Edexcel A-Level · Thinka-original Practice Paper

2022 Edexcel A-Level English Language and Literature (9EL0) Practice Paper with Answers

Thinka Jun 2022 Pearson Edexcel A Level-Style Mock — English Language and Literature (9EL0)

150 marks315 mins2022

An original Thinka practice paper modelled on the structure and difficulty of the Jun 2022 Pearson Edexcel A Level English Language and Literature (9EL0) paper. Not affiliated with or reproduced from Pearson.

Paper 1 Section A: Individual Variation

Analyse and compare how the speaker in Text A and the writer in Text B use language to convey personal and social identity.

1 Question · 30 marks

Question 1 · Comparative Essay

30 marks

Section A: Individual Variation

Analyse and compare how the speaker in Text A and the writer in Text B use language to convey personal and social identity.

Text A is a transcript of an interview from a podcast series called Voices of the City. The speaker, Malik, is a 22-year-old spoken-word poet and community activist from Tower Hamlets, East London. He is talking to the interviewer (Int) about his relationship with the local dialect and how it defines his sense of self.

Transcription Key:
(.) = micro-pause
(1.0) = pause in seconds
underlining = stressed sound/syllable
[ ] = overlapping speech/sounds

Text A:
Int: So (.) Malik (1.0) how would you describe the way you talk? Like (1.0) do you feel you have to change it depending on who you’re talking to?
Malik: Yeah definitely. It’s like (.) it’s like a toolkit, innit? When I’m with my mates on the estate (.) we use a lot of MLE, you know, slang (0.5) because it’s just natural. It’s how we connect. Like saying allow it or bare (.) it’s not just words, it’s a whole vibe. But then (1.0) if I’m doing a workshop in a school, or talking to a funder for my community projects (.) I have to sort of (.) dial it down. Not because I’m ashamed, yeah? But because people judge. They hear the London accent, they hear the slang, and they think (.) oh he’s not professional. They put you in a box.
Int: Do you find that frustrating?
Malik: Bare frustrating! [laughter] Nah, but seriously, it’s a bit of a tightrope. In my poetry, though (1.0) I just mix it all up. I use the slang, I use formal words, I use stuff my granddad says (.) he came from Bangladesh in the seventies (.) so there’s some Sylheti in there too. That’s my actual voice. It’s not just one thing. It’s like a hybrid, you know?

Text B is an extract from an online biographical essay titled "Linguistic Limbo" by Fiona Campbell, published in the literary magazine The North Star in 2021. Campbell is a writer and editor who grew up in Aberdeen, Scotland, and later relocated to London to work in the publishing industry.

Text B:
"Growing up in Aberdeen, my voice was wrapped in the warm, textured blanket of Doric Scots—a dialect of soft, rolling 'r's and distinctive words like 'bairn' for child and 'foostie' for musty. It was the language of home, of intimacy, and of my grandmother’s kitchen. Yet, when I moved south to London at twenty-two to pursue a career in publishing, my tongue immediately encountered a wall of polite incomprehension. 'Pardon?' became the soundtrack to my working day, delivered with a tilted head and a subtle, patronising smile.

Inevitably, the erosion began. I started to iron out my vowels, replacing my natural glottal stops with crisp, southern 't's. I traded 'dreich' for 'miserable weather' and 'scunnered' for 'exhausted'. I consciously adopted a hybrid tongue—a linguistic compromise designed to navigate the middle-class professional spaces of the London literary scene. But this accommodation came with a cost. To some of my relatives back home, my modified speech sounded 'posh' and 'affected', a betrayal of my roots. I found myself stranded in a linguistic limbo: too Scottish for London, but too Anglicised for Aberdeen. My voice, which once felt like an anchor of my identity, had become a shifting sandbank."

