Question 1 This question was based on an extract adapted from a blog on teenage sexting by

Stephen Balkham, http://blog.pcpandora.com/2009/03/27. It required candidates to write a 500-

word essay in which they were to state the writer’s main point, identify the writer’s purpose, and
discuss organizational strategies and language techniques used by the writer to achieve his
purpose. The mean of 14.36 or approximately 57 per cent represented a marginal increase over
2017 when it was 54 per cent. The mean for this question was the highest on this paper. Many
candidates, generally, were able to differentiate between the main point and purpose but there
were still too many who incorrectly expressed the main point in purposive terms. Indeed, some
of these latter candidates conflated both concepts and did not express themselves clearly. They
were not able to produce the elementary frame The main point is … or The main point is that ...
or The writer’s purpose is to ... For the purpose in particular, many candidates automatically used
the basic purpose verb ‘to inform’ and ignored more meaning-specific verbs like sensitize,
educate or highlight. Teachers need to remind students that often the main point is not a sentence
that can simply be pulled from the passage but may be a synthesis of ideas or it may have to be
inferred. Although the format for this question has remained the same for many examination
cycles, there was still a small but significant number of candidates who were still unable to
correctly identify organizational strategies and language techniques in the text. There seems to be
a genuine confusion of meaning between the rhetorical question (which is a question asked for
effect where an answer is not supplied or expected) and hypophora (which is a figure of speech
in which a writer raises a question, and then immediately provides an answer to that question).
There was also some confusion of the terms compare and contrast. A general weakness is the
fact that many candidates robbed themselves of valuable marks by first correctly identifying the
relevant strategies and techniques but subsequently failed to adequately explain how these
strategies or techniques impacted the achievement of the writer’s purpose. Some responses just
copied long stretches of information from the text without specifically identifying and
commenting on specific strategies or techniques. Additionally, there are still many candidates
who are uncertain of what constitutes organizational strategies and language techniques, and
hence wasted much time analysing generic features of discourse related to the structure of the
essay (sentence, introduction, body, and conclusion) and punctuation (full stop, commas,
hyphen). This suggests that while they understood the broad outline of argumentative and
expository essays, they were not conversant with the structure of discourse written in those two
modes. Teachers need to focus on correcting this misconception where it exists. Where
candidates misidentified an organizational strategy as a language technique or vice versa, they
were not awarded marks. Candidates should therefore be very specific in naming organizational
strategies and language techniques, and should develop these in 4 discrete paragraphs. These
paragraphs should be introduced with appropriate topic sentences and subsequent paragraphs
linked to previous ones through appropriate transitional and topical devices. By failing to so
organize their responses to the various tasks in the question, a significant number of candidates
failed to optimize the mark they could score for organization. Teachers are encouraged to note
and plan remedial strategies to correct the following deficiencies observed among weaker
candidates:  Inability to differentiate between organizational strategies and language techniques
 Confusing generic features of discourse with organizational strategies and language techniques
 Failure or refusal to adequately comment on or discuss how the strategies and techniques
identified facilitate the writer’s achievement of his purpose  Failure to organize their responses
with clarity and coherence which include clearly stated topic sentences, relevant supporting
details, use of transitions and connectives, and effective introductions and conclusions 
Waffling by generalizing their use of the terms strategies and techniques, without identifying any
specific ones so examiners could not be sure which concepts were being discussed in various
paragraphs The essay is marked for content, organization, and expression, with content carrying
a maximum of ten marks, and the other two categories carrying seven and eight marks,
respectively. The mark scheme allows for candidates to be weak in content, for example, but to
be better in one or both of the other two categories. It is therefore advisable for teachers to pay
more attention to matters of organization (for example, introduction, conclusion, paragraph
development and sequencing, transitions within and between paragraphs) and expression (for
example, punctuation, spelling, consistent use of tense, rules of concord in the use of language,
avoiding sentence fragments, and use of continuous prose). Teachers are encouraged, in
preparing candidates for this question, to ensure that they  can differentiate between the
concepts of main idea and purpose  can differentiate between organizational strategies and
language techniques  can discuss how each strategy or technique identified helps the writer to
achieve his/her purpose  avoid confusing generic features of discourse with organizational
strategies and language techniques when such are not deployed in some purposive way by the
author to achieve some predetermined effect  structure the essay by providing an introduction, a
body of well-developed cohesive paragraphs, structural and semantic connections between
paragraphs, and a conclusion  understand the organizational strategies and language techniques
normally associated with descriptive, narrative, argumentative and expository types of discourse
5  explore the different textbooks on the market for a fuller understanding of the syllabus.
Section B — Module 2: Language and Community Question 2

