offer a cogent likene ss of the two text types that offers a clear understanding of purpose, context, content and audience.\r\n'