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

Analysis of Text A:

Lexis and Semantics: Malik uses MLE (Multicultural London English) terms ("bare", "allow it", "vibe", "mates", "estate") to signal his alignment with working-class, urban youth culture and East London roots. He uses extended metaphors ("toolkit", "tightrope", "hybrid", "put you in a box") to conceptualise code-switching and social categorization.
Grammar and Syntax: Features of spontaneous spoken discourse are evident, such as the invariant tag "innit?", the interactive filler "you know?", and the pragmatic marker "like". The syntax is highly flexible, reflecting real-time formulation with parenthetical insertions ("he came from Bangladesh in the seventies").
Phonology and Spoken Features: Use of prosodic emphasis ("Bare") to intensify his response, micro-pauses for framing thoughts, and shared laughter to establish a rapport with the interviewer.
Identity Construction: Malik presents his identity as complex, artistic, and multi-layered. He refuses to view MLE as deficit, instead framing it as one element of a rich linguistic "toolkit" that includes his family’s Sylheti heritage and formal registers.

Analysis of Text B:

Lexis and Semantics: Campbell uses highly lyrical, sensory nouns and adjectives ("warm, textured blanket", "soft, rolling 'r's") to romanticise her native Doric Scots dialect. She introduces specific dialectal words ("bairn", "foostie", "dreich", "scunnered") to ground her identity in a regional Scottish context, contrasting these with standard equivalents.
Grammar and Syntax: Highly structured, formal written syntax featuring parallel structures ("too Scottish for London, but too Anglicised for Aberdeen") and passive voice structures to emphasize her feeling of being acted upon by external social pressures ("my voice was wrapped", "inevitably, the erosion began").
Metaphors and Imagery: The central metaphor shifts from an "anchor" (representing stable, historical identity) to a "shifting sandbank" and "linguistic limbo" (representing alienation and displacement).
Identity Construction: Campbell constructs an identity defined by conflict and nostalgia. She views language accommodation not as a liberating tool, but as an "erosion" and "betrayal" forced by institutional prejudice ("wall of polite incomprehension").

Key Points of Comparison:

Adaptation and Code-switching: Both texts explore the social pressures to alter one’s natural dialect in professional or authoritative contexts due to classist or regional prejudices ("people judge", "patronising smile").
Attitudes to Hybridity: While Malik embraces his "hybrid" voice as his "actual voice" and an empowering tool of artistic expression, Campbell experiences her "hybrid tongue" as an alienating "compromise" that isolates her from both her past and present social worlds.
Mode and Register: Malik’s spoken, conversational register allows him to construct an immediate, authentic persona through interaction, whereas Campbell’s polished, reflective essay allows for a highly curated, retrospective literary exploration of linguistic displacement.

Marking scheme

Marking Scheme (Total 30 Marks)

The essay is assessed against AO1 (15 marks) and AO2 (15 marks).

AO1: Apply systematic linguistic and literary approaches and terminology to texts (15 marks)

Level 5 (13–15 marks): Assured and precise application of linguistic and literary terminology. Consistently sharp, systematic analysis of spoken and written language features (phonology, syntax, lexis, pragmatics).
Level 4 (10–12 marks): Consistent and accurate application of linguistic and literary terminology. Clear, structured analysis of language features.
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Sound application of terminology, with a steady focus on identifying relevant language patterns and features in both texts.
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Some awareness of linguistic concepts; descriptive or literal analysis with occasional use of terminology.
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Extremely limited terminology; narrative or superficial discussion of the texts.

AO2: Analyse ways in which meanings and representations are shaped in texts (15 marks)

Level 5 (13–15 marks): Perceptive, nuanced comparison of how meanings and identities are constructed. Outstanding exploration of the influence of contextual factors (mode, region, ethnicity, professional environments).
Level 4 (10–12 marks): Clear, well-developed comparison of representations and meanings. Solid understanding of how contextual factors influence linguistic choices.
Level 3 (7–9 marks): Explores representations of identity with some comparative connections. Some consideration of how contexts shape the texts.
Level 2 (4–6 marks): Focuses primarily on content rather than construction. Limited comparative depth, with basic comments on context.
Level 1 (1–3 marks): Basic, isolated comments on text content; negligible comparison or understanding of identity representation.

