This question requires students to demonstrate a clear understanding of two fundamental approaches to language study: prescriptivism and descriptivism. A strong answer will define each approach, outline their respective strengths and weaknesses, and provide relevant examples.

• Prescriptivism: This approach advocates for a set of 'correct' or 'standard' rules of grammar and usage. Prescriptivists believe that language should be used according to these rules, and that deviations from the standard are errors.

  • Strengths: Provides clarity and consistency in communication. Facilitates understanding across different dialects and social groups. Can be useful for formal writing and academic contexts.
  • Weaknesses: Can be seen as elitist and exclusionary. Often reflects the biases of those who establish the 'standard' rules. Can stifle linguistic creativity and innovation.
  • Example: The prescriptive rule against using split infinitives (e.g., "to boldly go") is a classic example.

• Descriptivism: This approach focuses on describing how language is actually used by speakers and listeners, without making judgments about its correctness. Descriptivists believe that all dialects and varieties of language are equally valid.

  • Strengths: Provides a more accurate and realistic picture of language use. Respects linguistic diversity. Can be useful for linguistic research and analysis.
  • Weaknesses: May not provide guidance on how to improve communication. Can be seen as lacking in standards. May not be suitable for formal contexts.
  • Example: The descriptive observation that African American Vernacular English (AAVE) has its own grammatical rules, which are not simply 'incorrect' versions of Standard English.

The answer should clearly differentiate between the two approaches and provide specific examples to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses. It should also consider the implications of each approach for language education and social attitudes towards language variation.

The writer of the newspaper article employs a range of linguistic techniques to construct a specific image of the politician being reported on. A key strategy is the use of lexical choices. The article frequently uses adjectives with negative connotations when describing the politician's performance – words like "flustered," "hesitant," and "defensive" are prominent. This creates an impression of weakness and lack of confidence.

Grammatical structures further reinforce this image. The writer often uses short, fragmented sentences when reporting the politician's responses, suggesting a lack of coherence and preparedness. Conversely, longer, more complex sentences are used when describing the opposing politician, implying greater authority and control. The use of passive voice is also notable; for example, "Questions were deflected" rather than "The politician deflected questions." This subtly shifts blame and avoids directly attributing responsibility to the politician.

Rhetorical devices are also employed. The use of question tags ("...it seemed to me that he was struggling?") invites the reader to share the writer's negative assessment. Furthermore, the writer uses metaphor, describing the politician's arguments as "shifting sands," implying instability and unreliability. By carefully selecting language, structuring sentences, and employing rhetorical techniques, the writer constructs a narrative that portrays the politician as incompetent and out of touch.

This question requires students to demonstrate an understanding of how language isn't merely a neutral vehicle for conveying information, but actively shapes social interactions and outcomes. The prompt directs them to consider linguistic features and their connection to social effects, and importantly, to engage with different linguistic approaches. A strong answer would explore several key areas:

• Pragmatics: How context influences meaning. Examples include implicature (Grice's Maxims), speech acts (assertions, requests, promises), and politeness strategies. A student might discuss how indirect requests are used to avoid direct confrontation or maintain social harmony.
• Discourse Analysis: How language is used in extended stretches of text or conversation. This could involve examining turn-taking, topic management, and the use of cohesive devices to construct meaning and maintain social relationships. Consider how different discourse styles (formal vs. informal) signal power dynamics.
• Sociolinguistics: The relationship between language and social factors like class, gender, ethnicity, and age. This could involve discussing dialect variation, code-switching, and the use of language to construct identity. A student might analyse how specific linguistic features are associated with particular social groups.
• Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): How language is used to construct and maintain power relations and ideologies. This could involve examining the use of euphemisms, framing, and bias in media texts or political discourse. A student might analyse how language is used to marginalize or exclude certain groups.

The answer should provide specific examples of linguistic features (e.g., lexical choices, grammatical structures, rhetorical devices) and demonstrate how they contribute to the desired social effect. It should also explicitly reference and explain the principles of the linguistic approaches being discussed.