Guide to Paper 2 (AQA A-Level English Language): Revision Notes
Language Discourses
Overview
In Paper 2, language discourses refer to the debates, attitudes, beliefs, and arguments that people express about language. These discussions explore various aspects of how we use and perceive language in society. Discourses centre on several key questions:
- How should language be used in different contexts?
- How is language changing over time?
- What constitutes good or bad English?
- How does language reflect identity, power, and social structures?
You will encounter these discourses in Questions 3 and 4, where writers present strong opinions about language issues. Your task is to analyse and evaluate these viewpoints by:
- Identifying the writer's perspective
- Examining the methods they use to construct their argument
- Connecting their ideas to linguistic theory
- Comparing different attitudes and arguments
Most language discourses can be categorised as either prescriptivist or descriptivist, though many debates contain nuanced positions that blend elements of both approaches. Understanding this fundamental distinction is essential for analysing unseen texts effectively.
Prescriptivism vs descriptivism
Prescriptivism
Prescriptivists hold a rule-based view of language. They believe that English should adhere to established rules and conventions that must be maintained to preserve standards. From this perspective, linguistic change is viewed as deterioration or decay rather than natural evolution. Non-standard varieties of English are often dismissed as incorrect, illogical, or inferior to Standard English.
Core prescriptivist beliefs include:
- Language has fixed rules that speakers and writers should follow
- Standards must be actively maintained and protected
- Linguistic change represents decline from a previous golden age
- Non-standard varieties reflect poor education or carelessness
Common prescriptivist claims you might encounter:
- Young people are destroying the language through poor grammar and text speak
- Grammar standards are falling in schools and society
- Technology is harming communication skills and literacy
- Regional accents make speakers sound uneducated or unprofessional
These claims are frequently used in exam texts and should be evaluated critically using linguistic theory.
Prescriptivist arguments often appeal to several persuasive strategies. They may cite authority by referencing dictionaries, grammar books, or education systems to legitimise their views. They frequently invoke nostalgia by idealising a supposed golden age when English was purer or more correct. Many prescriptivist discourses also tap into fears about social decline, suggesting that language deterioration reflects broader moral or cultural problems.
Descriptivism
Descriptivists take a scientific approach to language, observing and describing how people actually use English rather than imposing rules about how they should use it. They view linguistic evolution as a natural process that occurs in all living languages. From a descriptivist perspective, non-standard varieties are rule-governed systems that follow their own consistent patterns, not random errors. Variation in language reflects personal identity, creativity, and the diversity of speech communities.
Core descriptivist beliefs include:
- Language change is natural and inevitable, neither good nor bad
- Non-standard varieties follow systematic rules and patterns
- Linguistic variation reflects creativity and identity construction
- Judgements about correctness depend on context and purpose
Descriptivists actively challenge prescriptive myths by using linguistic evidence and research. They explain language change through linguistic principles rather than subjective opinions about decline. This approach recognises that all varieties of English have value and validity within their own contexts, whether that is regional dialect, youth language, or professional jargon.
Common language discourses in the exam
Language change discourses
Debates about language change form one of the most frequent discourse types in exam texts. These discussions typically explore whether linguistic change represents progress or decline. Writers may debate change versus decay, arguing either that language is evolving naturally or that it is deteriorating from previous standards.
Another common focus is modern forms versus tradition, where writers contrast contemporary language practices with established conventions. The Americanisation of British English often appears as a specific concern, with writers debating whether American spellings, vocabulary, and grammar are influencing British English positively or negatively. Finally, many texts examine how new technologies are shaping language, particularly through social media, texting, and online communication.
Contrasting perspectives on language change:
Prescriptivist views typically frame linguistic change as contamination or loss, suggesting that modern forms lack the elegance or precision of traditional English.
Descriptivist views frame the same changes as evolution and adaptation, emphasising how language responds flexibly to new communication needs and social contexts.
Standard English and correctness
Discourses about Standard English explore fundamental questions about language authority and prestige. These debates ask what counts as proper English and who has the authority to decide. Writers often discuss attitudes towards regional grammar features such as I were, we was, or ain't, examining whether these forms should be stigmatised or accepted.
These discourses frequently reveal underlying issues of social inequality and class prejudice. Attitudes towards non-standard varieties often reflect judgements about speakers' education, intelligence, or social status rather than the linguistic validity of the forms themselves. Debates about correctness also expose ideologies of education, revealing assumptions about what schools should teach and how language standards should be maintained.