Paper 1 Section B: Variation over Time

Analyse and compare the ways that both texts demonstrate how this type of language has changed over time.

1 Question · 30 marks

Question 1 · Comparative Essay

30 marks

Section B: Variation over Time

Texts A and B present advice directed at young women regarding relationships and personal conduct, written nearly two centuries apart.

Text A is an extract from 'The Young Lady's Friend' (1836), a conduct book written by Mrs. John Farrar.

Text B is an extract from a modern online lifestyle column offering dating advice to young women, published in 2022.

Analyse and compare the ways that both texts demonstrate how the language of advice to young women has changed over time.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

An effective response should explore the language of both texts comparatively across various linguistic frameworks, linking changes to their respective historical, cultural, and technological contexts.

1. Lexis and Semantics:
- Text A employs formal, Latinate, and abstract nouns associated with morality and etiquette ('intercourse', 'reserve', 'dignity', 'virtue', 'demeanor'). The metaphor 'outworks of virtue' and 'citadel' frames a woman's chastity/character as a fortress to be defended against siege, showing the 19th-century emphasis on female purity.
- Text B features contemporary, informal, and digitally-focused slang ('ghosted', 'matches', 'Tinder', 'u up?', 'swipe left'). The metaphorical language shifts from military defense to psychological and physical health ('minefield', 'set some serious boundaries', 'protect your peace', 'vibe'), reflecting modern therapeutic and self-care discourse.

2. Grammar and Syntax:
- Text A uses complex sentence structures, featuring subordinate clauses and passive constructions ('respect which is due', 'if they are surrendered') to create an elevated, objective, and authoritative tone. Imperatives are used ('remember', 'Let no familiarity', 'Never permit') to enforce rules of etiquette.
- Text B uses shorter, more direct, and simpler syntax. It features contractions ('Let’s', 'you're', 'don't') typical of spoken language. The imperatives here ('stop replying', 'Protect your peace', 'Own your worth') serve as empowerment strategies rather than rigid moral restrictions.

3. Pragmatics and Context:
- Text A reflects 1830s societal values, where a woman’s social value and security depended entirely on her reputation and the preservation of propriety. The relationship between the writer and reader is hierarchical, resembling a maternal or institutional authority.
- Text B reflects a 21st-century, individualistic, post-feminist landscape. The purpose of the advice is personal well-being, self-worth, and agency rather than social preservation. The relationship between writer and reader is egalitarian, styled as peer-to-peer advice ('Let's be real').

Marking scheme

AO1 (10 marks): Apply systematic linguistic frameworks to analyse both texts. Highly successful answers will use precise linguistic terminology (e.g., active/passive voice, imperative mood, modal verbs, semantic shift, metaphors, colloquial register) to describe features accurately.

AO2 (10 marks): Critical analysis of how meanings are shaped. High-performing answers will explain how specific language choices construct representations of gender, relationships, and advice across different historical periods.

AO3 (10 marks): Analyse how contextual factors influence the production and reception of texts. Outstanding answers will link the differences in language to the changing status of women, the rise of digital communication/dating, and the shift from moral/external codes of conduct to psychological/internal codes of self-worth and boundaries.

Paper 2: Child Language

Analyse how the developments in the child's literacy allow them to communicate using written language.

1 Question · 45 marks

Question 1 · Extended Analysis Essay

45 marks

Read the following text written by Leo, aged 5 years and 6 months, to his grandfather.

**Source A**
Leo is writing a letter about a recent family trip to a wildlife park. He wrote this text independently at home using lined paper.

