Welcome to Section A: Writing About a Topical Language Issue
Welcome to your complete revision guide for Component 02, Section A of the OCR AS Level English Language (H070) exam. In this part of the course, titled "Critically evaluating attitudes towards language and its users", you step into the shoes of a public commentator. You will explore passionate public debates about how English is used, whether it is "decaying", how accents and dialects are judged, and whether changing our words can change society.
Don't worry if linguistic theories feel a bit intimidating at first. This guide breaks down every core concept, gives you real-world examples, and shows you exactly how to write a top-scoring, engaging response for a non-specialist audience.
Quick Summary of Exam Facts:
• Exam Paper: OCR AS Level English Language H070/02 (Component 02: Exploring contexts)
• Section Weighting: 24 marks total out of the 60 marks for Component 02 (the whole paper is worth 50% of your total AS Level)
• Recommended Time: Spend around 40 minutes on Section A (out of 1 hour 30 minutes total)
• Recommended Length: Approximately 500 words
• Assessment Objectives: Split equally between AO2 (12 marks) for critical understanding of linguistic concepts and AO5 (12 marks) for creative and expert writing adapted to form, audience, and purpose
Understanding the Assessment Objectives (AOs)
To get top marks in Section A, you need a balanced recipe of two ingredients:
1. AO2: Critical Knowledge and Concepts (12 Marks)
This tests your understanding of linguistic issues and debates. You must engage directly with the prompt provided on the exam paper, evaluate different viewpoints fairly, and demonstrate that you understand how language works in society.
2. AO5: Craft, Creativity, and Tone (12 Marks)
This tests your ability to write in a specific form (such as a broadsheet opinion piece, speech, or blog) for a specific non-specialist audience (like sixth-formers or general newspaper readers). You need a lively, engaging style with great vocabulary, flair, and clear paragraphing without drowning your reader in unexplained technical jargon.
Key Takeaway: AO2 provides the linguistic substance and balanced argument; AO5 provides the stylish, engaging writing that fits the required audience and format.
---Core Concept 1: Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
Almost every debate about language boils down to a clash between two fundamentally different worldviews: Prescriptivism and Descriptivism.
What is Prescriptivism?
Prescriptivism is the view that language has absolute, fixed rules that everyone must follow. Prescriptivists believe there is a "correct" way to speak and write. They often view language change as a sign of decay, laziness, or falling educational standards.
• Real-world example: Media commentators like John Humphrys, who has famously complained that modern slang and text-speak ruin the English language.
• Everyday analogy: A prescriptivist acts like a strict traffic warden—issuing tickets whenever someone strays outside the marked lines of Standard English.
What is Descriptivism?
Descriptivism is the scientific approach used by modern linguists. Descriptivists believe language naturally evolves to meet the changing needs of its speakers. Instead of telling people how they should speak, descriptivists observe, describe, and analyse how people actually speak without making moral judgments.
• Real-world example: Renowned linguists such as David Crystal and Jean Aitchison, who view language change as natural, fascinating, and evidence of human creativity.
• Everyday analogy: A descriptivist acts like a wildlife photographer—quietly observing and documenting how living things behave in their natural habitat without interfering.
Quick Review:
• Prescriptivists: Judge language as "right" or "wrong", resist change, value strict standardisation.
• Descriptivists: Observe language neutrally, accept change as natural, value communicative effectiveness.
Core Concept 2: Jean Aitchison’s Metaphors of Language Change
Linguist Jean Aitchison identified three common prescriptivist myths about language decline. Knowing these three metaphors gives you fantastic evidence to use when evaluating language attitudes in your writing!
1. The Damp Spoon Syndrome
• The Belief: Language change is caused by laziness, sloppiness, or a lack of effort.
• The Analogy: Leaving a wet, sticky spoon inside a sugar bowl—an act of careless laziness that ruins the sugar.
• The Linguistic Counter-Argument: Changes in pronunciation (like glottal stops or shortening words) are natural processes of ease of articulation, not moral laziness. Speed and efficiency in speech do not mean the brain is lazy!
2. The Crumbling Castle View
• The Belief: English was once a majestic, perfect castle that reached its peak in the past and is now gradually crumbling into ruin.
• The Analogy: An ancient monument decaying because people are chipping away at its walls.
• The Linguistic Counter-Argument: There has never been a single point in history when English was "finished" or "perfect". Language is a living system, not a museum piece.
3. The Infectious Disease View
• The Belief: "Bad" language, slang, and poor grammar are caught like a contagious virus from other people and spread uncontrollably.
• The Analogy: Catching a cold on a crowded bus.
• The Linguistic Counter-Argument: People do not "catch" language against their will; they adapt their language consciously or unconsciously to fit into social groups, build rapport, and signal identity.
Memory Trick: Remember the acronym DCI—Damp spoon (laziness), Crumbling castle (past perfection), Infectious disease (contagion).
---Core Concept 3: Political Correctness & The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
One common exam topic asks whether changing language can reduce discrimination, or whether "politically correct" (PC) language is unnecessary policing.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
This linguistic theory explores the deep connection between the words we use and how our brains view reality:
• Strong Determinism: Language determines human thought. If you do not have a word for a concept, you cannot think it. (Most modern linguists reject this extreme view).
