OxfordAQA International A-Level English Language: Language and Society — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Unit 2 Language and Society study guide · Unit 2 Language and Society revision notes

---

Section A

1. Name the four social functions of language this unit’s Section A assesses. [4]

2. State which assessment objective, AO1 or AO3, is weighted more heavily in Unit 2 than in Unit 1, and explain what this signals for revision priorities. [3]

Section B

3. Explain what is meant by “group rapport and shared perspectives” as a social function of language, giving one linguistic feature that could signal it. [3]

4. A transcript shows a manager using closed questions, topic control and formal register with an employee. Explain which social function this demonstrates, and how. [4]

5. Explain why Section B of this unit is described as an academic essay rather than a creative or transformed writing task, and how this differs from Unit 1’s Section B. [4]

6. Explain why a Section B essay that only restates the Section A analysis is likely to lose marks, and describe what it should do instead. [5]

7. Explain why revision for Section A should include spoken and multimodal texts, not only written prose. [4]

8. A piece of online banter between friends uses in-jokes and playful misspelling. Explain which social function this best demonstrates, and identify two specific language features that support your answer. [5]

9. Evaluate the claim that “identity and relationship” and “power and status” are simply the same social function viewed from two different angles. [8]

---

Answers

1. Group rapport and shared perspectives; power and status; identity and relationship; play and performance [4 — 1 mark each].

2. AO1 (understanding of methods, terminology, concepts and issues) is weighted more heavily in Unit 2 than in Unit 1, where AO3 (using English in different ways) dominates [1] [1]. This signals that precise linguistic terminology matters at least as much as fluent writing style for this unit — vague description of a text costs marks that named, precise terminology would earn [1].

3. Group rapport and shared perspectives is language that builds solidarity around a shared interest or affiliation between speakers or writers [1] [1]. A signalling feature could be shared in-group vocabulary or references that assume common knowledge, marking the audience as insiders [1].

4. This demonstrates power and status [1]. Closed questions and topic control let the manager restrict what is discussed and when the subject changes, while the employee can only respond within that frame [1] [1]; formal register maintained by the more powerful speaker reinforces the institutional hierarchy of the interaction [1].

5. Unit 2’s Section B is an academic essay that uses the Section A analysis directly as evidence for an argument about language and social group behaviour [1] [1]. This differs from Unit 1’s Section B, which is a transformed or creative writing task, not an evidence-based academic argument [1] [1].

6. A Section B essay that only restates the Section A analysis fails to build an academic argument, since description alone is not the assessed skill — the task specifically asks for argument, connected directly to the analysed data [1] [1]. Instead, the essay should use the observations from Section A as evidence to support a wider claim about language and social group behaviour, going beyond what was already said in the analysis [1] [1].

7. Section A’s source material is explicitly drawn from spoken, written and multimodal texts [1] [1]. Revision confined only to written prose leaves a genuine gap, since an unfamiliar spoken transcript or multimodal text in the exam would then come as a surprise rather than a format the candidate has already practised identifying language features in [1] [1].

8. This best demonstrates play and performance [1]. Supporting features: in-jokes, which rely on shared knowledge only the group possesses, creating an exclusionary, performative effect [1] [1]; and playful misspelling, which is a deliberate, creative deviation from standard orthography rather than an error, used for humour or group identity [1] [1].

9. Case that they are the same function: both power/status and identity/relationship can involve word choices that construct how a speaker is perceived by others, and a single feature (such as formal register) can sometimes be read as doing both at once [1] [1]. Case that they are genuinely distinct: the specification separates them as distinct social functions, and a text may draw on one without the other — a piece of playful in-group banter can construct identity and relationship without any claim to power or status being made at all [1] [1], while a legal document can assert power and status through instrumental authority without expressing anything about personal identity or relationship [1]. Treating them as interchangeable also loses the precision AO1 explicitly rewards in this unit, since naming the correct specific function is part of what is assessed [1]. Judgement: the two functions can overlap in a single text, but they are not the same function under two names — power/status concerns who has authority or control, while identity/relationship concerns how a speaker presents themselves or connects with others, and a text can do either, both, or neither depending on its purpose [1] [1]. A strong answer identifies which function (or functions) a specific feature demonstrates, rather than treating the two as freely interchangeable labels [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing what a text says without naming the specific language feature and the social function it demonstrates.
• Treating “power and status” and “identity and relationship” as interchangeable rather than distinct, separately assessable functions.
• Writing a Section B essay that restates the Section A analysis instead of using it as evidence for an argument.
• Confusing Unit 2’s academic-essay Section B with Unit 1’s transformed or creative Directed Writing task.
• Revising only written prose and being caught out by an unfamiliar spoken or multimodal text in the exam.