**Transcription of Leo's writing:**

Deere Grandad
yesturday we went to the zoo. i sawed the bigest lions and thay rord very lowd. it was scari but fun.
love from
Leo xxx

**Task**
Analyse how the developments in Leo's literacy allow him to communicate using written language.

In your response, you should:
* analyse the language features of Leo's writing (including orthographic, lexical, grammatical, and graphological aspects)
* refer to relevant theories and research into child literacy development.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

### Essay Outline and Key Points of Analysis

Candidates should address multiple levels of language structure in Leo's writing:

#### 1. Orthography and Spelling
* **Gentry's Developmental Spelling Stages:** Leo displays characteristics of the **phonetic** and **transitional** stages.
* **Phonetic spelling/Approximations:**
* *Deere* for 'Dear' - showing awareness of the /ɪə/ vowel sound but overgeneralising the double-e spelling.
* *yesturday* for 'yesterday' - spelling the unstressed schwa /ə/ with 'u'.
* *thay* for 'they' - substituting the common digraph 'ay' for /eɪ/.
* *rord* for 'roared' - phonetic spelling of the diphthong/monophthong /ɔː/.
* *lowd* for 'loud' - substituting 'ow' for /aʊ/.
* *scari* for 'scary' - using 'i' for the terminal /i/ sound instead of 'y'.
* **Consolidation of High-Frequency Words:** Words like *we, went, to, the, zoo, and, very, it, was, but, fun, love, from* are spelled correctly, showing progress in rote visual memory and phonics.
* **Morphological spelling:** *bigest* instead of *biggest* demonstrates that while he understands the superlative suffix '-est', he has not yet acquired the orthographic rule of doubling the consonant 'g' after a short vowel.

#### 2. Grammar and Syntax
* **Kroll's Stages of Writing Development:** Leo is likely in the **consolidation stage**, where written language closely mirrors oral language.
* **Verb Morphology:** *sawed* is a virtuous error. This overgeneralisation of the regular past-tense inflectional suffix '-ed' to an irregular verb ('see') indicates that Leo is actively applying grammatical rules rather than merely mimicking adult speech.
* **Sentence Complexity:** Leo uses a compound sentence joined by the coordinating conjunction *and* ('i sawed... and thay rord...'), showing an ability to link ideas. He also uses the coordinating conjunction *but* ('scari but fun') to show contrast.
* **Pronouns:** He uses the first-person singular pronoun *i*, though written in lowercase, showing a developing sense of self in narrative writing.

#### 3. Graphology, Layout, and Pragmatics
* **Genre and Pragmatic Awareness:** The layout mimics a traditional letter format, showcasing an understanding of social conventions (the salutation *Deere Grandad*, the complementary close *love from*, and the sign-off *Leo xxx* with symbolic kisses). This reflects **Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory** where literacy is learned through interaction and social practices.
* **Punctuation:** Leo uses a full stop after 'zoo' and 'fun' correctly, signaling segment boundaries. However, he misses capitalization for 'i' and the start of sentences ('yesturday' is not capitalized, though this may be due to the layout of the salutation).
* **Lineation:** The text displays an implicit understanding of directionality (left-to-right, top-to-bottom) and structure.

Marking scheme

### Marking Scheme (45 Marks Total)

This question is assessed against **AO1** (15 marks) and **AO2** (30 marks).

#### **AO1: Apply analysed concepts and methods to language data (15 marks)**
* **Level 5 (13–15 marks):** Sophisticated, highly systematic application of linguistic terminology. Extremely accurate and detailed analysis of orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and graphological levels. Coherent, fluent, and academic essay structure.
* **Level 4 (10–12 marks):** Controlled and systematic analysis. Appropriate and accurate use of linguistic terminology. Clear exploration of different levels of language structure with minor inconsistencies.
* **Level 3 (7–9 marks):** Clear explanation of features. Uses basic terminology (e.g., noun, verb, phonetic spelling) accurately. Sound structure, but may focus heavily on one aspect of language (e.g., spelling only) at the expense of others.
* **Level 2 (4–6 marks):** Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited use of linguistic terminology. Focuses on general observations of writing errors without systematic categorization.
* **Level 1 (1–3 marks):** Minimal focus on linguistic features. Lacks appropriate terminology. Extremely brief or incoherent.

