Mastering the Academic Discursive Essay: AQA AS English Language (7701)
Welcome! Writing an academic discursive essay about language might sound intimidating, but it is simply the art of having a balanced, evidence-based conversation on paper. In Paper 2 (Language Varieties, Component code: 7701/2), you are asked to explore how language varies according to gender, region, social group, and occupation, as well as the attitudes people hold toward these variations.
Let's break down everything you need to know to write a top-band essay with clarity and confidence!
1. Understanding Exam Structure & Assessment Objectives
In Paper 2 (1 hour 30 minutes, 70 total marks), your writing skills are split across two distinct tasks:
• Section A (Language Diversity): You choose between Question 1 or Question 2. This is worth 30 marks and requires a formal, academic discursive essay evaluated on AO1 (10 marks) and AO2 (20 marks).
• Section B (Language Discourses): A directed writing task (Question 3, worth 40 marks) where you transform academic concepts into a non-academic, journalistic piece for a specified audience (assessed on AO2 [20 marks] and AO5 [20 marks]).
Top Tip: In Section A, your tone must be objective, analytical, and scholarly. Save your creative, journalistic flair for Section B!
What the Examiners Look For in Section A:
• AO1 (10 Marks): Applying linguistic terminology accurately (e.g., phonology, syntax, lexis, pragmatics) and writing with clear, coherent academic expression.
• AO2 (20 Marks): Demonstrating critical understanding of linguistic concepts, theories, research studies, and debates surrounding language use.
Key Takeaway: Section A is your chance to show the examiner that you can weigh up competing theories using precise linguistic terminology and balanced academic reasoning.
2. Essential Distinctions & Foundational Concepts
Before diving into theories, make sure you never mix up these fundamental concepts:
Accent vs. Dialect
• Accent: Refers strictly to phonology (how words are pronounced and sound).
• Dialect: Encompasses both lexis (vocabulary) and grammar/syntax (sentence structure) characteristic of a specific region or social group.
Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism
• Prescriptivism: An ideology that judges language as "correct" or "incorrect," attempting to enforce strict rules and prevent change (linguistic gatekeeping).
• Descriptivism: An evidence-based linguistic approach that observes, records, and analyses how language is actually used without passing moral judgements.
Jean Aitchison's Metaphors (1996)
Jean Aitchison described three common prescriptivist myths regarding language change:
1. The Damp Spoon Syndrome: The false belief that language change arises from laziness or sloppiness (like leaving a wet spoon in the sugar bowl).
2. The Crumbling Castle View: The myth that the English language was once a perfect, pristine building ("golden age") that is now decaying.
3. The Infectious Disease View: The idea that "bad" language habits are caught like a virus from surrounding speakers and should be fought off.
Key Takeaway: Always separate pronunciation (accent) from grammar/lexis (dialect), and remember that modern academic linguistics takes a descriptive stance toward language change and variation.
3. Core Thematic Frameworks for Your Essay
To build strong arguments in Section A, you need a firm grasp of the key linguistic models and studies across four main areas.
A. Language and Gender
The study of gender and language has evolved through four key frameworks:
• 1. The Deficit Model – Robin Lakoff (1975): In Language and Woman's Place, Lakoff argued that women's language contains features such as hedges, tag questions, polite forms, empty adjectives, and hypercorrect grammar. She argued these features reflect women's subordinate social status and make them sound tentative.
• 2. The Dominance Model – Don Zimmerman & Candace West (1975) / Pamela Fishman (1983): Zimmerman and West found that in mixed-sex conversations, \(96\%\) of interruptions were made by men, reflecting patriarchal power dynamics. Fishman observed that women do the conversational "shitwork" (asking questions, using backchannelling) to keep dialogue moving because men often fail to support conversational topics.
• 3. The Difference Model – Deborah Tannen (1990): In You Just Don't Understand, Tannen suggested men and women belong to different sociolinguistic subcultures, using report talk (men: factual, status-seeking) versus rapport talk (women: relationship-building). She framed this around six binary contrasts:
– Status vs. Support
– Independence vs. Intimacy
– Advice vs. Understanding
– Information vs. Feelings
– Orders vs. Proposals
– Conflict vs. Compromise
• 4. The Dynamic / Diversity Model – Deborah Cameron (2008) & Janet Hyde (2005): Cameron (The Myth of Mars and Venus) critiques simplistic gender binaries, arguing that language is performative and shaped by context rather than biological sex. Hyde's Gender Similarities Hypothesis supports this through meta-analysis, showing that men and women are psychologically and linguistically far more similar than they are different.
B. Regional and Social Variation (Accent & Sociolect)
• William Labov (1966) – New York Department Stores: Studied the pronunciation of the post-vocalic rhotic /r/ across three department stores of differing social prestige (Saks, Macy's, S. Klein). He found that the standard /r/ sound was used most frequently by higher social classes and increased during conscious, careful speech, demonstrating overt prestige and social stratification.
