Writing skills for language study

Show the difference between a narrating and an evaluating paragraph on the claim that gender differences in language are really about power.

1. 01The weak (narrating) version

   'Lakoff said women use hedges and tag questions. Zimmerman and West said men interrupt more. Tannen said men and women have different styles.' - true, but it merely lists models with no argument.

2. 02Reframe as a position

   State a claim the paragraph will defend: that the features attributed to gender are better explained by power and status.

3. 03Integrate evidence evaluatively

   'O'Barr and Atkins found that the features Lakoff called "women's language" actually correlated with low status in court, not gender - which supports the power explanation over the deficit model.'

4. 04Weigh and conclude

   Acknowledge the counter (Tannen's difference model) but note it downplays inequality, and judge that power explains the data better than gender alone - an argued position, not a list.

Result: The evaluating version states a position, uses O'Barr and Atkins to support it, answers the difference-model counter, and reaches a judgement - transforming the same knowledge from an inert list into a marshalled argument, which is what AO2 rewards.

Improve this weak analysis of a charity appeal: 'The writer uses the word "you" and some short sentences to make it personal.'

1. 01Name features precisely

   Replace 'the word you' with 'the second-person direct address' and 'some short sentences' with 'the simple, minor sentences'.

2. 02Add embedded evidence

   Quote precisely: 'the repeated second-person pronoun "you" in "you can save a life today"'.

3. 03Analyse the effect

   'positions each reader as individually addressed and personally capable of acting - Fairclough's synthetic personalisation - while the simple sentence structure makes the appeal feel urgent and direct.'

4. 04Reach the meaning

   'Together these construct an intimate, urgent relationship in which the reader feels a personal responsibility to donate, serving the appeal's persuasive purpose.'

Result: The upgraded version names features precisely, embeds evidence, analyses the synthetic-personalisation effect and reaches the persuasive meaning in context - transforming feature-spotting into developed, integrated analysis through the feature-effect-meaning movement.

Rewrite this over-technical sentence for a general audience without losing accuracy: 'Non-standard varieties exhibit systematic morphosyntactic features such as negative concord and copula levelling.'

1. 01Identify the barriers

   'morphosyntactic', 'negative concord' and 'copula levelling' are technical terms a general reader will not know - they must be glossed or replaced, not dropped (accuracy must survive).

2. 02Gloss with an example

   'negative concord' can become 'the double negative, as in "I didn't do nothing"'; 'copula levelling' can become 'using "was" where the standard uses "were", as in "we was"'.

3. 03Rebuild the sentence

   'Regional dialects follow their own consistent grammar. When someone says "I didn't do nothing" or "we was late", they are not making random errors - they are using rules that many languages share.'

4. 04Check register and accuracy

   The rewrite keeps the accurate point (varieties are systematic) but uses plain lexis, concrete examples and an engaging tenor suited to a general audience.

Result: The rewrite preserves the accurate linguistic point (non-standard varieties are systematic) while replacing jargon with glossed, exemplified plain English - the accurate-yet-accessible register control that directed writing demands (AO2 and AO5 together).

Two texts both persuade readers to visit a city - a glossy tourist brochure and a personal travel blog. Sketch an integrated comparative point.

1. 01Find the analytical thread

   Both texts persuade, but construct DIFFERENT relationships with the reader: the brochure through polished authority, the blog through personal intimacy.

2. 02Cross-reference under a point

   'Whereas the brochure uses impersonal, superlative-laden noun phrases ("the city's world-renowned skyline") to construct expert authority, the blog uses first-person anecdote and direct address ("you'll fall for it like I did") to build intimacy.'

3. 03Explain the difference by context

   'The contrast reflects their contexts: the commercially produced brochure must appear authoritative and trustworthy, while the personal blog trades on the relatability and authenticity of an individual voice.'

4. 04Signal with connectives

   Use 'whereas', 'by contrast' and 'in the same way' to keep both texts continuously in view within the single point.

Result: The integrated point identifies a thread (both persuade but construct different reader relationships), cross-references the two texts within one paragraph using comparative connectives, and explains the difference by context - genuine AO4 comparison rather than a sequential 'A then B' analysis.

Revise this weak sentence for register, coherence and accuracy: 'Basically the writer chucks in loads of describing words which proves the text is really biased.'

1. 01Fix the register

   'Basically', 'chucks in', 'loads of' and 'really' are too informal for academic writing; replace with measured, formal phrasing.

2. 02Correct the terminology

   'describing words' should be the precise 'evaluative adjectives' (or 'pre-modifiers'); name the feature accurately.

3. 03Hedge the overclaim

   'proves' overstates - analysis 'suggests' or 'indicates'; and 'biased' should be the more precise 'constructs a particular representation'.

4. 04Rebuild coherently

   'The writer's frequent use of evaluative adjectives suggests that the text constructs a particular, and far from neutral, representation of its subject.'

Result: The revision replaces informal lexis with a measured academic register, names the feature precisely ('evaluative adjectives'), hedges the claim ('suggests') and states it coherently - the controlled academic expression AO1 rewards across every written response.