#### **AO2: Demonstrate critical understanding of concepts and issues (30 marks)**
* **Level 5 (25–30 marks):** Exceptional critical evaluation of child literacy acquisition theories (e.g., Kroll, Gentry, Clay, Vygotsky). Demonstrates an excellent understanding of how the child's errors are developmental ('virtuous errors') rather than simple mistakes. Evaluates the text as a holistic act of communication.
* **Level 4 (19–24 marks):** Clear, critical understanding of theoretical concepts. Accurately applies theories of spelling (Gentry) and writing development (Kroll) to Leo's text. Discussion is consistently relevant to child development.
* **Level 3 (13–18 marks):** Explains theoretical concepts with some relevance to the data. Links spelling errors to developmental theories, though treatment of theories may be somewhat descriptive or textbook-like.
* **Level 2 (7–12 marks):** Broad ideas about how children learn to write. References to theory are generalized or may feel tagged on without close connection to the provided data.
* **Level 1 (1–6 marks):** Little or no reference to relevant theories. Simplistic assumptions about children's writing (e.g., viewing errors purely as 'wrong' rather than developmental milestones).

Paper 3 Section A: Investigating Language (Data)

To what extent is the provided data representative of the selected language topic?

1 Question · 15 marks

Question 1 · Data Analysis Essay

15 marks

Read the following sub-corpus of instant messaging data between two 16-year-old interlocutors.

Speaker A: omg did u see what she did??
Speaker B: ikr!! literally so dynamic 💀
Speaker A: tbh we need to go to the mall tmrw, need some new clothes asap
Speaker B: yes pls! ill ask my mum if she can drive us... wait she said no srsly why is she like this

To what extent is the provided data representative of the selected language topic 'Language and Technology'?

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

In analyzing the representativeness of the data for the topic of 'Language and Technology', candidates should address both the strengths and limitations of the data set:

1. Linguistic Features Supporting Representativeness:
- Orthographic & Graphological Variation: The use of initialisms ('omg', 'ikr', 'tbh', 'asap'), vowel deletion/clipping ('tmrw', 'pls', 'srsly'), and lack of standard punctuation/capitalisation represent typical speed-efficiency trade-offs in computer-mediated communication (CMC).
- Multimodality: The skull emoji ('💀') demonstrates how digital communication incorporates non-verbal, paralinguistic cues to convey tone (in this case, figurative 'dying' of laughter or shock).
- Mode Hybridity: The grammar and syntax resemble spoken interaction (elliptical phrasing like 'need some new clothes', turn-taking, colloquial discourse markers) despite being in a written medium, reflecting the 'written speech' concept of netspeak.

2. Limitations of Representativeness (Why the data is NOT fully representative):
- Demographic Bias: The speakers are both 16 years old. The data does not represent how older demographics utilize technology.
- Mode/Genre Limitation: This represents informal, private, synchronous instant messaging. It does not reflect asynchronous or professional digital modes such as emails, online forums, blogs, or Wikipedia edits.
- Contextual Constraints: The relationship between the speakers is highly familiar, prompting informal registers that do not represent more distant or formal technological interactions.

Marking scheme

Mark Scheme (15 Marks Total - Assessing AO4: Evaluate the usefulness of the data for an investigation of the topic):

- Level 5 (13-15 marks): Exceptional, systematic evaluation. Detailed linguistic analysis of the data set (graphology, lexicology, orthography). Nuanced and critical discussion of the limitations of representativeness, referencing relevant theories of computer-mediated communication (e.g., Crystal, Baron).
- Level 4 (10-12 marks): Consistent and clear evaluation. Good identification of technological linguistic features. Competent discussion of limitations, such as sample size and age-cohort bias.
- Level 3 (7-9 marks): Descriptive but sound analysis. Identifies key features (emojis, abbreviations) but lacks deep critical engagement with how 'representative' the data is of the wider field of technology.
- Level 2 (4-6 marks): Basic analysis with generalized points about texting or internet slang. Limited focus on representativeness.
- Level 1 (1-3 marks): Minimal awareness of the task. Very brief or purely superficial comments on spelling and punctuation.

Paper 3 Section B: Investigating Language (Research)

Discuss the provided statement with reference to your own research and relevant language frameworks.