• Peter Trudgill (1974) – Norwich Study: Investigated the non-standard velar nasal variation (using the non-standard [-in'] instead of standard [-iŋ] in words like walking). Trudgill discovered that working-class men frequently used [-in'] and under-reported their standard usage (valuing covert prestige and toughness), while women across all classes over-reported their use of standard [-iŋ] (seeking overt social status).
• Leslie Milroy (1980) – Belfast Social Networks: Explored how integration into local community networks impacts speech. Dense, multiplex networks (where individuals live, work, and socialise together) reinforce non-standard vernacular forms. Loose, uniplex networks (individualised contacts) accelerate language standardisation and change.
• Howard Giles (1973) – Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT): Explains how individuals adapt their language to signal social closeness or distance:
– Convergence: Moving speech closer to the interlocutor's style (upwards toward standard English or downwards toward regional vernacular) to reduce social distance.
– Divergence: Emphasising linguistic differences to assert identity, distinctiveness, or power.
C. Occupational Language
• John Swales (1990) – Discourse Communities: Defined a discourse community as a group with shared common goals, mechanisms of intercommunication, participatory feedback, specific professional genres/lexis (jargon), and a required threshold of expertise.
• Drew & Heritage (1992) – Institutional Talk: Identified features of workplace communication including goal orientation, strict turn-taking rules, specialised professional lexis, and structural asymmetry in power and knowledge.
• Almut Koester (2004) – Relational Talk: Highlighted that workplace communication is not solely transactional. Phatic communication (small talk) and relational talk build solidarity and interpersonal harmony, which directly aids workplace efficiency.
Key Takeaway: Never present older theories (like Lakoff) as absolute facts. Always weigh them against contemporary, dynamic perspectives (like Cameron or Hyde).
4. Step-by-Step: Writing the Section A Discursive Essay
A discursive essay requires an evaluative thesis that directly addresses the prompt, followed by a balanced, multi-perspective discussion.
Step 1: Unpack the Prompt & Formulate an Evaluative Thesis
Do not simply agree or disagree. Establish a nuanced line of argument in your introduction that acknowledges complexity.
Step 2: Structure Your Body Paragraphs Using Critical Evaluation
Structure your paragraphs around ideas rather than single theorists. Compare contrasting viewpoints using this pattern:
1. Point: Introduce a conceptual argument linked to the prompt.
2. Linguistic Evidence/Theory: Cite a relevant study or model (e.g., Zimmerman & West or Trudgill) with exact terminology.
3. Methodological Critique: Evaluate the study's validity (e.g., sample size, historical context of the 1970s, observer's paradox).
4. Counter-Perspective: Offer an alternative viewpoint (e.g., Cameron's Diversity approach or Giles's CAT).
5. Synthesis: Summarise what this reveals about language variation in contemporary society.
Step 3: Evaluate Methodologies
To access top marks in AO2, critically assess how research was gathered:
• Sample size and representativeness: Was the study conducted on a small, unrepresentative group (e.g., college students)?
• Observer's Paradox: Did participants change their speech because they knew they were being recorded?
• Historical Context: Have social norms changed since the study was published (e.g., 1970s vs. today)?
Key Takeaway: High-scoring essays do not just describe what a theorist found; they explain how reliable the study is and why other linguists agree or disagree.
5. Common Pitfalls & Examiner Warnings
Avoid these frequent exam mistakes highlighted in examiner reports:
• Feature-Spotting / Term-Dumping: Listing terms like "hedges" or "tag questions" without linking them to social meaning, power, or identity.
• Treating Theories as Universal Truths: Asserting that "women speak tentatively" because Lakoff said so in 1975. Treat early models as contested hypotheses.
• Anecdotal Banter: Relying on personal stories ("My dad always speaks like...") instead of citing academic studies and data.
• One-Sided Arguments: Writing a biased manifesto rather than a balanced, critical evaluation.
• Mixing up Section Tasks: Writing an informal, opinionated opinion article for Section A (Section A requires a formal academic essay; Section B is the creative/journalistic task).
6. Quick Revision Summary
• Paper 2 Section A: 30 Marks (AO1 = 10, AO2 = 20) | Academic Discursive Essay.
• Gender Models: Deficit (Lakoff) \(\rightarrow\) Dominance (Zimmerman & West, Fishman) \(\rightarrow\) Difference (Tannen) \(\rightarrow\) Dynamic/Diversity (Cameron, Hyde).
• Accent/Dialect & Society: Labov (NYC /r/ & overt prestige), Trudgill (Norwich [-in'] & covert prestige), Milroy (Belfast social networks), Giles (CAT: convergence/divergence).
• Workplace Talk: Swales (Discourse communities), Drew & Heritage (Institutional talk), Koester (Phatic & relational talk).
• Prescriptivism Debunked: Aitchison's Damp Spoon, Crumbling Castle, and Infectious Disease metaphors.