Eksamen

Jeg har lige været oppe til eksamen i engelsk B på STX-niveau, og føler selv at det gik godt, men er normalt heller ikke den bedste til engelsk.

Er utrolig spændt på min karakter og har svært ved at vente, derfor lyder mit spørgsmål på, om der ikke er en venlig sjæl, der vil læse den og give en tilbage melding på den og hvilken karakter jeg kan forvente.

Ved godt at det er meget at forvente, men det kunne virkelig være rart.

A – English spelling

1. Give an outline of the views on English spelling presented in texts 1 and 2.

Both texts have a very tendentious opinion on the views of English spelling, but their opinions are very different.
Text 1 ”Proper spelling? Its Tyme to Let Luce”, an article from WIRED website, written by Anne Trubek, published January 31, 2012 claims that the incorrect grammar in English spelling is just a part of the evolution and should not be changed(Text 1, ll.49-54). She thinks that it would be great if we lose our idea of correct spelling, and it is just a fairly recent invention (text 1, ll.33-35). Therefore she thinks that we have to delete all grammar permissions and instead just let ourselves decide how we want to spell (text 1, ll.44-45). Furthermore she also thinks the spelling is a part of the technology evolution and we have to make our own grammar rules and just play with the language (text 1, ll.19-21).
However she still says that English spelling is a terrible mess, full of arbitrary contrivances and exceptions that outcome rules (text 1, ll.22-24).
On the other hand text 2, “Spelling: A Rebuttal from Wired’s Copydesk”, an article from WIRED website, written by Lee Simmons, published January 31, 2012, disagree with text 1, and believes that we have to do something with the English spelling. He totally agree with the English spelling is a terrible mess, but thinks that there must be some rules so we can be able to understand what we read, without having to stop over incorrect spelling(text 2, ll.1-4). Anyway he says that he could not careless about spelling in text messages (text 2, ll.42-53), but that professional news sites should not be able to spell words in any way they want (text 2, ll.73-76). Therefore he thinks that the government should not just feel free to play with the language and there must be some rules to follow (Text 2, ll.73-84).

2. Characterise the tone and style used in text 2. Illustrate your answer with examples from the text.

Text 2 is against incorrect grammar and the evolution in English spelling, therefore the text does not contain any form of slang, alternative spelling and incorrect grammar and therefore the text is written language. Text 2, include a lot of negative sentences, because most of the text is about the fact that contradict text 1(text 2, ll.24-31).  This makes the style and tone negative, but the tone is in the same way also a bit funny because there are a lot of sarcastic questions.
“Why is there a g in sign, but not in wine?”(text 2, ll.98-99) and “why is there an h I sheep-herd” (text 2, l. 101), are question that makes the text and tone ironical. The fact that the text is a little bit ironical and that there are questions makes it more interesting to read because it makes the reader think about the questions. In the same way, the text also uses text 1 arguments and says that the conclusions of text 1 are messy and not right (Text 2, ll.20-24). Texts 2 appeals therefore to the reader logic, by saying that text 1’s conclusions are not right, and claim that its own view on English spelling is the right.  Moreover the text has a medium level of formality and is written in neutral style, because the vocabulary is very moderate.  
All in all you can say that the tone is a bit negative but in the same way ironical, and that there are used a neutral style to appeal to the readers’ logic.

3. Taking your starting point in text 3, discuss the relevance spelling norms.

Text 3”A long-standing but curable problem with our education system”, a comment from  the independent website, written by Masha Bell, published April 7, 2010 believes that the most effective way to raise educational standards is to reduce English spelling irregularities(Text 3, ll.13-18). This argument is hard to discuss against but like text 2 says we need to have some clear rules about the spelling norms so we easily can be able to understand what we read (Text 2, ll.29-31).
It also claims that if we used only one spelling for each of our speech sounds, it would take only six months to teach in literacy acquisition English, just like in Finland, instead of three years as it takes now(Text 3, ll.34-41). This would be more possible to change but on the other hand it would maybe confuse some old and young people, and create even more incorrect grammar because the spelling norms have been the same since 1953(Text 3, ll.5-8).
Any way we must agree with text 1, in that we need to follow the evolution and with the whole world changing by new technologies, the spelling must as well. 
But in a world with everything changing, would it not be nice to have anything that never changes?
I think it would. In our lives we have to feel certain about some thinks, and one of them have to be your spelling and language.  As text 2 says, English is a bitch to learn but once you master the core vocabulary, it’s pretty much automatic (Text 2, ll.130-135). Therefore I do not think that we should change the spelling norms because when you first master it, its pretty easy. In the same way it would also affect the whole world if the spelling norms where changed, because it is an international language that are spoken over the entire world.