1 Question · 30 marks

Question 1 · Evaluative Research Essay

30 marks

Topic: Language and Technology. 'The rapid evolution of text-based digital platforms has not degraded standard language use; instead, it has fostered a highly sophisticated linguistic repertoire where users code-switch effortlessly between digital paralanguage and standard written English.' With reference to this statement and your own research into Language and Technology, evaluate the view that digital communication has enriched rather than degraded users' linguistic repertoires.

Show answer & marking scheme

Worked solution

To answer this question successfully, candidates should structure their response as follows: 1. Introduction: State the focus of the student's own research database (e.g., instant messaging, social media commentary, or online forums). Define key terms such as 'linguistic repertoire', 'digital paralanguage', and 'code-switching'. Outline the thesis, addressing whether digital communication represents linguistic Enrichment or Degradation. 2. Analysis of Linguistic Features (AO1): Examine how digital paralanguage (e.g., initialisms, graphological play like capitalisation and emoji use, phonetic spelling) operates as a rule-governed, systematic extension of language rather than random error. Contrast this with standard written forms used in more formal digital contexts (e.g., professional emails, academic forums), demonstrating code-switching. 3. Theoretical Frameworks (AO2): Apply relevant theories to evaluate the debate. Contrast Prescriptivist views (e.g., John Humphrys, Simon Heffer) who argue that digital shortcuts ruin language, with Descriptivist perspectives (e.g., David Crystal's concept of 'netspeak' and the cognitive benefits of texting; Gretchen McCulloch's 'Because Internet' analysis of internet linguistics). Utilise accommodation theory (Giles) to explain how users adapt their digital register to align with their interlocutor, and functional theory to show how language adapts to meet new communicative needs. 4. Contextual Analysis (AO3): Analyse how platform affordances and constraints (e.g., character limits, synchronicity, ease of typing, public vs. private nature of the medium) dictate linguistic choices. Explain how these constraints require a highly sophisticated understanding of pragmatics and context, showing that digital writing is often closer to 'written speech' than standard written prose. 5. Conclusion: Synthesise the arguments, showing that the ability to transition smoothly between formal standard English and highly creative digital registers is evidence of a sophisticated, multi-faceted linguistic repertoire rather than standard erosion.

Marking scheme

AO1 (10 marks) - Apply systematic linguistic analysis: Level 5 (9-10 marks) demonstrates outstanding, highly systematic analysis of digital and standard language features with precise linguistic terminology. Level 4 (7-8 marks) offers consistent, clear linguistic analysis. Level 3 (5-6 marks) provides sound analysis but may lack consistent detail. Level 2 (3-4 marks) is descriptive with limited linguistic framing. Level 1 (1-2 marks) is generalised with minimal terminology. AO2 (10 marks) - Demonstrate critical understanding of concepts: Level 5 (9-10 marks) displays exceptional critical evaluation of the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate, Crystal's theories, and linguistic repertoires, integrated seamlessly with the student's own research data. Level 4 (7-8 marks) offers a well-focused evaluation of theories and concepts. Level 3 (5-6 marks) shows a clear understanding but may treat theories in a more disconnected way. Level 2 (3-4 marks) shows basic knowledge of some theories with limited application. Level 1 (1-2 marks) offers minimal theoretical engagement. AO3 (10 marks) - Analyse and evaluate contextual factors: Level 5 (9-10 marks) shows a sophisticated, perceptive evaluation of how technological affordances, constraints, and social contexts shape linguistic choices. Level 4 (7-8 marks) provides a clear and detailed analysis of contextual influences. Level 3 (5-6 marks) offers sound contextual analysis but may focus more on text than context. Level 2 (3-4 marks) makes basic references to context. Level 1 (1-2 marks) shows minimal awareness of contextual factors.

Wondering how well you actually know this?

Thinka is an AI practice app for DSE students — unlimited questions, instant auto-marking, and detailed step-by-step solutions. 100,000+ students use it to confirm they actually know it, not just think they do.

Start Practising Free See pricing

Want more questions like this? Practice unlimited on Thinka — instant answers included.

Start Practising Free