Accent and dialect attitudes
Discussions of accent and dialect examine how pronunciation and regional speech patterns are perceived in society. A common debate topic contrasts prestige accents (such as Received Pronunciation) with stigmatised accents (such as Birmingham or Liverpool accents), questioning why certain varieties carry more social status than others.
Many texts explore whether accents matter in employment, discussing accent discrimination in hiring, promotion, and professional contexts. Writers also examine media stereotypes of regional speech, analysing how television, film, and news coverage represent different accents and what messages these representations convey. Some texts confront the notion that certain accents are lazy, ugly, or incorrect, challenging prejudices that have no linguistic basis.
These discourses connect directly to questions of language, identity, and power, showing how accent and dialect choices both reflect and construct social hierarchies.
Technology and language
Technology discourses explore how digital communication is transforming English. Common topics include texting, emojis, and abbreviations, examining whether these forms enhance or limit expression. Writers debate social media slang and the rapid evolution of online vocabulary. A frequent concern involves fears about literacy decline, with prescriptivists worrying that digital shortcuts are damaging spelling and grammar skills.
The central question is often whether technology enriches or damages language. Prescriptivist arguments typically contain elements of moral panic, framing technology as a threat to communication standards. These texts may employ generational narratives that position young people as victims of or perpetrators of language decline. Descriptivist responses usually emphasise how technology expands linguistic creativity and enables new forms of expression suited to modern communication contexts.
Gender and language discourses
Gender-related language discourses examine whether men and women speak differently and what this means for society. Writers debate whether men and women speak differently, often referencing linguistic research but sometimes relying on stereotypes. Texts may discuss sexism in language, exploring how vocabulary, grammar, and discourse patterns reflect or reinforce gender inequality.
Gender-neutral forms (such as they as a singular pronoun or terms like firefighter instead of fireman) frequently appear in these debates, with some writers supporting inclusive language and others dismissing it as unnecessary. Related discussions examine stereotypes in media representation, analysing how different genders are portrayed through language in advertising, news, and entertainment.
Writers may use broad generalisations that you can challenge using linguistic theory. Researchers such as Cameron, Tannen, and Butler provide theoretical frameworks for evaluating claims about gendered language, helping you move beyond simplistic assertions to nuanced analysis.
Political correctness and inclusivity
Discourses about political correctness explore tensions between inclusive language and freedom of expression. These debates focus on inclusive language relating to race, disability, LGBTQ+ identities, and other marginalised groups. Writers question whether such changes are necessary or excessive, with some viewing them as essential progress and others seeing them as going too far.
A central tension involves freedom of speech versus social sensitivity. Some writers argue that language reforms restrict open expression, whilst others contend that inclusive language reduces harm and promotes equality. These discourses often expose ideological conflict between progressive and conservative values, revealing fundamental disagreements about social change and linguistic responsibility.
Identifying discourses in texts
When analysing Question 3 and Question 4 texts, you need to identify several key elements systematically. This analytical framework will help you understand what the writer is doing and why.
Viewpoint and argument
Begin by establishing the writer's central claim. What is the writer arguing? Identify their main position on the language issue. Determine whether they are prescriptive or descriptive in their approach, or whether they occupy a more nuanced position. Assess how strongly the argument is framed—are they presenting a balanced discussion or taking an assertive stance?
Linguistic focus
Next, identify which aspect of language the text addresses. Is the writer discussing change, variation, correctness, or identity? Understanding the specific linguistic focus helps you connect the discourse to appropriate theoretical frameworks. Consider what aspect of language is being debated—grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, style, or something else?
Attitudes and values
Examine the underlying attitudes that drive the writer's argument. Look for appeals to nostalgia, authority, morality, or fear in prescriptivist writing. In descriptivist writing, notice whether they celebrate change, diversity, or creativity in language use. These attitudes reveal the writer's values and assumptions about language and society.
Use of evidence
Evaluate how the writer supports their claims. Do they use anecdotes based on personal observation? Do they cite expert authority from linguists, dictionaries, or research? Do they draw on personal experience to illustrate their points? Notice whether they use selective examples that support their view whilst ignoring counter-evidence. The type and quality of evidence significantly affects the argument's credibility.
Audience positioning
Consider how the text positions its readers. Is the reader invited to agree with the writer's perspective? Analyse whether the tone is humorous, outraged, nostalgic, or ironic. The tone and positioning strategies reveal how the writer attempts to persuade their audience and what assumptions they make about readers' existing attitudes.
AO2: linguistic theory to use in discourse essays
Connecting texts to linguistic theory strengthens your analysis by moving beyond surface-level description to theoretical understanding. These key thinkers provide frameworks for evaluating language discourses.