The extract was based on a short story from Miguel Street by V.S. Naipaul and told the story of
a painter named Edward who was upset when he did not win a prize in a poster competition.
After his loss, he berated all things Trinidadian. Candidates were required to write an essay in no
more than 500 words that discussed three dialectal variations used in the extract, comment on
three communicative behaviours displayed by Edward and describe four ways in which
Edward’s contempt for his homeland could be dramatized in a video presentation. The mean on
this question of 10.49 or approximately 50 per cent was the lowest on the paper. Although the
responses indicated that most candidates understood the extract, a significant number of them
obviously did not and, hence, surmised that Edward was an American. This error led to incorrect
responses on some parts of the questions, especially

Part (b). A few candidates confused the American sentry for Edward. In response to Part (a),
candidates could have made reference to any three of the following dialectal variations —
Standard English, Caribbean Creole English, Foreign English (American English being the
variation) and Profane English. A few candidates presented a general discussion of the language
situation in the Caribbean instead of identifying the actual dialectal variations and the characters
who used them. To score the maximum allocated marks, candidates had to both identify three
dialectal varieties and give appropriate examples of each. Many candidates were of the mistaken
impression that the acrolect, mesolect and basilect, stages of the Post Creole Language
Continuum, were separate dialectal variations. Teachers must make it clear to students that these
points/stages on the Creole Continuum are sometimes blurred but collectively constitute
Caribbean Creole English. Hence, candidates could also have correctly referred to these stages as
‘Creole’. This basic misunderstanding led to many candidates not scoring the full three marks.
Added to this was the fact that while some candidates identified the correct variations, the
examples chosen to illustrate their answers were incorrect. One common error was the response
given as an example of the Standard English variety. Many students selected “I was stupid to
send in anything I paint with my own hands for Trinidad people to judge” as an example of
Standard English, which is obviously grammatically unsound for Standard English. In the future,
teachers should stress the different dialects of English found in the English-speaking Caribbean:
Standard English, Creole English, Erudite English, Colloquial English, Rasta English, Profane
English, Foreign English and Radio and Television English, and acquaint students with
appropriate examples of the variations. Caribbean short stories and poems will provide, for
students, a plethora of examples of such dialects in use. Teachers are also advised to rivet in their
students’ minds that the term dialect is not a Caribbean 6 dialectal variation, nor is any other
pejorative misnomers such as Broken English. Dialect refers to any variety of a spoken/written
language, that is, Standard English is a dialect of English, as is Creole English.

Part (b) required students to identify three communicative behaviours shown by Edward. This
task proved challenging for a significant number of candidates, many of whom did not seem
aware that communicative behaviours are the same as non-verbal behaviours. These candidates
simply gave examples of verbal responses from the extract for the answers. The following is an
expected answer for this section: A communicative behaviour shown by Edward was when he
returned to Miguel Street “swaggering,” which indicated his pride in having had a conversation
with the American sentry. Well-prepared candidates were also able to identify that this
communicative behaviour was an example of kinesics. Some candidates incorrectly gave the
communicative behaviours of other characters in the extract including the sentry. At this level, it
is expected that candidates will read carefully to verify the requirements of the question before
writing an answer.

Part (c) was the most challenging for candidates and was the segment that received the lowest
scores in this question. Candidates were asked to describe four ways in which Edward’s
contempt for his homeland could be dramatized in a video presentation. To effectively
accomplish this task, candidates were required to describe elements of Edward’s actions and
speech that are specifically stated in the excerpt or which can be reasonably imagined based on
what is specifically stated. Answers to this section of the essay showed that many candidates
were being drilled for this section as many of the responses spoke about humour, which had been
asked in previous years but was not relevant to the current examination. Weaker candidates
offered answers including Power Point presentations, skits, songs, poems and slides as parts of a
dramatization, indicating a poor understanding of what was expected here. Candidates were
expected to use the incidents of the narrative to show how the video would assist an observer in
hearing and/or seeing Edward’s contempt for his homeland. Viable answers included the
following: After not placing in the poster competition, Edward could show his contempt for
Trinidad by displaying a facial expression that shows disdain such as a smirk or a scowl. Edward
could scornfully point out the size of the roads in Trinidad by using his hands to make an
expansive gesture to compare how small these are in relation to roads in America. Teachers are
advised to adhere to the recommendations contained in the subject reports to guide their teaching
since composing an essay continues to be a challenging skill for numerous students. Teachers
need to continue to hone both their essay-writing knowledge and their essay-teaching skills.
Emphasis should be placed on the structure of expository essays, especially on fundamental
topics such as 7 i. writing effective introductions ii. clearly expressing controlling ideas iii. using
relevant evidence to illustrate each topic sentence or controlling idea iv. making a paragraph
cohesive v. making transitions from paragraph to paragraph vi. writing effective conclusions.
With regard to expression, many candidates demonstrated weakness in their attempts at i.
subject/verb agreement ii. selecting and consistently using the right tense iii. controlling complex
syntax iv. choosing appropriate diction v. spelling words correctly vi. punctuating correctly vii.
using the appropriate register/level of formality.