eng lang

🧠 PART 1: ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS & CONCEPTS

🗣 SAC 1: Nature and Functions of Language

👶 SAC 2: Child Language Acquisition

✍ PART 2: MODEL RESPONSES FOR SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS

✅ SAC 1 Sample Q: Colloquial Language (4 marks)

Q: How does colloquial language reflect identity?

✅ SAC 2 Sample Q: What is morphological overgeneralisation? (1 mark)

✅ SAC 2 Sample Q: Describe infant-directed speech (1 mark)

/

📝 PART 3: SAMPLE EXTENDED RESPONSES

✅ SAC 1 Essay Prompt:

Compare the register used in Text A and Text B. Consider differing context and audience. (5 marks)

✅ SAC 2 Extended Analytical Report (20 marks)

Prompt: Analyse the child’s language development across all subsystems.

✅ SAC 1 Extended Essay Response (Register Comparison – 500+ words)

Prompt: Compare the register used in Text A and Text B, considering the differing contexts and audiences. Use at least one example from each text.

In the study of English Language, register refers to the degree of formality and language choices made according to the context, audience, and purpose of a text. When comparing Text A and Text B, we observe significant differences in mode (written vs. spoken), tenor (social relationship between speaker and audience), and function (informative vs. directive vs. phatic), all of which influence register.

Text A is a written excerpt from a school newsletter aimed at parents and students. Due to its written mode, the register is more formal and structured, aligning with the informative function of the text. For example, declarative sentences like “Information for VET and VCAL are on page 6” demonstrate a referential function, using standard written grammar to convey facts. The use of imperative constructions such as “Write the confirmation code down” also serves a directive function, instructing the audience in a clear, concise manner. The absence of non-fluency features (e.g., filled pauses, false starts) and the use of standard syntax and vocabulary further reinforce the formal register.

Conversely, Text B is a spoken transcript from a school assembly, intended to be delivered to students. The spoken mode introduces spontaneous features typical of informal speech, including non-fluency features like “um,” repetition (e.g., “Check… check your emails!”), and prosodic markers such as changes in volume (VV) and falling intonation (LL). These choices signal a more relaxed and dynamic register, suited to spoken delivery. The tenor between speaker and audience is more casual and familiar, which is evident in the use of colloquial language like “OK, great” and the personal address “James? Yes, you James. Are you listening?” This not only maintains attention but also demonstrates phatic and interpersonal functions – fostering rapport and classroom control.

Additionally, discourse strategies used in Text B support a lower register. For example, the speaker uses imperatives to manage the floor (“Settle down please”), and shifts topics using verbal cues (“Now, the purpose of this assembly is…”). The interactional style, combined with primary stress and intonation patterns, reflects the speaker’s need to both engage and instruct the audience. This contrasts with the impersonal and informational tone of Text A, where no direct engagement is made with individuals, reinforcing social distance.

These differences in register ultimately arise due to the variation in audience and purpose. Text A aims to convey official instructions to a mixed audience of parents and students, requiring clarity and neutrality. Meanwhile, Text B operates in a live, spoken context, where the speaker must actively manage behaviour, encourage participation, and deliver information – requiring a multi-functional register that is both instructional and interpersonal.

In summary, while both texts are related to the same school subject selection process, the context of situation (field, tenor, mode) profoundly impacts the register. Text A maintains a formal tone appropriate to written communication, employing declarative and imperative structures with minimal expressive features. In contrast, Text B adopts a spoken, informal register filled with colloquialisms, non-fluency features, and discourse markers, all of which are crucial in managing real-time interaction and supporting audience engagement.

✅ SAC 2 Extended Analytical Report (Child Language Development – 500+ words)

Prompt: Write an analytical report examining a child’s language development across subsystems: phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic.

This analytical report examines the spoken transcript of a child interacting with their parent about going on the “naughty list.” The child’s utterances reflect early stages of language acquisition and illustrate typical developmental features across multiple subsystems: phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic.

From a phonological perspective, the child simplifies complex sounds, a typical trait in early speech. While the transcript does not provide IPA symbols, utterances such as “I don’t wanta go” suggest connected speech and assimilation, where “want to” becomes “wanta.” Additionally, the presence of intonation patterns such as rising pitch in interrogatives (e.g. “Am I on the bad list?”) shows early prosodic development, helping the child distinguish between question types.

Morphologically, the child is in the stage of learning to apply rules for word formation. Evidence of overgeneralisation is common in this stage, where the child might say “runned” instead of “ran” or “goed” instead of “went.” Although this specific transcript does not include those forms, similar errors would reflect the child’s attempt to regularise irregular verbs, a hallmark of inflectional morphology acquisition.

Lexically, the child’s vocabulary includes high-frequency content words such as “Santa,” “bad,” “list,” and “naughty.” These reflect early semantic domain acquisition around familiar topics like holidays and family. There is also evidence of emotionally loaded terms and instrumental language, suggesting the child understands how words can be used to influence others (e.g. “I’ll be good!”). This shows not only vocabulary expansion but early network building, where new words are linked by categories and experience.

Syntactically, the child exhibits telegraphic structures, omitting function words and grammatical markers typical of early sentence development. Phrases such as “I no want go” show non-standard syntax, but still convey clear meaning. These constructions lack auxiliaries (“do,” “is”) and determiners, which are acquired later. Nevertheless, the presence of subject-verb-object (SVO) order indicates the child’s growing grasp of English syntax.

Semantically, the child’s utterances are coherent and meaningful within their developmental context. The use of negation (“I not on the list!”) shows they understand sentence-level meaning and how to contradict propositions. Their understanding of the “naughty list” shows awareness of abstract social concepts, indicating development in conceptual understanding and semantic mapping.

Finally, in terms of pragmatic development, the child uses language for multiple functions: to express emotion, to influence behaviour (e.g., trying to change their father’s mind), and to engage in interaction. Their ability to take turns in conversation, respond to their parent’s tone, and adapt their own speech based on reactions (e.g. becoming more upset or emphatic) demonstrates growing mastery of social rules and the interpersonal functions of language.

In conclusion, the transcript presents a child navigating key stages of early language acquisition. While they demonstrate many typical features such as telegraphic speech, limited morphology, and emerging pragmatic skills, the child is clearly progressing in all linguistic subsystems. Their language reflects both cognitive development and social engagement, consistent with patterns identified by theorists like Piaget, Halliday, and Vygotsky.