Milroy argues that standard language functions as an ideology rather than a linguistic reality. There is no inherent superiority in Standard English; its prestige comes from social and political factors, not linguistic qualities. Use Milroy to challenge prescriptivist assumptions about correctness.
Cameron developed the concept of verbal hygiene, which describes how people attempt to control and regulate language to enforce social norms. This theory explains why prescriptivists feel compelled to correct others' language use—they are maintaining perceived social and moral order through linguistic policing.
Aitchison identified common metaphors used in prescriptivist writing about language change. These include the crumbling castle metaphor (language is falling apart), the damp spoon metaphor (lazy speakers are causing decay), and the infectious disease metaphor (bad language spreads like illness). Recognising these metaphors helps you analyse how prescriptivists frame change negatively.
Crystal offers a descriptivist perspective on technology, arguing that digital communication expands and enriches language rather than damaging it. Technology enables linguistic creativity and provides new tools for expression appropriate to modern contexts.
Trudgill demonstrates that non-standard dialects are rule-governed and logical systems, not random errors or corrupted forms of Standard English. His work validates linguistic diversity and challenges prescriptivist dismissals of non-standard varieties.
These theories help you challenge or support arguments in the texts you analyse, providing evidence-based frameworks for evaluation rather than personal opinion.
AO3: contextualising discourses
Language discourses do not exist in a vacuum; they are shaped by broader social, cultural, and historical contexts. Understanding these contexts helps you explain why particular attitudes appear at specific times and for particular audiences.
Discourses are influenced by various contextual factors including:
- Politics (debates about national identity, immigration, or education policy)
- Education (concerns about standards, curriculum, or assessment)
- Media moral panic (sensationalised coverage of youth language or technology)
- Generational conflict (tensions between age groups about language change)
- Technological change (the impact of digital communication)
- Social inequality (class-based language prejudices)
- National identity (concerns about preserving or defining British English)
When analysing texts, you should comment on why the text expresses particular attitudes at that time and for that audience.
For example, a text from the 1990s about mobile phones would reflect different technological contexts than a 2020s text about social media. A newspaper article might appeal to different values than an academic book. Contextualising helps you understand the discourse as a product of specific circumstances rather than a universal truth.
How to compare discourses (Question 4)
Question 4 requires you to compare two texts expressing different perspectives on language issues. Effective comparison goes beyond listing similarities and differences to analyse the relationship between the texts.
When comparing texts, follow these strategies:
Identify each writer's viewpoint clearly at the start. Make sure you understand what each is claiming before attempting comparison.
Compare their attitudes using precise terminology. For example, one writer might be nostalgic whilst another is celebratory; one might be prescriptive whilst another is descriptive.
Analyse how each constructs authority through their use of evidence, expertise, or personal experience. Consider whether one relies on anecdote whilst the other uses research.
Compare language methods including tone, modality (certainty or tentativeness), metaphors, and use of anecdotes or examples. These methods reveal how each writer attempts to persuade.
Link both to theorists and linguistic debates such as prescriptivism versus descriptivism, showing how their views align with or challenge theoretical positions.
A strong comparative paragraph demonstrates both similarities and differences in framing, purpose, and ideology. Rather than discussing the texts separately, integrate comparison throughout your response, making explicit connections between their approaches.
Exam-ready AO2 lines
Example sentences showing how to integrate linguistic theory:
Milroy's theory suggests that standard English functions as an ideology rather than a linguistic fact, which challenges the prescriptivist assumptions about correctness found in this text.
Cameron's concept of verbal hygiene explains why the writer attempts to regulate language—they are seeking to enforce social and moral order through linguistic control.
Aitchison identifies the crumbling castle metaphor in prescriptive writing, and this text exemplifies that pattern by romanticising a supposed past golden age of English.
Crystal's argument that technology encourages linguistic creativity rather than decay directly contests the moral panic discourses present in prescriptivist responses to digital communication.
These sentences demonstrate how to use theory as evidence to support your evaluation rather than simply mentioning theorists' names.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Language discourses are debates about how language should be used, how it is changing, and what this means for society and identity.
-
Prescriptivism views language as rule-bound with standards to maintain, whilst descriptivism views language as naturally evolving with all varieties having systematic patterns.
-
Common discourse topics include language change, Standard English, accent attitudes, technology, gender, and political correctness—each revealing underlying social attitudes.
-
Always identify the writer's viewpoint, analyse their methods, link to linguistic theory (especially Milroy, Cameron, Aitchison, Crystal, and Trudgill), and contextualise their attitudes.
-
In Question 4, compare both similarities and differences in viewpoint, attitude, methods, and theoretical positioning rather than treating texts separately.