• Weak Relativity: Language influences our thoughts, habits, and social attitudes. Choosing respectful, inclusive words encourages more inclusive thinking.
Reform vs. Language Policing
• The Reform View: Replacing outdated or offensive terms with neutral alternatives (such as gender-neutral job titles or respectful descriptors for disability and ethnicity) reduces prejudice and challenges inequality.
• The "Language Policing" Complaint: Prescriptivists or critics argue that policing vocabulary restricts free speech, creates unnecessary awkwardness, or amounts to superficial cosmetic change without tackling underlying social issues.
Key Takeaway: In your exam writing, present both sides: acknowledge the genuine power of inclusive language to shape social attitudes (linguistic relativity) while critically evaluating the frustration people feel when language change feels enforced.
---Core Concept 4: Standard English, Accents, and Prestige
Society often attaches unfair value judgments to regional accents and dialects. Understanding how prestige works will help you unpack these prejudices.
Overt vs. Covert Prestige
• Overt Prestige: High status attached to socially dominant, formal varieties of language, such as Standard English and Received Pronunciation (RP). Using overt prestige signals authority, education, and professional standing.
• Covert Prestige: High status within a specific peer group or subculture attached to non-standard varieties, regional dialects, or youth slang (such as Multicultural London English - MLE). Using covert prestige signals street credibility, loyalty, belonging, and cool identity.
Dialect Prejudice vs. Communicative Efficacy
People often claim that non-standard features—such as th-fronting (pronouncing "think" as "fink"), glottal stops, or double negatives ("I didn't do nothing")—are "wrong" or uneducated. Linguistically, however, non-standard dialects follow regular, logical grammatical systems and achieve complete communicative efficacy (meaning they communicate meaning perfectly clearly).
---Mastering AO5: Form, Audience, and Purpose
The exam task will ask you to write a text in a specific format for a general, non-specialist audience. Here is how to nail the delivery:
1. Adapting to the Form (Genre Conventions)
• Opinion Piece / Broadsheet Comment Article: Include an engaging headline, a byline ("By [Your Name]"), a strong opening hook, rhetorical questions, personal voice, subheadings, and a memorable concluding thought.
• Speech / Presentation Script: Include direct address to the audience ("Good morning, everyone..."), conversational signposting, rhetorical triples, and an inspiring wrap-up.
• Blog Post: Use an inviting, interactive tone, clear section titles, relatable opening anecdotes, and a sign-off inviting comments.
2. Pitching to a Non-Specialist Audience
Your target audience does not study English Language. Never "theory-dump" or drop technical jargon without explaining it. Instead of writing: "This exemplifies the Sapir-Whorfian paradigm of linguistic determinism," write: "As linguists have long argued, the words we choose don't just describe the world—they actively shape how we view it."
3. Structuring Your 500-Word Response
• Paragraph 1: The Hook & Introduction: Grab the reader's attention with a relatable modern example. Introduce the exam prompt's central debate.
• Paragraph 2: Evaluating the Prescriptivist Perspective: Explore why some people feel anxious about language change or slang, using Aitchison's metaphors to explain their worries.
• Paragraph 3: The Descriptivist Counter-Argument: Explain why language change is natural, functional, and creative, referencing real-world language use.
• Paragraph 4: Nuance & Social Context: Discuss the real power of language—touching on prestige, identity, or inclusive language.
• Paragraph 5: Memorable Conclusion: Deliver a crisp, balanced final verdict that resolves the debate for your reader.
Pitfalls to Avoid & Examiner Tips
• Pitfall 1: Writing a standard academic essay.
Fix: Always use the requested format! If asked for an article, give it a headline, sub-headings, and an engaging journalistic voice.
• Pitfall 2: One-sided ranting.
Fix: Avoid simply attacking prescriptivists or complaining about teenagers. Top-band answers (Level 6: 11–12 marks per AO) evaluate both sides critically and understand why people hold different attitudes.
• Pitfall 3: Ignoring the specific exam prompt.
Fix: Do not write a pre-memorised essay about slang if the prompt is about political correctness. Anchor your arguments directly to the stimulus quote.
• Pitfall 4: Poor time management.
Fix: Stick strictly to the recommended ~40 minutes and ~500 words for Section A. Section B is worth 36 marks (60% of the paper), so you must leave yourself a full 50 minutes for Section B!
Quick Revision Checklist
Before sitting your Component 02 Section A paper, make sure you can:
• Define Prescriptivism and Descriptivism and name key proponents (Humphrys vs. Crystal/Aitchison).
• Explain Jean Aitchison's three metaphors: Damp Spoon, Crumbling Castle, and Infectious Disease.
• Contrast Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativity (Sapir-Whorf) in relation to political correctness and social reform.
• Distinguish between Overt Prestige (RP/Standard English) and Covert Prestige (regional dialects, MLE, youth slang).
• Adapt your register, tone, and formatting effortlessly for a non-specialist broadsheet or speech audience in around 500 words.