Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ibomorelikeibno

English Paper 1-Lang&Lit HL

Hey! It's been 24 hours since the exam and I was just wondering what you guys thought about it?

Also, which section did you choose, A or B?

I chose the second section with the texts about cultural diversity & Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the same section as you, and I found the texts very easy (much easier than the texts we've had as mock exams previously). My problem was that I had so much to say, I planned my essay for a longer time than expected, and ended up with too little time to write it all...

Edited by alefal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww it's okay, as long as you did point out the most important aspects of the comparison then you're good you'll get marks for that criterion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'll cross my fingers for that. But I think I'll manage anyhow, my other assessments are very good according to my teacher and today went well too. How did the P1 go for yourself?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was very confused concerning the WWI picture/Museum stuff and I totally ignored that and realized that the second section was better. Obviously like every other english exam, the beginning was the toughest since I had to quickly mentally analyse everything and plan out the outline. I was struggling but I made it to the conclusion 10 minutes before the end. Overall, definitely easier than expected!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was not sure how to analyse the review and the guide at all. I read through the review, looked at the guide, and thought "no way!" Then I flipped the page, and I found the best texts I've ever seen on a P1 ever. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't manage my time properly, and did probably lose some marks because I rushed through my essay. Such a rookie mistake.. But, it was so much easier than I expected! Maybe that's what made me fail, the fact that I had prepared for something more difficult? :P

Anyways, do you remember what you commented on? I basically broke the texts into three parts (I found both texts quite easy to divide in three, actually), and looked at how stylistic devices supported the general notion of that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the first pair. I looked at the second pair and I was like "cultural diversity? chicken tikka masala? nope! not me!" I actually found it quite easy, probably because our teacher had forced us to analyze all sorts of non-literary texts over the two years (she was always chanting "LangLit guys! We're delving into the non-literary world with the new syllabus!")

Anywayy, hope that has gone well, as English is one of my only hopes for a solid 7. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the first pair. I looked at the second pair and I was like "cultural diversity? chicken tikka masala? nope! not me!" I actually found it quite easy, probably because our teacher had forced us to analyze all sorts of non-literary texts over the two years (she was always chanting "LangLit guys! We're delving into the non-literary world with the new syllabus!")

Anywayy, hope that has gone well, as English is one of my only hopes for a solid 7. :P

Haha, well, we barely looked at analysing non-fictional texts in my class (with the exception of speeches). We've done some papers before with factual texts, but I have never really understood how one actually analyse them. I suppose one could look the use of rhetorical devices and stuff like that, but I prefer texts with more common literary devices :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alefal: I really thought that you would be the guy that loves non-literary analysis! Anyways, I also took the two texts concerned with cultural diversity and national pride in respectively the Pakistani province (city?) of Lahore and the speech promoting pluralism in the UK as a new form of national identity and pride. I think the texts were pretty good and there were a lot to talk about between them. For example the difference in use of arguments for national pride and what to be proud of what quite interesting. Also the fact that one of them is a speech and the other is an extract from a novel is quite interesting as one can see the similarities and differences in their 'argumentation'.

@Alefal: you always have to look at the use of rhetoric devices and assume a certain meaning or opinion that the author is trying to convey. If one works out from that one can find the tools which the author uses to emphasise and make the message clear to the reader, no matter how subtle it is. For example repetition in the speech or the invoking of national pride in the Pakistani author's text are quite significant.

I liked the question I choose, but I do not believe I did my best. I was very nervous during the exam (it was my first one) and I also spent too much time planning instead of writing. However, I think I commented on the things that I found the most significant and the differences between the two.

Edited by dniviE
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alefal: I really thought that you would be the guy that loves non-literary analysis! Anyways, I also took the two texts concerned with cultural diversity and national pride in respectively the Pakistani province (city?) of Lahore and the speech promoting pluralism in the UK as a new form of national identity and pride. I think the texts were pretty good and there were a lot to talk about between them. For example the difference in use of arguments for national pride and what to be proud of what quite interesting. Also the fact that one of them is a speech and the other is an extract from a novel is quite interesting as one can see the similarities and differences in their 'argumentation'.

Yeah, well, I like speeches. I don't like analysing other, more factual texts, though. Maybe because we haven't done much of it in class, but I just find it tedious. It's so much more fun discussing symbols and metaphors, similes, diction, all that! I used to be really creative back in the day (before high school killed all creativity there was), I wrote poems and short stories, and analysing fictional works kind of inspires me and returns some of the creativity (or so I believe, at least :P ).

Agree completely with what you say about the different genres and all that. I found that very interesting myself. I never managed to comment thoroughly on that aspect, though, which was a bummer.

@Alefal: you always have to look at the use of rhetoric devices and assume a certain meaning or opinion that the author is trying to convey. If one works out from that one can find the tools which the author uses to emphasise and make the message clear to the reader, no matter how subtle it is. For example repetition in the speech or the invoking of national pride in the Pakistani author's text are quite significant.

Yeah, I kind of assumed that. Though, it didn't seem quite right whilst I was sitting there, and I preferred the other set of texts better anyhow. And now I will probably not analyse stuff like this ever again! Freedom at last! :P

I liked the question I choose, but I do not believe I did my best. I was very nervous during the exam (it was my first one) and I also spent too much time planning instead of writing. However, I think I commented on the things that I found the most significant and the differences between the two.

Seems like we're in the same boat, then. Except of that I don't think I commented too much on some of the more important differences and similarities. I just hope that the examiner find what I wrote decent enough and award me a 6 (heh, yeah right..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the first pair of texts and actually I thought it was very easy compared to the other texts, I didn't really know how to connect that Pakistani chicken with the other text lol. Humm, let me see, on the first pair of texts I tried to analyse in great detail how even though both texts had the same audience, which was people interested in visiting the imperial war museum, text 2 was more specific, aiming to catch the attention of people who didn't have much time to visit a place like this one due to their job. I also analyzed structure and the relationship both texts had regarding time and the visitors. For instance, the sexual reference in text 2b was opposite to the argument the parent gave in 1 as she said the museum was for everybody, specially kids. I also analyzed sentence construction. BSSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chose the second pair of texts. thought there was much more to analyze between them... especially from first glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, first off the second one was an example of Cultural Appropriation where the British Adopted the Chicken Tikka as their own, adding the masala to the dish to satisfy their preferences. I started making up stuff like, the paragraphs were divided but all pertained to supporting the idea of cultural diversity reflecting on the convergence of all the different cultures. It was hard to fathom the ideas but I managed.

The first one was obviously about Pride and Superiority. I analysed them by Rhetorical Devices, Language, Structure I guess... I'm really bad with organization so I struggled with that as well

However, I got very mixed up when the British one said that Chicken Tikka is an Indian dish which I used to my advantage to say that it contradicted the first passage and stuff...I dont know to what degree my statement made sense :dontgetit:

For the conclusion, I wrote about how the use of facts in the second one is effective since the audience is the foundation linked to the government and something like that, the first one was effective in demonstrating the strength of pakistan's culture by the use of diction and the word choice

that's all I recall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chose the first pair of texts and actually I thought it was very easy compared to the other texts, I didn't really know how to connect that Pakistani chicken with the other text lol. Humm, let me see, on the first pair of texts I tried to analyse in great detail how even though both texts had the same audience, which was people interested in visiting the imperial war museum, text 2 was more specific, aiming to catch the attention of people who didn't have much time to visit a place like this one due to their job. I also analyzed structure and the relationship both texts had regarding time and the visitors. For instance, the sexual reference in text 2b was opposite to the argument the parent gave in 1 as she said the museum was for everybody, specially kids. I also analyzed sentence construction. BSSS

In terms of context I went with the ideas of foreigner VS local and American VS British perspectives, talking about national pride and stuff. It was funny how text 2 mentioned that a woman was having it away with an AMERICAN airman and the author of text 1 mockingly used quotation marks for Chamberlain's claim that he had guaranteed "peace for our time", when ironically the museum was about WWII. I also focused a bit on text 2's visual mode and its effect on the reader. I recall throwing in some literary jargon here and there as well. :P

After the exam I went to TripAdvisor and found the actual review. I wonder if the writer knows that his review has been analyzed by hundreds of students. :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0